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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Narayume |
I think others have already responded brilliantly to your other questions, so I just wanted to throw something in as a psychologist:
The sad truth is that racism has nothing to do with ethnicity. Some people just want to treat others terribly or be part of something better than the rest. Usually people just smirk quietly about their superiority or share it with their friends after a glass too many. However some people just can't contain themselves and are elated to be able to treat others like dirt or make a fuss when things don't go their way. Children do it all the time.
The trick is to find a justification delicate enough that no one will contradict them. Ideally something that might even trigger shame in most "good" people, making them easier to dominate and too guilty to go with the normal human response of "I won't be treated like that" followed by a swift exit.
Popular reasons for being better than others are things like religion, race, sexual orientation, area of birth, natural aptness and parental income group. You might note that none of these actually require any work by the supposedly superior individual. Superiority prefers being lazy in my experience. Now the subgroup of superior while abusing latent guilt is a more sophisticated one. It usually relies on constant reminders as to why others should feel guilty as well as regular claims that they are still being persecuted. Thankfully it is limited to certain groups, so must people can't use it, even if they would love to.
One from my personal experience are some Jewish people with Germans. The genocide is still deeply ingrained in the German psyche even though very few are left who were actually alive at the time. Parents of a friend of mine were delighted to invite me over only to bombard me with horror stories as soon as I arrived (I am German). When they found out that I was half Jewish they switched to claiming I was insulting the memories of those who died by not practicing. I didn't go back.
Now this had very little to do with them being Jewish. This was down to the aforementioned asshole-ness that sadly combined with a history/population group that could abuse it. The same thing is true for your black family. They are horrible people who happen to be lucky enough to be born in an ethnic group where the discrimination/latent guilt trick works and they are riding it for all it is worth. Even white Christians claim the same by treating Jews badly because they supposedly killed Christ around 2000 years ago. That is how stupid these things can get. Obviously most Christians would perish at the though, just how most black families would be mortified to hear about your in-laws, but for natural assholes it is the perfect excuse.
The saddest part is obviously that you made the same error so many make. You meet these people and ask "are all black families like that"? Because you are not part of the ethnicity you wonder if this is the secret world you are walking past every day. Thus your in laws and the Jewish family I mentioned are actually reinforcing the stereotype and spreading it to people that might not have had it. That way they can look around then and claim that they see discrimination every day - even though before they had been assholes there was no discrimination. I doubt that these people ever actually encounter *real* discrimination or realise how much harder they are making it for their kin in less fortunate situations. Even if, I would be surprised if they cared. Assholes will be assholes independent of whatever trimmings they are born with.
**TL;DR: A certain percentage of people are born as assholes and look for a way to get away with said assholeness in life. Race, religion, income group - to name just a few - are popular choices. However some assholes got lucky and got a race/religion/something that has a history of horrors that can be used to guilt or shame others. This is what you have here. This has nothing to do with them being black. They are just assholes.** | I think others have already responded brilliantly to your other questions, so I just wanted to throw something in as a psychologist:
The sad truth is that racism has nothing to do with ethnicity. Some people just want to treat others terribly or be part of something better than the rest. Usually people just smirk quietly about their superiority or share it with their friends after a glass too many. However some people just can't contain themselves and are elated to be able to treat others like dirt or make a fuss when things don't go their way. Children do it all the time.
The trick is to find a justification delicate enough that no one will contradict them. Ideally something that might even trigger shame in most "good" people, making them easier to dominate and too guilty to go with the normal human response of "I won't be treated like that" followed by a swift exit.
Popular reasons for being better than others are things like religion, race, sexual orientation, area of birth, natural aptness and parental income group. You might note that none of these actually require any work by the supposedly superior individual. Superiority prefers being lazy in my experience. Now the subgroup of superior while abusing latent guilt is a more sophisticated one. It usually relies on constant reminders as to why others should feel guilty as well as regular claims that they are still being persecuted. Thankfully it is limited to certain groups, so must people can't use it, even if they would love to.
One from my personal experience are some Jewish people with Germans. The genocide is still deeply ingrained in the German psyche even though very few are left who were actually alive at the time. Parents of a friend of mine were delighted to invite me over only to bombard me with horror stories as soon as I arrived (I am German). When they found out that I was half Jewish they switched to claiming I was insulting the memories of those who died by not practicing. I didn't go back.
Now this had very little to do with them being Jewish. This was down to the aforementioned asshole-ness that sadly combined with a history/population group that could abuse it. The same thing is true for your black family. They are horrible people who happen to be lucky enough to be born in an ethnic group where the discrimination/latent guilt trick works and they are riding it for all it is worth. Even white Christians claim the same by treating Jews badly because they supposedly killed Christ around 2000 years ago. That is how stupid these things can get. Obviously most Christians would perish at the though, just how most black families would be mortified to hear about your in-laws, but for natural assholes it is the perfect excuse.
The saddest part is obviously that you made the same error so many make. You meet these people and ask "are all black families like that"? Because you are not part of the ethnicity you wonder if this is the secret world you are walking past every day. Thus your in laws and the Jewish family I mentioned are actually reinforcing the stereotype and spreading it to people that might not have had it. That way they can look around then and claim that they see discrimination every day - even though before they had been assholes there was no discrimination. I doubt that these people ever actually encounter real discrimination or realise how much harder they are making it for their kin in less fortunate situations. Even if, I would be surprised if they cared. Assholes will be assholes independent of whatever trimmings they are born with.
TL;DR: A certain percentage of people are born as assholes and look for a way to get away with said assholeness in life. Race, religion, income group - to name just a few - are popular choices. However some assholes got lucky and got a race/religion/something that has a history of horrors that can be used to guilt or shame others. This is what you have here. This has nothing to do with them being black. They are just assholes.
| relationships | t5_2qjvn | cin43zm | I think others have already responded brilliantly to your other questions, so I just wanted to throw something in as a psychologist:
The sad truth is that racism has nothing to do with ethnicity. Some people just want to treat others terribly or be part of something better than the rest. Usually people just smirk quietly about their superiority or share it with their friends after a glass too many. However some people just can't contain themselves and are elated to be able to treat others like dirt or make a fuss when things don't go their way. Children do it all the time.
The trick is to find a justification delicate enough that no one will contradict them. Ideally something that might even trigger shame in most "good" people, making them easier to dominate and too guilty to go with the normal human response of "I won't be treated like that" followed by a swift exit.
Popular reasons for being better than others are things like religion, race, sexual orientation, area of birth, natural aptness and parental income group. You might note that none of these actually require any work by the supposedly superior individual. Superiority prefers being lazy in my experience. Now the subgroup of superior while abusing latent guilt is a more sophisticated one. It usually relies on constant reminders as to why others should feel guilty as well as regular claims that they are still being persecuted. Thankfully it is limited to certain groups, so must people can't use it, even if they would love to.
One from my personal experience are some Jewish people with Germans. The genocide is still deeply ingrained in the German psyche even though very few are left who were actually alive at the time. Parents of a friend of mine were delighted to invite me over only to bombard me with horror stories as soon as I arrived (I am German). When they found out that I was half Jewish they switched to claiming I was insulting the memories of those who died by not practicing. I didn't go back.
Now this had very little to do with them being Jewish. This was down to the aforementioned asshole-ness that sadly combined with a history/population group that could abuse it. The same thing is true for your black family. They are horrible people who happen to be lucky enough to be born in an ethnic group where the discrimination/latent guilt trick works and they are riding it for all it is worth. Even white Christians claim the same by treating Jews badly because they supposedly killed Christ around 2000 years ago. That is how stupid these things can get. Obviously most Christians would perish at the though, just how most black families would be mortified to hear about your in-laws, but for natural assholes it is the perfect excuse.
The saddest part is obviously that you made the same error so many make. You meet these people and ask "are all black families like that"? Because you are not part of the ethnicity you wonder if this is the secret world you are walking past every day. Thus your in laws and the Jewish family I mentioned are actually reinforcing the stereotype and spreading it to people that might not have had it. That way they can look around then and claim that they see discrimination every day - even though before they had been assholes there was no discrimination. I doubt that these people ever actually encounter real discrimination or realise how much harder they are making it for their kin in less fortunate situations. Even if, I would be surprised if they cared. Assholes will be assholes independent of whatever trimmings they are born with. | A certain percentage of people are born as assholes and look for a way to get away with said assholeness in life. Race, religion, income group - to name just a few - are popular choices. However some assholes got lucky and got a race/religion/something that has a history of horrors that can be used to guilt or shame others. This is what you have here. This has nothing to do with them being black. They are just assholes. |
nice-guy-asshole | I thought you said you didn't read it?
Let me explain to you how a debate/argument works. Both sides make statements to argue their point and use evidence/data to substantiate what they're saying. I have done this. You have not. Each time I've refuted your statements you've come back with more replies completely ignoring what I said or addressing the questions/points I've expressed. This is symbol of a weak position. You like to use silly insults like "little fella" as if this is somehow meaningful. In reality it just showcases your acknowledgment of that weak position and your awareness that it isn't arguable.
It's actually funny because the points you keep trying to make actually apply more to you (and the way you've handled yourself in this debate).
You make claims that I lack creativity, or that I suck the fun out of life. You cannot know this from the statements I've made. You're desperately reaching again, clinging to anything you can find to strengthen your argument.
You make statements about *my* insecurity... yet *you* used the cop-out "TLDR;" reply [to my long post above] because you *did* read it (which everybody knew) and realized you have no ground to stand on with your already dead argument. Then you just couldn't let it go and replied anyway. That is pretty much the definition of insecurity.
I really was, with my original reply, just trying to keep you from looking stupid. I never intended to make you so angry or cause you so much distress. I will make a mental note to not help you in the future. The best advice I could offer, for what it's worth, would be not to take the "grammar crusade" so personally. You can't do anything to stop it and it's just making you very upset. Take in a sunset? Maybe hug those kitties on your buddy's porch... I dunno. I hope you find peace within yourself. | I thought you said you didn't read it?
Let me explain to you how a debate/argument works. Both sides make statements to argue their point and use evidence/data to substantiate what they're saying. I have done this. You have not. Each time I've refuted your statements you've come back with more replies completely ignoring what I said or addressing the questions/points I've expressed. This is symbol of a weak position. You like to use silly insults like "little fella" as if this is somehow meaningful. In reality it just showcases your acknowledgment of that weak position and your awareness that it isn't arguable.
It's actually funny because the points you keep trying to make actually apply more to you (and the way you've handled yourself in this debate).
You make claims that I lack creativity, or that I suck the fun out of life. You cannot know this from the statements I've made. You're desperately reaching again, clinging to anything you can find to strengthen your argument.
You make statements about my insecurity... yet you used the cop-out "TLDR;" reply [to my long post above] because you did read it (which everybody knew) and realized you have no ground to stand on with your already dead argument. Then you just couldn't let it go and replied anyway. That is pretty much the definition of insecurity.
I really was, with my original reply, just trying to keep you from looking stupid. I never intended to make you so angry or cause you so much distress. I will make a mental note to not help you in the future. The best advice I could offer, for what it's worth, would be not to take the "grammar crusade" so personally. You can't do anything to stop it and it's just making you very upset. Take in a sunset? Maybe hug those kitties on your buddy's porch... I dunno. I hope you find peace within yourself.
| aww | t5_2qh1o | cinpo5q | I thought you said you didn't read it?
Let me explain to you how a debate/argument works. Both sides make statements to argue their point and use evidence/data to substantiate what they're saying. I have done this. You have not. Each time I've refuted your statements you've come back with more replies completely ignoring what I said or addressing the questions/points I've expressed. This is symbol of a weak position. You like to use silly insults like "little fella" as if this is somehow meaningful. In reality it just showcases your acknowledgment of that weak position and your awareness that it isn't arguable.
It's actually funny because the points you keep trying to make actually apply more to you (and the way you've handled yourself in this debate).
You make claims that I lack creativity, or that I suck the fun out of life. You cannot know this from the statements I've made. You're desperately reaching again, clinging to anything you can find to strengthen your argument.
You make statements about my insecurity... yet you used the cop-out " | reply [to my long post above] because you did read it (which everybody knew) and realized you have no ground to stand on with your already dead argument. Then you just couldn't let it go and replied anyway. That is pretty much the definition of insecurity.
I really was, with my original reply, just trying to keep you from looking stupid. I never intended to make you so angry or cause you so much distress. I will make a mental note to not help you in the future. The best advice I could offer, for what it's worth, would be not to take the "grammar crusade" so personally. You can't do anything to stop it and it's just making you very upset. Take in a sunset? Maybe hug those kitties on your buddy's porch... I dunno. I hope you find peace within yourself. |
altaccountthree | You aren't disclosing your age, but I'm guessing you're close to her age.
I would guess that your jealousy stems from your maturity/experience level. I *do not* mean that in a negative way, it's just a thing you have to gain over time. Simply having sex or being in a relationship doesn't make you mature about all things. I'm 36 and I'm REALLY immature about some aspects of my life. It just is what it is.
Now, that said, this is something you'll either come to terms with over time, or something you'll always feel pangs of jealousy over. There's no wrong answer here.
Do you want to rush your acceptance that she'd like to try making out with a girl? Absolutely not. If you allowed her to do this with her friend now, all that would result is feelings of jealousy/inadequacy, whatever. And that's something that should come with time and personal confidence rather than having to go through the awkwardness of a relationship going on the rocks where the maturity and experience comes by pain and suffering.
Now... 5-10-15 years from now... Your current GF or wife or whomever you find yourself with at that point in your life, you may be totally okay with that and may even encourage that for a potential threesome or something. Who knows?
As for right now... **TL;DR - don't worry about it because these feelings of jealousy can take time to work through.** | You aren't disclosing your age, but I'm guessing you're close to her age.
I would guess that your jealousy stems from your maturity/experience level. I do not mean that in a negative way, it's just a thing you have to gain over time. Simply having sex or being in a relationship doesn't make you mature about all things. I'm 36 and I'm REALLY immature about some aspects of my life. It just is what it is.
Now, that said, this is something you'll either come to terms with over time, or something you'll always feel pangs of jealousy over. There's no wrong answer here.
Do you want to rush your acceptance that she'd like to try making out with a girl? Absolutely not. If you allowed her to do this with her friend now, all that would result is feelings of jealousy/inadequacy, whatever. And that's something that should come with time and personal confidence rather than having to go through the awkwardness of a relationship going on the rocks where the maturity and experience comes by pain and suffering.
Now... 5-10-15 years from now... Your current GF or wife or whomever you find yourself with at that point in your life, you may be totally okay with that and may even encourage that for a potential threesome or something. Who knows?
As for right now... TL;DR - don't worry about it because these feelings of jealousy can take time to work through.
| sex | t5_2qh3p | cimmiyn | You aren't disclosing your age, but I'm guessing you're close to her age.
I would guess that your jealousy stems from your maturity/experience level. I do not mean that in a negative way, it's just a thing you have to gain over time. Simply having sex or being in a relationship doesn't make you mature about all things. I'm 36 and I'm REALLY immature about some aspects of my life. It just is what it is.
Now, that said, this is something you'll either come to terms with over time, or something you'll always feel pangs of jealousy over. There's no wrong answer here.
Do you want to rush your acceptance that she'd like to try making out with a girl? Absolutely not. If you allowed her to do this with her friend now, all that would result is feelings of jealousy/inadequacy, whatever. And that's something that should come with time and personal confidence rather than having to go through the awkwardness of a relationship going on the rocks where the maturity and experience comes by pain and suffering.
Now... 5-10-15 years from now... Your current GF or wife or whomever you find yourself with at that point in your life, you may be totally okay with that and may even encourage that for a potential threesome or something. Who knows?
As for right now... | don't worry about it because these feelings of jealousy can take time to work through. |
Rucent88 | Comment Quote Loathomar -
"And for those who know a bit about physics know that this will increase the net temp of your house. Do to the fact that both your refrigerator and fan are not loss-less, when you freeze ice in your refrigerator it makes your house warming. Your refrigerator transfers the heat from inside the refrigerator to outside, which is still in you house. This is why all AC units are BOTH inside and outside."
"This is mostly a question of conversion to compare. A $120 (from homedepo) AC unit does 5000BTUs per hour. 1 BTU is 1055 joules or 252 calories. So 5000 BTU is 1,260,000 calories of cooling per hour. Ice takes 80 calories of heat to melt per gram and 453g per pound. So 20 pounds take 723,200 calories of heat to melt and 226,000 calories of heat to increase the water temp to 25'C. So for the same cooling you need more then 25lb of ice. The energy cost of the power of the AC unit is 4.8 amps at 120v or 576 watts per hour. The average US cost per 1kwh is 13.1 cents. So the AC unit ~7.5 cents per hour. Yay math!"
**TLDR. Such a cooling device is only good for a super rare occasion. It is Far less efficient than running an A/C unit.** | Comment Quote Loathomar -
"And for those who know a bit about physics know that this will increase the net temp of your house. Do to the fact that both your refrigerator and fan are not loss-less, when you freeze ice in your refrigerator it makes your house warming. Your refrigerator transfers the heat from inside the refrigerator to outside, which is still in you house. This is why all AC units are BOTH inside and outside."
"This is mostly a question of conversion to compare. A $120 (from homedepo) AC unit does 5000BTUs per hour. 1 BTU is 1055 joules or 252 calories. So 5000 BTU is 1,260,000 calories of cooling per hour. Ice takes 80 calories of heat to melt per gram and 453g per pound. So 20 pounds take 723,200 calories of heat to melt and 226,000 calories of heat to increase the water temp to 25'C. So for the same cooling you need more then 25lb of ice. The energy cost of the power of the AC unit is 4.8 amps at 120v or 576 watts per hour. The average US cost per 1kwh is 13.1 cents. So the AC unit ~7.5 cents per hour. Yay math!"
TLDR. Such a cooling device is only good for a super rare occasion. It is Far less efficient than running an A/C unit.
| LinuxActionShow | t5_2sp2j | cin1tk5 | Comment Quote Loathomar -
"And for those who know a bit about physics know that this will increase the net temp of your house. Do to the fact that both your refrigerator and fan are not loss-less, when you freeze ice in your refrigerator it makes your house warming. Your refrigerator transfers the heat from inside the refrigerator to outside, which is still in you house. This is why all AC units are BOTH inside and outside."
"This is mostly a question of conversion to compare. A $120 (from homedepo) AC unit does 5000BTUs per hour. 1 BTU is 1055 joules or 252 calories. So 5000 BTU is 1,260,000 calories of cooling per hour. Ice takes 80 calories of heat to melt per gram and 453g per pound. So 20 pounds take 723,200 calories of heat to melt and 226,000 calories of heat to increase the water temp to 25'C. So for the same cooling you need more then 25lb of ice. The energy cost of the power of the AC unit is 4.8 amps at 120v or 576 watts per hour. The average US cost per 1kwh is 13.1 cents. So the AC unit ~7.5 cents per hour. Yay math!" | Such a cooling device is only good for a super rare occasion. It is Far less efficient than running an A/C unit. |
karma-armageddon | It still cost's you. Cost less, but, still costs. If the insurance costs you $10, you have to earn 13 dollars to pay the $10. Then, at tax time, you deduct the $10 from your income, which gets you a $3 refund. For a net loss of $10.
TL;DR anyone saying you can write something off is god damn idiot. | It still cost's you. Cost less, but, still costs. If the insurance costs you $10, you have to earn 13 dollars to pay the $10. Then, at tax time, you deduct the $10 from your income, which gets you a $3 refund. For a net loss of $10.
TL;DR anyone saying you can write something off is god damn idiot.
| nottheonion | t5_2qnts | cimtbuj | It still cost's you. Cost less, but, still costs. If the insurance costs you $10, you have to earn 13 dollars to pay the $10. Then, at tax time, you deduct the $10 from your income, which gets you a $3 refund. For a net loss of $10. | anyone saying you can write something off is god damn idiot. |
Groltaarthedude | Shitty handling with no incident report, they happen all the time. They didn't secure the package correctly because they don't wanna do their job or they can't do pickups correctly and leave stuff behind or the barcode is fucked and they wont bother doing an item search. All it is is lazy employees that won't bother or shitty incident report policies.
TLDR: They just label stuff as broken in the most general term possible. | Shitty handling with no incident report, they happen all the time. They didn't secure the package correctly because they don't wanna do their job or they can't do pickups correctly and leave stuff behind or the barcode is fucked and they wont bother doing an item search. All it is is lazy employees that won't bother or shitty incident report policies.
TLDR: They just label stuff as broken in the most general term possible.
| nottheonion | t5_2qnts | cimuz0o | Shitty handling with no incident report, they happen all the time. They didn't secure the package correctly because they don't wanna do their job or they can't do pickups correctly and leave stuff behind or the barcode is fucked and they wont bother doing an item search. All it is is lazy employees that won't bother or shitty incident report policies. | They just label stuff as broken in the most general term possible. |
thebizzle | What if the mail got stolen from the box? I am just pissed at the post office because I went to ship a $10 ebay item for $2 and it got returned to me due to insufficient postage. I had gone to a post office and had them price it up, I wasn't sticking stamps on it or anything. When I asked today about the woman says, it's a package not an envelope and then produces an envelope that looked exactly like mine and said 'see the difference' which I said yes to avoid a fuss. So I paid now $3 more and asked if I could get a refund on the other postage since it was cancelled. She told me no. It always seems like the post office only hires people who couldn't care less and they would be fired in their first day working at a real company.
TL:DR Post office workers would rather you died than tried to mail packages. | What if the mail got stolen from the box? I am just pissed at the post office because I went to ship a $10 ebay item for $2 and it got returned to me due to insufficient postage. I had gone to a post office and had them price it up, I wasn't sticking stamps on it or anything. When I asked today about the woman says, it's a package not an envelope and then produces an envelope that looked exactly like mine and said 'see the difference' which I said yes to avoid a fuss. So I paid now $3 more and asked if I could get a refund on the other postage since it was cancelled. She told me no. It always seems like the post office only hires people who couldn't care less and they would be fired in their first day working at a real company.
TL:DR Post office workers would rather you died than tried to mail packages.
| nottheonion | t5_2qnts | cimv3w2 | What if the mail got stolen from the box? I am just pissed at the post office because I went to ship a $10 ebay item for $2 and it got returned to me due to insufficient postage. I had gone to a post office and had them price it up, I wasn't sticking stamps on it or anything. When I asked today about the woman says, it's a package not an envelope and then produces an envelope that looked exactly like mine and said 'see the difference' which I said yes to avoid a fuss. So I paid now $3 more and asked if I could get a refund on the other postage since it was cancelled. She told me no. It always seems like the post office only hires people who couldn't care less and they would be fired in their first day working at a real company. | Post office workers would rather you died than tried to mail packages. |
-Anguscr4p- | Well, considering ESpeed is already kinda weak even with a 31 IV 4 EV Arcanine, it's probably not the best choice.
Fire Spin might be a good idea to stall some pokemon out, or perhaps Snarl to take special attacks a bit better. Of course, you could run some calcs to see if ESpeed was capable of picking off anything frail, but that's about all the use I can see for it.
I assume you're on cartridge, so I'm not gonna tell you to go back and rebreed because specially based Defensive Arcanine still does its job, but physical ones do it better, in my opinion.
So TL;DR, probably Fire Spin or Snarl. ExtremeSpeed probably isn't worthwhile. | Well, considering ESpeed is already kinda weak even with a 31 IV 4 EV Arcanine, it's probably not the best choice.
Fire Spin might be a good idea to stall some pokemon out, or perhaps Snarl to take special attacks a bit better. Of course, you could run some calcs to see if ESpeed was capable of picking off anything frail, but that's about all the use I can see for it.
I assume you're on cartridge, so I'm not gonna tell you to go back and rebreed because specially based Defensive Arcanine still does its job, but physical ones do it better, in my opinion.
So TL;DR, probably Fire Spin or Snarl. ExtremeSpeed probably isn't worthwhile.
| stunfisk | t5_2sn6d | cimptdi | Well, considering ESpeed is already kinda weak even with a 31 IV 4 EV Arcanine, it's probably not the best choice.
Fire Spin might be a good idea to stall some pokemon out, or perhaps Snarl to take special attacks a bit better. Of course, you could run some calcs to see if ESpeed was capable of picking off anything frail, but that's about all the use I can see for it.
I assume you're on cartridge, so I'm not gonna tell you to go back and rebreed because specially based Defensive Arcanine still does its job, but physical ones do it better, in my opinion.
So | probably Fire Spin or Snarl. ExtremeSpeed probably isn't worthwhile. |
ThisIsReLLiK | Oh god, there was this big giant kid in my class that I am pretty sure was semi-retarded, but he was a pretty known bully of the class. It was like 5th or 6th grade, his name was Joe. Well when I was in school kids thought it was just hilarious to "pants" other kids, I was not a fan.
Joe tried to sneak up behind me and do it for whatever stupid reason he had in his head, but he was a giant so he wasn't very apt to sneaking. I seen him and the instant he reached for me I punched him right in his nose. He fell down bleeding and I got to sit in the library for our end of the year field day instead of doing all the things everyone else was doing. He got no punishment.
TL;DR: Punched a semi-retarded bully in the face and got in trouble for it. | Oh god, there was this big giant kid in my class that I am pretty sure was semi-retarded, but he was a pretty known bully of the class. It was like 5th or 6th grade, his name was Joe. Well when I was in school kids thought it was just hilarious to "pants" other kids, I was not a fan.
Joe tried to sneak up behind me and do it for whatever stupid reason he had in his head, but he was a giant so he wasn't very apt to sneaking. I seen him and the instant he reached for me I punched him right in his nose. He fell down bleeding and I got to sit in the library for our end of the year field day instead of doing all the things everyone else was doing. He got no punishment.
TL;DR: Punched a semi-retarded bully in the face and got in trouble for it.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cimuz10 | Oh god, there was this big giant kid in my class that I am pretty sure was semi-retarded, but he was a pretty known bully of the class. It was like 5th or 6th grade, his name was Joe. Well when I was in school kids thought it was just hilarious to "pants" other kids, I was not a fan.
Joe tried to sneak up behind me and do it for whatever stupid reason he had in his head, but he was a giant so he wasn't very apt to sneaking. I seen him and the instant he reached for me I punched him right in his nose. He fell down bleeding and I got to sit in the library for our end of the year field day instead of doing all the things everyone else was doing. He got no punishment. | Punched a semi-retarded bully in the face and got in trouble for it. |
Tricon916 | I actually did the nerdy version of this. I wired a bluetooth headset to my garage door opener with a Micro switch. Then put an NFC tag in my glove, then used Tasker to setup an automated task on my Android phone so that when the phone reads the NFC tag, it will try to connect over Bluetooth to the headset, which ends up triggering the microswitch and opens the garage door.
Tl;dr when i touch my glove to my phone [in my pocket] my garage door opens automagically. | I actually did the nerdy version of this. I wired a bluetooth headset to my garage door opener with a Micro switch. Then put an NFC tag in my glove, then used Tasker to setup an automated task on my Android phone so that when the phone reads the NFC tag, it will try to connect over Bluetooth to the headset, which ends up triggering the microswitch and opens the garage door.
Tl;dr when i touch my glove to my phone [in my pocket] my garage door opens automagically.
| videos | t5_2qh1e | cinc7ae | I actually did the nerdy version of this. I wired a bluetooth headset to my garage door opener with a Micro switch. Then put an NFC tag in my glove, then used Tasker to setup an automated task on my Android phone so that when the phone reads the NFC tag, it will try to connect over Bluetooth to the headset, which ends up triggering the microswitch and opens the garage door. | when i touch my glove to my phone [in my pocket] my garage door opens automagically. |
Bwob | So, these numbers (or my math!) might be totally off, but based on [wikipedia]( it looks like the total workforce of the US is 156 million. Of which around 37% (57.7 million) are in technology.
So, hypothetically, if (big if) my numbers are right, and if (another big if) I've got these numbers right, then even if everyone at google+amazon was a rockstar, that would still only be .08% of the total labor force. That seems plausible.
So, I'm not saying everyone at google/amazon IS a rockstar. But I AM saying that your argument, "tons of people work at those companies, they can't ALL be rockstars, there are just too many" is not a good argument, as far as I can tell.
TL;DR: There are a ton of people in the world who work in tech. | So, these numbers (or my math!) might be totally off, but based on wikipedia are in technology.
So, hypothetically, if (big if) my numbers are right, and if (another big if) I've got these numbers right, then even if everyone at google+amazon was a rockstar, that would still only be .08% of the total labor force. That seems plausible.
So, I'm not saying everyone at google/amazon IS a rockstar. But I AM saying that your argument, "tons of people work at those companies, they can't ALL be rockstars, there are just too many" is not a good argument, as far as I can tell.
TL;DR: There are a ton of people in the world who work in tech.
| programming | t5_2fwo | cin3dg5 | So, these numbers (or my math!) might be totally off, but based on wikipedia are in technology.
So, hypothetically, if (big if) my numbers are right, and if (another big if) I've got these numbers right, then even if everyone at google+amazon was a rockstar, that would still only be .08% of the total labor force. That seems plausible.
So, I'm not saying everyone at google/amazon IS a rockstar. But I AM saying that your argument, "tons of people work at those companies, they can't ALL be rockstars, there are just too many" is not a good argument, as far as I can tell. | There are a ton of people in the world who work in tech. |
barlister | Look, although 156 million people in the us are working, they aren't all working in software. The majority of amazon and google employees are software engineers or other IT, unless you want to talk about distribution centers at amazon which makes the argument even worse.
So, I made up a number of 50,000 employees for amazon/google, and I don't know how many people work as software engineers and other IT in the USA, but it's not 57.7 million, so I'm not sure what "technology work" is. I used to work at microsoft (three times, once as an employee, twice afterwards as a contractor), and have worked with many amazon and google employees, and have worked with lots of other software engineers in Seattle in small companies and even at a bank. I have worked in software for 18 years.
The arrogance that amazon and google and microsoft employees have because they work for this "prestigious" software company is nonsense arrogance. They are not smarter or better than a good developer at any other company, and they are certainly not all good developers. In fact, in many cases they are just run of the mill developers who tend to be ok in a big hive mind mentality, albeit the hive mind mentalities of google, amazon and microsoft are all very very different. I'd personally rather work at google than amazon and amazon than microsoft but I'm not interested in working for any of them. It's subjective, but I honestly do not think that just because you got hired at google means you're a "rockstar". It means you're a software engineer at a huge corporate company that hires specific types of developers. Every company interviews differently, and although google compensates well, it's not a ridiculous salary. It's just a big software company.
tl;dr: it doesn't matter about the numbers, the words "i work at google" doesn't mean you are a rockstar or that they only hire the best. they only hire the people they hire, and there is no evidence that they are any smarter or better than anyone else. | Look, although 156 million people in the us are working, they aren't all working in software. The majority of amazon and google employees are software engineers or other IT, unless you want to talk about distribution centers at amazon which makes the argument even worse.
So, I made up a number of 50,000 employees for amazon/google, and I don't know how many people work as software engineers and other IT in the USA, but it's not 57.7 million, so I'm not sure what "technology work" is. I used to work at microsoft (three times, once as an employee, twice afterwards as a contractor), and have worked with many amazon and google employees, and have worked with lots of other software engineers in Seattle in small companies and even at a bank. I have worked in software for 18 years.
The arrogance that amazon and google and microsoft employees have because they work for this "prestigious" software company is nonsense arrogance. They are not smarter or better than a good developer at any other company, and they are certainly not all good developers. In fact, in many cases they are just run of the mill developers who tend to be ok in a big hive mind mentality, albeit the hive mind mentalities of google, amazon and microsoft are all very very different. I'd personally rather work at google than amazon and amazon than microsoft but I'm not interested in working for any of them. It's subjective, but I honestly do not think that just because you got hired at google means you're a "rockstar". It means you're a software engineer at a huge corporate company that hires specific types of developers. Every company interviews differently, and although google compensates well, it's not a ridiculous salary. It's just a big software company.
tl;dr: it doesn't matter about the numbers, the words "i work at google" doesn't mean you are a rockstar or that they only hire the best. they only hire the people they hire, and there is no evidence that they are any smarter or better than anyone else.
| programming | t5_2fwo | cin4sib | Look, although 156 million people in the us are working, they aren't all working in software. The majority of amazon and google employees are software engineers or other IT, unless you want to talk about distribution centers at amazon which makes the argument even worse.
So, I made up a number of 50,000 employees for amazon/google, and I don't know how many people work as software engineers and other IT in the USA, but it's not 57.7 million, so I'm not sure what "technology work" is. I used to work at microsoft (three times, once as an employee, twice afterwards as a contractor), and have worked with many amazon and google employees, and have worked with lots of other software engineers in Seattle in small companies and even at a bank. I have worked in software for 18 years.
The arrogance that amazon and google and microsoft employees have because they work for this "prestigious" software company is nonsense arrogance. They are not smarter or better than a good developer at any other company, and they are certainly not all good developers. In fact, in many cases they are just run of the mill developers who tend to be ok in a big hive mind mentality, albeit the hive mind mentalities of google, amazon and microsoft are all very very different. I'd personally rather work at google than amazon and amazon than microsoft but I'm not interested in working for any of them. It's subjective, but I honestly do not think that just because you got hired at google means you're a "rockstar". It means you're a software engineer at a huge corporate company that hires specific types of developers. Every company interviews differently, and although google compensates well, it's not a ridiculous salary. It's just a big software company. | it doesn't matter about the numbers, the words "i work at google" doesn't mean you are a rockstar or that they only hire the best. they only hire the people they hire, and there is no evidence that they are any smarter or better than anyone else. |
HiDDENk00l | It's Google's way of kicking the other American ISPs' asses into gear about offering more reasonable Internet plans. Basically what they're doing is creating really fast plans for really cheap, and the idea is that if they do that, hopefully the other ISPs will follow suit.
TL;DR : It's not about being the best, it's about raising the bar. | It's Google's way of kicking the other American ISPs' asses into gear about offering more reasonable Internet plans. Basically what they're doing is creating really fast plans for really cheap, and the idea is that if they do that, hopefully the other ISPs will follow suit.
TL;DR : It's not about being the best, it's about raising the bar.
| NoStupidQuestions | t5_2w844 | cinud2h | It's Google's way of kicking the other American ISPs' asses into gear about offering more reasonable Internet plans. Basically what they're doing is creating really fast plans for really cheap, and the idea is that if they do that, hopefully the other ISPs will follow suit. | It's not about being the best, it's about raising the bar. |
SirCharlesTupperware | I mentioned this in another comment, but I'll repeat it.
The "Progressive Conservative" provincial parties (including BC Liberals) have no affiliation with each other or the federal Conservative Party. They all have their own organizational structure and set their own policy.
The "Liberal" provincial parties have varying degrees of affiliation with the federal Liberal Party. Some, like the Québec Liberal Party, are completely and proudly separate, some (ex. Ontario) are nominally independent but are pretty much *de facto* linked, and the four Atlantic provincial Liberal parties are full subsidiaries of their federal counterpart.
The Provincial New Democratic and Green Parties are also completely affiliated to their federal counterparts.
As far as the BC Liberals go, their membership is pretty much 50-50 between federal Conservatives and Liberals. This is because BC has no strong centrist party on the provincial level (it's a three way race between the actually-conservative-liberals, NDP, and Greens). Federal Liberals in BC often hold their nose and choose the provincial conservative-Liberals over the social democratic NDP.
TL;DR - like everything in Canadian politics, it depends. | I mentioned this in another comment, but I'll repeat it.
The "Progressive Conservative" provincial parties (including BC Liberals) have no affiliation with each other or the federal Conservative Party. They all have their own organizational structure and set their own policy.
The "Liberal" provincial parties have varying degrees of affiliation with the federal Liberal Party. Some, like the Québec Liberal Party, are completely and proudly separate, some (ex. Ontario) are nominally independent but are pretty much de facto linked, and the four Atlantic provincial Liberal parties are full subsidiaries of their federal counterpart.
The Provincial New Democratic and Green Parties are also completely affiliated to their federal counterparts.
As far as the BC Liberals go, their membership is pretty much 50-50 between federal Conservatives and Liberals. This is because BC has no strong centrist party on the provincial level (it's a three way race between the actually-conservative-liberals, NDP, and Greens). Federal Liberals in BC often hold their nose and choose the provincial conservative-Liberals over the social democratic NDP.
TL;DR - like everything in Canadian politics, it depends.
| MapPorn | t5_2si92 | cinph3n | I mentioned this in another comment, but I'll repeat it.
The "Progressive Conservative" provincial parties (including BC Liberals) have no affiliation with each other or the federal Conservative Party. They all have their own organizational structure and set their own policy.
The "Liberal" provincial parties have varying degrees of affiliation with the federal Liberal Party. Some, like the Québec Liberal Party, are completely and proudly separate, some (ex. Ontario) are nominally independent but are pretty much de facto linked, and the four Atlantic provincial Liberal parties are full subsidiaries of their federal counterpart.
The Provincial New Democratic and Green Parties are also completely affiliated to their federal counterparts.
As far as the BC Liberals go, their membership is pretty much 50-50 between federal Conservatives and Liberals. This is because BC has no strong centrist party on the provincial level (it's a three way race between the actually-conservative-liberals, NDP, and Greens). Federal Liberals in BC often hold their nose and choose the provincial conservative-Liberals over the social democratic NDP. | like everything in Canadian politics, it depends. |
Shaney_ | Just tuned into this show two weeks ago and it surprised me with its freaking brilliance, as a person who really hates The Daily Show and The Colbert report I've fallen in love with Last Week Tonight for its real life discussions about pressing news and how they expand on they're topics in interesting informative and genuinely entertaining ways. For example last episode they talked about LGBT issues in Africa and that was a great segment because they went into the history of the matter and how it came to be. And it was a long one because they actually got a real activist from Africa on the show and did a great interview all in that 16 minutes
Tl;dr : John Oliver's Last Week tonight is leagues ahead of other comedy news talk shows and I recommend it to everyone | Just tuned into this show two weeks ago and it surprised me with its freaking brilliance, as a person who really hates The Daily Show and The Colbert report I've fallen in love with Last Week Tonight for its real life discussions about pressing news and how they expand on they're topics in interesting informative and genuinely entertaining ways. For example last episode they talked about LGBT issues in Africa and that was a great segment because they went into the history of the matter and how it came to be. And it was a long one because they actually got a real activist from Africa on the show and did a great interview all in that 16 minutes
Tl;dr : John Oliver's Last Week tonight is leagues ahead of other comedy news talk shows and I recommend it to everyone
| television | t5_2qh6e | cinbgdw | Just tuned into this show two weeks ago and it surprised me with its freaking brilliance, as a person who really hates The Daily Show and The Colbert report I've fallen in love with Last Week Tonight for its real life discussions about pressing news and how they expand on they're topics in interesting informative and genuinely entertaining ways. For example last episode they talked about LGBT issues in Africa and that was a great segment because they went into the history of the matter and how it came to be. And it was a long one because they actually got a real activist from Africa on the show and did a great interview all in that 16 minutes | John Oliver's Last Week tonight is leagues ahead of other comedy news talk shows and I recommend it to everyone |
holdoncaulfield | At the moment:
* Lawyer
* Investment banker
* Actuary
Tl;dr Anything that pays well | At the moment:
Lawyer
Investment banker
Actuary
Tl;dr Anything that pays well
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cink513 | At the moment:
Lawyer
Investment banker
Actuary | Anything that pays well |
netheranthem | Yeah, as a Power Grid nut, I have to agree that memorization in of itself doesn't make a game "better". It's just trying too hard to make the game adapted to special snowflake tryhards who can only win if they hinder their opponents on minute useless stuff.
TL;DR: If you're gonna hide your money away from me I'm going to play with a pen and paper. Because I'm all for freedom of choice. | Yeah, as a Power Grid nut, I have to agree that memorization in of itself doesn't make a game "better". It's just trying too hard to make the game adapted to special snowflake tryhards who can only win if they hinder their opponents on minute useless stuff.
TL;DR: If you're gonna hide your money away from me I'm going to play with a pen and paper. Because I'm all for freedom of choice.
| boardgames | t5_2qmjp | cinom4s | Yeah, as a Power Grid nut, I have to agree that memorization in of itself doesn't make a game "better". It's just trying too hard to make the game adapted to special snowflake tryhards who can only win if they hinder their opponents on minute useless stuff. | If you're gonna hide your money away from me I'm going to play with a pen and paper. Because I'm all for freedom of choice. |
Alpha100f | I'd not say that it is true to "feminism" only.
Don't want to bring on the politics, but it's quite a common thing (at least in Russia) where "liberals" - people that claim they are "pro-freedom" and similar things, in reality battle the "other" "non-right" opinions with such fanatism, that puts totalitarian states to shame.
TL;DR: 95% of "freedom fighters" would easily shut everyone up, have they had the opportunity. | I'd not say that it is true to "feminism" only.
Don't want to bring on the politics, but it's quite a common thing (at least in Russia) where "liberals" - people that claim they are "pro-freedom" and similar things, in reality battle the "other" "non-right" opinions with such fanatism, that puts totalitarian states to shame.
TL;DR: 95% of "freedom fighters" would easily shut everyone up, have they had the opportunity.
| MensRights | t5_2qhk3 | cino3z4 | I'd not say that it is true to "feminism" only.
Don't want to bring on the politics, but it's quite a common thing (at least in Russia) where "liberals" - people that claim they are "pro-freedom" and similar things, in reality battle the "other" "non-right" opinions with such fanatism, that puts totalitarian states to shame. | 95% of "freedom fighters" would easily shut everyone up, have they had the opportunity. |
wobbly-wombat | Take a look at /deadbedrooms. It's a very common thing.
I'm 32 with an 18month old. I haven't had sex since I was 8 months pregnant and it's not through my choosing. He has zero interest. None whatsoever.
We agreed that when our child was born I stay at home and look after him and he will support us all. Great..except it's not. In just a housekeeper/child carer living with a 'friend'. We've had the talk many many times and he promises to change but it never happens. I have no job, no money of my own or anywhere to go and he knows this and it's sad to say that that's part of the reason I stay. The other part is I don't want to ruin my son's life.
I've tried and tried and tried. Now I don't even bother. It's almost 2 years since any sexual contact and if sunbathing were to harken it would be awkward as hell and I'd just not enjoy it.
Going without sex when you have someone who is supposed to be your partner is very very upsetting. I can't even begin to describe the feeling of wanting someone and knowing they don't want you the same way. What makes it harder is he still tells me he loves me,wants me and will work on it. He never has and I just don't understand it. I'm attractive and look after myself. I get lot of attention from other men yet the man I am with looks straight through me.
Tl;Dr. I want sex my partner doesn't. Money and housing situation makes it impossible for me to leave. Partner won't have our son in day care so until he starts nursery or school I can't get a job. When That happens I will leave to find someone who wants to love me and have sex with me and just enjoy life ad a proper couple. I'm stuck for another 2 years. | Take a look at /deadbedrooms. It's a very common thing.
I'm 32 with an 18month old. I haven't had sex since I was 8 months pregnant and it's not through my choosing. He has zero interest. None whatsoever.
We agreed that when our child was born I stay at home and look after him and he will support us all. Great..except it's not. In just a housekeeper/child carer living with a 'friend'. We've had the talk many many times and he promises to change but it never happens. I have no job, no money of my own or anywhere to go and he knows this and it's sad to say that that's part of the reason I stay. The other part is I don't want to ruin my son's life.
I've tried and tried and tried. Now I don't even bother. It's almost 2 years since any sexual contact and if sunbathing were to harken it would be awkward as hell and I'd just not enjoy it.
Going without sex when you have someone who is supposed to be your partner is very very upsetting. I can't even begin to describe the feeling of wanting someone and knowing they don't want you the same way. What makes it harder is he still tells me he loves me,wants me and will work on it. He never has and I just don't understand it. I'm attractive and look after myself. I get lot of attention from other men yet the man I am with looks straight through me.
Tl;Dr. I want sex my partner doesn't. Money and housing situation makes it impossible for me to leave. Partner won't have our son in day care so until he starts nursery or school I can't get a job. When That happens I will leave to find someone who wants to love me and have sex with me and just enjoy life ad a proper couple. I'm stuck for another 2 years.
| AskWomenOver30 | t5_2ya5k | cintsun | Take a look at /deadbedrooms. It's a very common thing.
I'm 32 with an 18month old. I haven't had sex since I was 8 months pregnant and it's not through my choosing. He has zero interest. None whatsoever.
We agreed that when our child was born I stay at home and look after him and he will support us all. Great..except it's not. In just a housekeeper/child carer living with a 'friend'. We've had the talk many many times and he promises to change but it never happens. I have no job, no money of my own or anywhere to go and he knows this and it's sad to say that that's part of the reason I stay. The other part is I don't want to ruin my son's life.
I've tried and tried and tried. Now I don't even bother. It's almost 2 years since any sexual contact and if sunbathing were to harken it would be awkward as hell and I'd just not enjoy it.
Going without sex when you have someone who is supposed to be your partner is very very upsetting. I can't even begin to describe the feeling of wanting someone and knowing they don't want you the same way. What makes it harder is he still tells me he loves me,wants me and will work on it. He never has and I just don't understand it. I'm attractive and look after myself. I get lot of attention from other men yet the man I am with looks straight through me. | I want sex my partner doesn't. Money and housing situation makes it impossible for me to leave. Partner won't have our son in day care so until he starts nursery or school I can't get a job. When That happens I will leave to find someone who wants to love me and have sex with me and just enjoy life ad a proper couple. I'm stuck for another 2 years. |
NeverLWT | I've come out of good tests with an average SR of 32/33 and had my last 500m be a SR 37. hopefully this can help you too. I've found huge success in remembering just 2 things going into that last 500m:
1. Your body can do anything for 500m (as long as you didn't blow your load too early in the piece), just stay tough. it's gonna be a mental game, but you can win.
2. JACK YOUR RATE once you've rallied enough courage to take off. arms away quick, break the legs quick, and blast off your foot stretchers. this is crucial to execute because by the end of your 2k you most likely won't be able to create big wattage at a low rate (or at least shouldn't if you're maxing out your speed).
**tldr:** stay tough, commit to a sprint, and jack your rate until you finish | I've come out of good tests with an average SR of 32/33 and had my last 500m be a SR 37. hopefully this can help you too. I've found huge success in remembering just 2 things going into that last 500m:
Your body can do anything for 500m (as long as you didn't blow your load too early in the piece), just stay tough. it's gonna be a mental game, but you can win.
JACK YOUR RATE once you've rallied enough courage to take off. arms away quick, break the legs quick, and blast off your foot stretchers. this is crucial to execute because by the end of your 2k you most likely won't be able to create big wattage at a low rate (or at least shouldn't if you're maxing out your speed).
tldr: stay tough, commit to a sprint, and jack your rate until you finish
| Rowing | t5_2qljq | cinyau6 | I've come out of good tests with an average SR of 32/33 and had my last 500m be a SR 37. hopefully this can help you too. I've found huge success in remembering just 2 things going into that last 500m:
Your body can do anything for 500m (as long as you didn't blow your load too early in the piece), just stay tough. it's gonna be a mental game, but you can win.
JACK YOUR RATE once you've rallied enough courage to take off. arms away quick, break the legs quick, and blast off your foot stretchers. this is crucial to execute because by the end of your 2k you most likely won't be able to create big wattage at a low rate (or at least shouldn't if you're maxing out your speed). | stay tough, commit to a sprint, and jack your rate until you finish |
Stormfrosty | It seems for you that you are doing bad, because subconsciously you have a high standard for yourself. So even if you are doing good, you can still think you are doing bad. It's like people who think that everyone hates them, even though no one even cares.
tl;dr - It's all your brain, not you. | It seems for you that you are doing bad, because subconsciously you have a high standard for yourself. So even if you are doing good, you can still think you are doing bad. It's like people who think that everyone hates them, even though no one even cares.
tl;dr - It's all your brain, not you.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cio3weg | It seems for you that you are doing bad, because subconsciously you have a high standard for yourself. So even if you are doing good, you can still think you are doing bad. It's like people who think that everyone hates them, even though no one even cares. | It's all your brain, not you. |
theradison | I used to work at a bank, and realize sometimes charges (like gas stations, etc) will post twice to your account, (in the case of gas stations, a memo post of $1 or $75, depending on how the station is set up) will appear, then it may either drop off once the actual charge posts. Sometimes the hold doesn't graciously drop off. The only time to worry about it is when it is no longer a pending charge, but actually a line item on your statement.
What is unfortunate, with some of the new banking regulations in effect, is you now can't use a debit card to overdraw your account, even if you know it won't really overdraw your account because that is a errant memo post, unless you have that form on file that says "I'm aware I can overdraw my account with my debit card"
Some banks refer to the temporary hold as a "pre-authorization" or "memo post". The actual post will be a "Debit" or "Check Card Debit" depending on which banking software they use.
Generally, a transaction won't move to a posted transaction until overnight processing, and that will generally only happen if they have settled the transaction after 3pm, unless you bank at a credit union, which doesn't believe in batch processing (from what I have experienced), those process immediately, which is great if you make deposits.
Now, if multiples hit after your next days business post, then its time to get NCSoft on the phone and asking questions.
**TL;DR: If your FI is a bank, wait til the next business day's processing to see what actually posts before you flip out too much**(yes, that means waiting until next Tuesday if you just seen it now - yay holiday!)
(ninja edit: fixing formatting) | I used to work at a bank, and realize sometimes charges (like gas stations, etc) will post twice to your account, (in the case of gas stations, a memo post of $1 or $75, depending on how the station is set up) will appear, then it may either drop off once the actual charge posts. Sometimes the hold doesn't graciously drop off. The only time to worry about it is when it is no longer a pending charge, but actually a line item on your statement.
What is unfortunate, with some of the new banking regulations in effect, is you now can't use a debit card to overdraw your account, even if you know it won't really overdraw your account because that is a errant memo post, unless you have that form on file that says "I'm aware I can overdraw my account with my debit card"
Some banks refer to the temporary hold as a "pre-authorization" or "memo post". The actual post will be a "Debit" or "Check Card Debit" depending on which banking software they use.
Generally, a transaction won't move to a posted transaction until overnight processing, and that will generally only happen if they have settled the transaction after 3pm, unless you bank at a credit union, which doesn't believe in batch processing (from what I have experienced), those process immediately, which is great if you make deposits.
Now, if multiples hit after your next days business post, then its time to get NCSoft on the phone and asking questions.
TL;DR: If your FI is a bank, wait til the next business day's processing to see what actually posts before you flip out too much (yes, that means waiting until next Tuesday if you just seen it now - yay holiday!)
(ninja edit: fixing formatting)
| WildStar | t5_2sqwc | ciolppz | I used to work at a bank, and realize sometimes charges (like gas stations, etc) will post twice to your account, (in the case of gas stations, a memo post of $1 or $75, depending on how the station is set up) will appear, then it may either drop off once the actual charge posts. Sometimes the hold doesn't graciously drop off. The only time to worry about it is when it is no longer a pending charge, but actually a line item on your statement.
What is unfortunate, with some of the new banking regulations in effect, is you now can't use a debit card to overdraw your account, even if you know it won't really overdraw your account because that is a errant memo post, unless you have that form on file that says "I'm aware I can overdraw my account with my debit card"
Some banks refer to the temporary hold as a "pre-authorization" or "memo post". The actual post will be a "Debit" or "Check Card Debit" depending on which banking software they use.
Generally, a transaction won't move to a posted transaction until overnight processing, and that will generally only happen if they have settled the transaction after 3pm, unless you bank at a credit union, which doesn't believe in batch processing (from what I have experienced), those process immediately, which is great if you make deposits.
Now, if multiples hit after your next days business post, then its time to get NCSoft on the phone and asking questions. | If your FI is a bank, wait til the next business day's processing to see what actually posts before you flip out too much (yes, that means waiting until next Tuesday if you just seen it now - yay holiday!)
(ninja edit: fixing formatting) |
ahnold11 | Sadly it's human nature.
There is surprisingly very little separating a well behaved public from one full of assholes. Since things like mob/herd mentality, dangerous of crowds etc. Also the idea that if all the laws were taking away, how many people would quickly revert to criminal behavior. We are social animals largely, and society conditions/dictates our behaviour to a large extent.
The internet is just another example of that. When you aren't infront of someone in person, can't see them face to face, its' much easier to be a jerk. You never see them cry, never see the sad looks on their faces, never get to experience empathy. (It's actually quite difficult/challenging for a properly socialized person to be an asshole and make someone else cry, without feeling pretty crappy yourself).
People often cite anonymity and a lack of consequence. But you even see this shit on facebook, with real names and real consequences (all your friends can see it) yet it still goes on.
Basically we all think plenty of dumb shit. But we mostly don't say that stuff in a crowd for fear of being embarassed and/or called out on it. We don't want to look dumb, to look stupid. Have other people stare at us and make those faces. Outside of the occasional outliers, most people have an immediate aversion to that sort of thing.
But once you are on line, people lose their filters. Because you never have to get embarrassed, you never have to have that (apparently) key face to face interaction, if you say something stupid you can always just shut off the computer and walk away. Even if that isn't true (eg. twitter death threats or whatever, that can get the police involved and have serious consequence) it's how we innately seem to view human-computer-human interaction. It doesn't feel "real" to us (in a subconscious way?) and so all the usual social norms for expected behaviour go out the window.
That's my pet theory anyhow.
TLDR - the lack of face to face interaction, means we lose important social cues that prevent us from saying all the horrible/mean/dumb/stupid crap that we would otherwise filter out. | Sadly it's human nature.
There is surprisingly very little separating a well behaved public from one full of assholes. Since things like mob/herd mentality, dangerous of crowds etc. Also the idea that if all the laws were taking away, how many people would quickly revert to criminal behavior. We are social animals largely, and society conditions/dictates our behaviour to a large extent.
The internet is just another example of that. When you aren't infront of someone in person, can't see them face to face, its' much easier to be a jerk. You never see them cry, never see the sad looks on their faces, never get to experience empathy. (It's actually quite difficult/challenging for a properly socialized person to be an asshole and make someone else cry, without feeling pretty crappy yourself).
People often cite anonymity and a lack of consequence. But you even see this shit on facebook, with real names and real consequences (all your friends can see it) yet it still goes on.
Basically we all think plenty of dumb shit. But we mostly don't say that stuff in a crowd for fear of being embarassed and/or called out on it. We don't want to look dumb, to look stupid. Have other people stare at us and make those faces. Outside of the occasional outliers, most people have an immediate aversion to that sort of thing.
But once you are on line, people lose their filters. Because you never have to get embarrassed, you never have to have that (apparently) key face to face interaction, if you say something stupid you can always just shut off the computer and walk away. Even if that isn't true (eg. twitter death threats or whatever, that can get the police involved and have serious consequence) it's how we innately seem to view human-computer-human interaction. It doesn't feel "real" to us (in a subconscious way?) and so all the usual social norms for expected behaviour go out the window.
That's my pet theory anyhow.
TLDR - the lack of face to face interaction, means we lose important social cues that prevent us from saying all the horrible/mean/dumb/stupid crap that we would otherwise filter out.
| Games | t5_2qhwp | ciok5lu | Sadly it's human nature.
There is surprisingly very little separating a well behaved public from one full of assholes. Since things like mob/herd mentality, dangerous of crowds etc. Also the idea that if all the laws were taking away, how many people would quickly revert to criminal behavior. We are social animals largely, and society conditions/dictates our behaviour to a large extent.
The internet is just another example of that. When you aren't infront of someone in person, can't see them face to face, its' much easier to be a jerk. You never see them cry, never see the sad looks on their faces, never get to experience empathy. (It's actually quite difficult/challenging for a properly socialized person to be an asshole and make someone else cry, without feeling pretty crappy yourself).
People often cite anonymity and a lack of consequence. But you even see this shit on facebook, with real names and real consequences (all your friends can see it) yet it still goes on.
Basically we all think plenty of dumb shit. But we mostly don't say that stuff in a crowd for fear of being embarassed and/or called out on it. We don't want to look dumb, to look stupid. Have other people stare at us and make those faces. Outside of the occasional outliers, most people have an immediate aversion to that sort of thing.
But once you are on line, people lose their filters. Because you never have to get embarrassed, you never have to have that (apparently) key face to face interaction, if you say something stupid you can always just shut off the computer and walk away. Even if that isn't true (eg. twitter death threats or whatever, that can get the police involved and have serious consequence) it's how we innately seem to view human-computer-human interaction. It doesn't feel "real" to us (in a subconscious way?) and so all the usual social norms for expected behaviour go out the window.
That's my pet theory anyhow. | the lack of face to face interaction, means we lose important social cues that prevent us from saying all the horrible/mean/dumb/stupid crap that we would otherwise filter out. |
Paupertje | Long read wurf doe.
First of all to understand what I'm about to explain you must be familiar with energy, in short energy comes in two forms 1. Speed (kinetic energy) 2. Altitude (potential energy) which can be turned into speed. Manoeuvring costs energy and you need it to stay in the air. It is important to understand this thoroughly. I've seen a motto which goes like this: Altitude is my insurance, speed is my life.
> I wanted to give the Soviets another try when I got my ass handed to a Russian clan that outturned my swiftest plane.
A word of advice: A turning radius isn't static. As speed increases your turn time decreases until you reach the [corner speed]( of your plane
Essentially what you'll always want to be doing in any scenario is making the enemy use more energy than you so that you can gain/maintain the energy advantage. Having more speed means you'll be closer to your corner speed (one of many advantages speed gives you). Being able to then turn better allows you to go in for the kill.
In other words the goal is to make the enemy go so slow he can't evade your shots anymore while you have speed on him so you *can*. I can't tell you any specific methods to achieve this as every scenario calls for different measures. Generally speaking though it's a good idea to have the altitude advantage and find out at which altitude your plane performs best in regards to your opponent's plane. Also knowing your relative weaknesses and strengths obviously helps.
So learn [ACM] ( especially the High and Low Yo-Yos which are basic and will teach you the concepts (of Energy fighting). Learning this will help you recognize which methods to use, no one engagement is the same.
If you're wobbling that means you're straining your plane too much which you don't want to do anyway remember speed is life keep your energy high and don't pull tighter than you absolutely need to.
**TL;DR Learn how to energy fight altitude is insurance, speed is life. Once you know how you'll get the kills, the XP, the lions *and* the hunnies**
P.S. With this knowledge you (probably) won't need to ask for further help since you'll understand the fundamentals thus you'll know what to work on next. Let me know if you have any questchins. | Long read wurf doe.
First of all to understand what I'm about to explain you must be familiar with energy, in short energy comes in two forms 1. Speed (kinetic energy) 2. Altitude (potential energy) which can be turned into speed. Manoeuvring costs energy and you need it to stay in the air. It is important to understand this thoroughly. I've seen a motto which goes like this: Altitude is my insurance, speed is my life.
> I wanted to give the Soviets another try when I got my ass handed to a Russian clan that outturned my swiftest plane.
A word of advice: A turning radius isn't static. As speed increases your turn time decreases until you reach the [corner speed]( of your plane
Essentially what you'll always want to be doing in any scenario is making the enemy use more energy than you so that you can gain/maintain the energy advantage. Having more speed means you'll be closer to your corner speed (one of many advantages speed gives you). Being able to then turn better allows you to go in for the kill.
In other words the goal is to make the enemy go so slow he can't evade your shots anymore while you have speed on him so you can . I can't tell you any specific methods to achieve this as every scenario calls for different measures. Generally speaking though it's a good idea to have the altitude advantage and find out at which altitude your plane performs best in regards to your opponent's plane. Also knowing your relative weaknesses and strengths obviously helps.
So learn [ACM] ( especially the High and Low Yo-Yos which are basic and will teach you the concepts (of Energy fighting). Learning this will help you recognize which methods to use, no one engagement is the same.
If you're wobbling that means you're straining your plane too much which you don't want to do anyway remember speed is life keep your energy high and don't pull tighter than you absolutely need to.
TL;DR Learn how to energy fight altitude is insurance, speed is life. Once you know how you'll get the kills, the XP, the lions and the hunnies
P.S. With this knowledge you (probably) won't need to ask for further help since you'll understand the fundamentals thus you'll know what to work on next. Let me know if you have any questchins.
| Warthunder | t5_2uc6j | cionpik | Long read wurf doe.
First of all to understand what I'm about to explain you must be familiar with energy, in short energy comes in two forms 1. Speed (kinetic energy) 2. Altitude (potential energy) which can be turned into speed. Manoeuvring costs energy and you need it to stay in the air. It is important to understand this thoroughly. I've seen a motto which goes like this: Altitude is my insurance, speed is my life.
> I wanted to give the Soviets another try when I got my ass handed to a Russian clan that outturned my swiftest plane.
A word of advice: A turning radius isn't static. As speed increases your turn time decreases until you reach the [corner speed]( of your plane
Essentially what you'll always want to be doing in any scenario is making the enemy use more energy than you so that you can gain/maintain the energy advantage. Having more speed means you'll be closer to your corner speed (one of many advantages speed gives you). Being able to then turn better allows you to go in for the kill.
In other words the goal is to make the enemy go so slow he can't evade your shots anymore while you have speed on him so you can . I can't tell you any specific methods to achieve this as every scenario calls for different measures. Generally speaking though it's a good idea to have the altitude advantage and find out at which altitude your plane performs best in regards to your opponent's plane. Also knowing your relative weaknesses and strengths obviously helps.
So learn [ACM] ( especially the High and Low Yo-Yos which are basic and will teach you the concepts (of Energy fighting). Learning this will help you recognize which methods to use, no one engagement is the same.
If you're wobbling that means you're straining your plane too much which you don't want to do anyway remember speed is life keep your energy high and don't pull tighter than you absolutely need to. | Learn how to energy fight altitude is insurance, speed is life. Once you know how you'll get the kills, the XP, the lions and the hunnies
P.S. With this knowledge you (probably) won't need to ask for further help since you'll understand the fundamentals thus you'll know what to work on next. Let me know if you have any questchins. |
vlts | I don't think there needs to be a video about tetration, or at least one this shallow. It's a simple concept (for those who already know the basic algebra necessary to watch the video) that makes sense if you read the wiki page. Most of the video could be replaced with the first page of the [wiki article]( It'd be much more useful to at least look at the applications/sophisticated side of tetration. For example, how can you generalize tetration to non-integers, like we do for exponentiation? What are some analytic properties? How do they relate to the ordinal numbers? What's beyond tetration, and how can you generalize this concept? When are these sorts of growth rates used (think recursive functions such as in computer algorithms)? It's really easy to come up with a function that grows faster than exponentiation, so your "motivation" at the beginning was partially wasted.
The presentation seemed to be inappropriate. Once I started to see the ol' "penny on the first day, doubles every day" I immediately wanted to stop watching. So many people have seen/heard this. It's like using the [Birthday paradox]( to introduce probability: it's a neat but widely known fact, especially among people looking up videos about it. This also applies when you want to show how big the number is by relating it to the number of atoms in the earth, or how you can write the digits down on every atom, etc.. It's not original content and it's not impressive to math people. It's fluff. While the moving-images-on-a-white-background look is fine, it's purpose is almost always to invoke a kind of imagination or fanciful interest. Your purpose seems to be... informative? It's hard to tell. Who is your audience? Your speaking should be refined (it was occasionally difficult to understand), but it wasn't bad.
Overall/TL;DR: First and foremost get better, ORIGINAL content. None of this wasn't just something I've heard a million times. Big numbers don't impress math people nearly as much as you seem to believe. Next, identify your intended audience and purpose. It's not clear and it shows. Looking at your other videos, they seem to be more like "Yay science/math!" rather than actually attempting to inform. If you go down that road, I can almost guarantee you'll get very little support from /r/math. | I don't think there needs to be a video about tetration, or at least one this shallow. It's a simple concept (for those who already know the basic algebra necessary to watch the video) that makes sense if you read the wiki page. Most of the video could be replaced with the first page of the wiki article ? It's really easy to come up with a function that grows faster than exponentiation, so your "motivation" at the beginning was partially wasted.
The presentation seemed to be inappropriate. Once I started to see the ol' "penny on the first day, doubles every day" I immediately wanted to stop watching. So many people have seen/heard this. It's like using the Birthday paradox , but it wasn't bad.
Overall/TL;DR: First and foremost get better, ORIGINAL content. None of this wasn't just something I've heard a million times. Big numbers don't impress math people nearly as much as you seem to believe. Next, identify your intended audience and purpose. It's not clear and it shows. Looking at your other videos, they seem to be more like "Yay science/math!" rather than actually attempting to inform. If you go down that road, I can almost guarantee you'll get very little support from /r/math.
| math | t5_2qh0n | ciowtk4 | I don't think there needs to be a video about tetration, or at least one this shallow. It's a simple concept (for those who already know the basic algebra necessary to watch the video) that makes sense if you read the wiki page. Most of the video could be replaced with the first page of the wiki article ? It's really easy to come up with a function that grows faster than exponentiation, so your "motivation" at the beginning was partially wasted.
The presentation seemed to be inappropriate. Once I started to see the ol' "penny on the first day, doubles every day" I immediately wanted to stop watching. So many people have seen/heard this. It's like using the Birthday paradox , but it wasn't bad.
Overall/ | First and foremost get better, ORIGINAL content. None of this wasn't just something I've heard a million times. Big numbers don't impress math people nearly as much as you seem to believe. Next, identify your intended audience and purpose. It's not clear and it shows. Looking at your other videos, they seem to be more like "Yay science/math!" rather than actually attempting to inform. If you go down that road, I can almost guarantee you'll get very little support from /r/math. |
Winterscope | You looked fantastic in all the photos on that post!
It's so silly and pathetic that you can express anger and distaste from adopting a fictional and loved character into the real world, just because of skin colour.
If you couldn't wear a costume from a character (in a series/comic/manga/film) that you love because of what race or tone you are, then that should be the same for everyone. Don't get me started on if mixed raced people had to cosplay accordingly!
For example, Sailor Moon would have to be exclusively cosplayed by a Japanese Girl with the same complexion; Or Captain America has to be cosplayed by an American Caucasian Boy.
TL;DR - hypocrites are everywhere. if everyone had to cosplay by race, there would be a sea of Japanese and/or White American people. | You looked fantastic in all the photos on that post!
It's so silly and pathetic that you can express anger and distaste from adopting a fictional and loved character into the real world, just because of skin colour.
If you couldn't wear a costume from a character (in a series/comic/manga/film) that you love because of what race or tone you are, then that should be the same for everyone. Don't get me started on if mixed raced people had to cosplay accordingly!
For example, Sailor Moon would have to be exclusively cosplayed by a Japanese Girl with the same complexion; Or Captain America has to be cosplayed by an American Caucasian Boy.
TL;DR - hypocrites are everywhere. if everyone had to cosplay by race, there would be a sea of Japanese and/or White American people.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cip130v | You looked fantastic in all the photos on that post!
It's so silly and pathetic that you can express anger and distaste from adopting a fictional and loved character into the real world, just because of skin colour.
If you couldn't wear a costume from a character (in a series/comic/manga/film) that you love because of what race or tone you are, then that should be the same for everyone. Don't get me started on if mixed raced people had to cosplay accordingly!
For example, Sailor Moon would have to be exclusively cosplayed by a Japanese Girl with the same complexion; Or Captain America has to be cosplayed by an American Caucasian Boy. | hypocrites are everywhere. if everyone had to cosplay by race, there would be a sea of Japanese and/or White American people. |
CamilliaAirheart | Black female geek weighing in: Growing up in my geeky circles I would always hear my fellow geeks look down on the "jocks" and "popular" kids for being so exclusive or intolerant of kids that weren't "cool" like them. There was this attitude that we were somehow better than them because we didn't exclude others due to their looks, athletic ability, knowledge of sports, hobbies.
As I got older, I realized that that is largely bullshit. The things that you are into, the hobbies you enjoy and the type of media you consume do NOT dictate your morals, kindness, inclusiveness, tolerance, etc.
I can't tell you how many geek men I've encountered who have decided that they need to quiz me after hearing that I love manga and videogames.
Being a geek doesn't make you immune to be a bigot, racist, sexist, closed-minded, or cowardly; the replies on your tumblr post are proof of that.
All in all, I was really touched by your story. Keep doing what you love! Maybe one of these days I'll finally cosplay as Cammy!
TL;DR: Geeks can be jerks too, unfortunately. | Black female geek weighing in: Growing up in my geeky circles I would always hear my fellow geeks look down on the "jocks" and "popular" kids for being so exclusive or intolerant of kids that weren't "cool" like them. There was this attitude that we were somehow better than them because we didn't exclude others due to their looks, athletic ability, knowledge of sports, hobbies.
As I got older, I realized that that is largely bullshit. The things that you are into, the hobbies you enjoy and the type of media you consume do NOT dictate your morals, kindness, inclusiveness, tolerance, etc.
I can't tell you how many geek men I've encountered who have decided that they need to quiz me after hearing that I love manga and videogames.
Being a geek doesn't make you immune to be a bigot, racist, sexist, closed-minded, or cowardly; the replies on your tumblr post are proof of that.
All in all, I was really touched by your story. Keep doing what you love! Maybe one of these days I'll finally cosplay as Cammy!
TL;DR: Geeks can be jerks too, unfortunately.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cip77qk | Black female geek weighing in: Growing up in my geeky circles I would always hear my fellow geeks look down on the "jocks" and "popular" kids for being so exclusive or intolerant of kids that weren't "cool" like them. There was this attitude that we were somehow better than them because we didn't exclude others due to their looks, athletic ability, knowledge of sports, hobbies.
As I got older, I realized that that is largely bullshit. The things that you are into, the hobbies you enjoy and the type of media you consume do NOT dictate your morals, kindness, inclusiveness, tolerance, etc.
I can't tell you how many geek men I've encountered who have decided that they need to quiz me after hearing that I love manga and videogames.
Being a geek doesn't make you immune to be a bigot, racist, sexist, closed-minded, or cowardly; the replies on your tumblr post are proof of that.
All in all, I was really touched by your story. Keep doing what you love! Maybe one of these days I'll finally cosplay as Cammy! | Geeks can be jerks too, unfortunately. |
I_like_sluts | I usually stick to commenting on the parody "jerk" subs for stupid fun but this has turned into such a reddit circle jerk I have to chime in.
I think a lot of people have missed the point and are over reacting. I didn't grow up in the U.S. (or western Europe) so race was never an issue. If you were describing a black person you didn't stumble around it, you called him black. If you were describing an Asian you called him short and thin eyed. That's how they look. It was very hard for me to get used to these sensitivities when I came to the U.S. The U.S. pretends not to notice race to avoid uncomfortable feelings since there are still plenty of people alive who remember segregation in the country (I surmise). But that's ludicrous. Of course you notice what color somebody is! To pretend not to is to pretend to be an idiot.
When someone says, "For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!" What they mean is, "Her costume looks amazing, would look just like the character except for the fact that the complete opposite color of skin makes it look nothing like her." Only in the U.S. (and western Europe) would you even add "not to be racist." Of course you're not being racist. You're stating a fact that the skin color throws off the look of an otherwise perfectly executed costume.
I'm sure there are some people who use things like that to be racist. But I'm willing to bet many are just trying to tip toe around the elephant in the room (that someone of a completely different race dressing up as a character of another DOESN'T look like the character even if the costume is perfect). Back home if a black guy dressed up as Superman no one would say, "You look just like superman!" No, we would say, "Great costume, you know except for the fact you're black and look nothing like him," and have a laugh. The same way if a fat white guy dressed up in a trench coat, sunglasses, and a katana no one would say, "You look just like Blade!" We'd say, "Oh look, it's butterknife, Blade's fat, white sidekick," with a laugh.
**TL;DR As a native South American only in America are people so racially sensitive that you have to pretend to ignore the obvious or be labeled a racist. Racial tensions in the U.S. won't go away when we all pretend skin color differences aren't noticeable. They'll go away when we can all acknowledge different skin colors and no one cares.** | I usually stick to commenting on the parody "jerk" subs for stupid fun but this has turned into such a reddit circle jerk I have to chime in.
I think a lot of people have missed the point and are over reacting. I didn't grow up in the U.S. (or western Europe) so race was never an issue. If you were describing a black person you didn't stumble around it, you called him black. If you were describing an Asian you called him short and thin eyed. That's how they look. It was very hard for me to get used to these sensitivities when I came to the U.S. The U.S. pretends not to notice race to avoid uncomfortable feelings since there are still plenty of people alive who remember segregation in the country (I surmise). But that's ludicrous. Of course you notice what color somebody is! To pretend not to is to pretend to be an idiot.
When someone says, "For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!" What they mean is, "Her costume looks amazing, would look just like the character except for the fact that the complete opposite color of skin makes it look nothing like her." Only in the U.S. (and western Europe) would you even add "not to be racist." Of course you're not being racist. You're stating a fact that the skin color throws off the look of an otherwise perfectly executed costume.
I'm sure there are some people who use things like that to be racist. But I'm willing to bet many are just trying to tip toe around the elephant in the room (that someone of a completely different race dressing up as a character of another DOESN'T look like the character even if the costume is perfect). Back home if a black guy dressed up as Superman no one would say, "You look just like superman!" No, we would say, "Great costume, you know except for the fact you're black and look nothing like him," and have a laugh. The same way if a fat white guy dressed up in a trench coat, sunglasses, and a katana no one would say, "You look just like Blade!" We'd say, "Oh look, it's butterknife, Blade's fat, white sidekick," with a laugh.
TL;DR As a native South American only in America are people so racially sensitive that you have to pretend to ignore the obvious or be labeled a racist. Racial tensions in the U.S. won't go away when we all pretend skin color differences aren't noticeable. They'll go away when we can all acknowledge different skin colors and no one cares.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cip8uzn | I usually stick to commenting on the parody "jerk" subs for stupid fun but this has turned into such a reddit circle jerk I have to chime in.
I think a lot of people have missed the point and are over reacting. I didn't grow up in the U.S. (or western Europe) so race was never an issue. If you were describing a black person you didn't stumble around it, you called him black. If you were describing an Asian you called him short and thin eyed. That's how they look. It was very hard for me to get used to these sensitivities when I came to the U.S. The U.S. pretends not to notice race to avoid uncomfortable feelings since there are still plenty of people alive who remember segregation in the country (I surmise). But that's ludicrous. Of course you notice what color somebody is! To pretend not to is to pretend to be an idiot.
When someone says, "For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!" What they mean is, "Her costume looks amazing, would look just like the character except for the fact that the complete opposite color of skin makes it look nothing like her." Only in the U.S. (and western Europe) would you even add "not to be racist." Of course you're not being racist. You're stating a fact that the skin color throws off the look of an otherwise perfectly executed costume.
I'm sure there are some people who use things like that to be racist. But I'm willing to bet many are just trying to tip toe around the elephant in the room (that someone of a completely different race dressing up as a character of another DOESN'T look like the character even if the costume is perfect). Back home if a black guy dressed up as Superman no one would say, "You look just like superman!" No, we would say, "Great costume, you know except for the fact you're black and look nothing like him," and have a laugh. The same way if a fat white guy dressed up in a trench coat, sunglasses, and a katana no one would say, "You look just like Blade!" We'd say, "Oh look, it's butterknife, Blade's fat, white sidekick," with a laugh. | As a native South American only in America are people so racially sensitive that you have to pretend to ignore the obvious or be labeled a racist. Racial tensions in the U.S. won't go away when we all pretend skin color differences aren't noticeable. They'll go away when we can all acknowledge different skin colors and no one cares. |
ArticulateRhinoceros | No? I'm not even sure what this comment means.
I'll change the analogy.
You joined a co-ed basketball recreational league. You are the first girl to officially join, even though the league has been technically coed for years. You end up being the best player on the team. Is it a complement when your teammates say "You're pretty good, for a woman"?
I think not. Professional, non professional, paid, unpaid, whatever. Cosplay is a hobby, it shouldn't be graded or critiqued or held to a weird standard. She did a great job FOR ANYONE, there is no reason to bring race into it. Besides, when white girls cosplay as Sailor Moon characters, no one says "She did a great job for a white girl" (Since Sailor Moon is an ASIAN show full of ASIAN characters). I mean the whole thing, and the way you're coming off trying to explain it, basically says "White is the normal anything other than white is different and therefore I should point that out to make sure eveyrone knows how abnormal and unusual it is." That is shitty. White isn't the "norm" by which all things should be judged. If the person had said "For a nonJapanese woman she did an awesome job" that would be an important distinction. There she is pointing out that the cosplayer is different from the race of the character, instead of pointing out that being black pretending to be a Japanese character is weird compared to a white person pretending to be a Japanese character.
Whenever you says "For a ___" you are automatically starting off by saying the person in question is at a disadvantage, in this case, because she's black. Saying her natural skin color is a disadvantage is insulting.
**And really, beyond that, people not of color really, really, REALLY don't get to tell minorities what they should or should not find offensive. She found it offensive, there for it was.**
Edit:
And if you're one of those people who thinks that Japanese Manga characters "look white" then I have a youtube video on that I can dig up for you. TL;DR You only think they look white because you're white, and you're seeing it through you own cultural filter. | No? I'm not even sure what this comment means.
I'll change the analogy.
You joined a co-ed basketball recreational league. You are the first girl to officially join, even though the league has been technically coed for years. You end up being the best player on the team. Is it a complement when your teammates say "You're pretty good, for a woman"?
I think not. Professional, non professional, paid, unpaid, whatever. Cosplay is a hobby, it shouldn't be graded or critiqued or held to a weird standard. She did a great job FOR ANYONE, there is no reason to bring race into it. Besides, when white girls cosplay as Sailor Moon characters, no one says "She did a great job for a white girl" (Since Sailor Moon is an ASIAN show full of ASIAN characters). I mean the whole thing, and the way you're coming off trying to explain it, basically says "White is the normal anything other than white is different and therefore I should point that out to make sure eveyrone knows how abnormal and unusual it is." That is shitty. White isn't the "norm" by which all things should be judged. If the person had said "For a nonJapanese woman she did an awesome job" that would be an important distinction. There she is pointing out that the cosplayer is different from the race of the character, instead of pointing out that being black pretending to be a Japanese character is weird compared to a white person pretending to be a Japanese character.
Whenever you says "For a ___" you are automatically starting off by saying the person in question is at a disadvantage, in this case, because she's black. Saying her natural skin color is a disadvantage is insulting.
And really, beyond that, people not of color really, really, REALLY don't get to tell minorities what they should or should not find offensive. She found it offensive, there for it was.
Edit:
And if you're one of those people who thinks that Japanese Manga characters "look white" then I have a youtube video on that I can dig up for you. TL;DR You only think they look white because you're white, and you're seeing it through you own cultural filter.
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ciq3vx3 | No? I'm not even sure what this comment means.
I'll change the analogy.
You joined a co-ed basketball recreational league. You are the first girl to officially join, even though the league has been technically coed for years. You end up being the best player on the team. Is it a complement when your teammates say "You're pretty good, for a woman"?
I think not. Professional, non professional, paid, unpaid, whatever. Cosplay is a hobby, it shouldn't be graded or critiqued or held to a weird standard. She did a great job FOR ANYONE, there is no reason to bring race into it. Besides, when white girls cosplay as Sailor Moon characters, no one says "She did a great job for a white girl" (Since Sailor Moon is an ASIAN show full of ASIAN characters). I mean the whole thing, and the way you're coming off trying to explain it, basically says "White is the normal anything other than white is different and therefore I should point that out to make sure eveyrone knows how abnormal and unusual it is." That is shitty. White isn't the "norm" by which all things should be judged. If the person had said "For a nonJapanese woman she did an awesome job" that would be an important distinction. There she is pointing out that the cosplayer is different from the race of the character, instead of pointing out that being black pretending to be a Japanese character is weird compared to a white person pretending to be a Japanese character.
Whenever you says "For a ___" you are automatically starting off by saying the person in question is at a disadvantage, in this case, because she's black. Saying her natural skin color is a disadvantage is insulting.
And really, beyond that, people not of color really, really, REALLY don't get to tell minorities what they should or should not find offensive. She found it offensive, there for it was.
Edit:
And if you're one of those people who thinks that Japanese Manga characters "look white" then I have a youtube video on that I can dig up for you. | You only think they look white because you're white, and you're seeing it through you own cultural filter. |
311TruthMovement | Love questions like this one: people from other disciplines looking for tips on how to improve their typographic layouts.
What layout program are you using? If you have CS6, I'm assuming InDesign. That means you have access to lots of typographic goodies.
I would say you should use Garamond throughout. You can separate sections with varying weights, italics, and space.
Take a look at the designer [Frank Chimero’s book "The Shape of Design."]( Disregard the illustrations and notice that he is using color to separate certain bits, but other than that, it's all one typeface.
I would try mimicking what Frank has done here. Obviously yours won't look quite as designy, but here's the things I think are worth picking up:
1. Try not to use a wide range of point sizes. Use Adobe Garamond's ample weights to differentiate content.
2. Make the line length of your body block about 2-3 alphabets. This probably entails making your left and right margins much wider.
3. If you're doing headlines or subheads as all caps, add more tracking. Google "add tracking InDesign" to find out how to do this.
4. Spend way too long figuring this system out for one page. Choose a page with as many little fiddly bits -- footnotes, a subhead, etc. -- as you can find. Once that page is figured out, try a variation on it. Print them out and compare them. If you have time to do a dozen variations, great, but I'm assuming this is overkill for people who don't design professionally. There's no such thing as the best layout, but it can at least help you feel confident in your decision.
**tl;dr set your headlines in something like Adobe Garamond Bold, turn on small caps using the OpenType palette (Google how to do this), and add a bit more tracking than seems natural if you have anything set in caps (again, Google how to do this).** | Love questions like this one: people from other disciplines looking for tips on how to improve their typographic layouts.
What layout program are you using? If you have CS6, I'm assuming InDesign. That means you have access to lots of typographic goodies.
I would say you should use Garamond throughout. You can separate sections with varying weights, italics, and space.
Take a look at the designer [Frank Chimero’s book "The Shape of Design."]( Disregard the illustrations and notice that he is using color to separate certain bits, but other than that, it's all one typeface.
I would try mimicking what Frank has done here. Obviously yours won't look quite as designy, but here's the things I think are worth picking up:
Try not to use a wide range of point sizes. Use Adobe Garamond's ample weights to differentiate content.
Make the line length of your body block about 2-3 alphabets. This probably entails making your left and right margins much wider.
If you're doing headlines or subheads as all caps, add more tracking. Google "add tracking InDesign" to find out how to do this.
Spend way too long figuring this system out for one page. Choose a page with as many little fiddly bits -- footnotes, a subhead, etc. -- as you can find. Once that page is figured out, try a variation on it. Print them out and compare them. If you have time to do a dozen variations, great, but I'm assuming this is overkill for people who don't design professionally. There's no such thing as the best layout, but it can at least help you feel confident in your decision.
tl;dr set your headlines in something like Adobe Garamond Bold, turn on small caps using the OpenType palette (Google how to do this), and add a bit more tracking than seems natural if you have anything set in caps (again, Google how to do this).
| typography | t5_2qhx0 | cip0il0 | Love questions like this one: people from other disciplines looking for tips on how to improve their typographic layouts.
What layout program are you using? If you have CS6, I'm assuming InDesign. That means you have access to lots of typographic goodies.
I would say you should use Garamond throughout. You can separate sections with varying weights, italics, and space.
Take a look at the designer [Frank Chimero’s book "The Shape of Design."]( Disregard the illustrations and notice that he is using color to separate certain bits, but other than that, it's all one typeface.
I would try mimicking what Frank has done here. Obviously yours won't look quite as designy, but here's the things I think are worth picking up:
Try not to use a wide range of point sizes. Use Adobe Garamond's ample weights to differentiate content.
Make the line length of your body block about 2-3 alphabets. This probably entails making your left and right margins much wider.
If you're doing headlines or subheads as all caps, add more tracking. Google "add tracking InDesign" to find out how to do this.
Spend way too long figuring this system out for one page. Choose a page with as many little fiddly bits -- footnotes, a subhead, etc. -- as you can find. Once that page is figured out, try a variation on it. Print them out and compare them. If you have time to do a dozen variations, great, but I'm assuming this is overkill for people who don't design professionally. There's no such thing as the best layout, but it can at least help you feel confident in your decision. | set your headlines in something like Adobe Garamond Bold, turn on small caps using the OpenType palette (Google how to do this), and add a bit more tracking than seems natural if you have anything set in caps (again, Google how to do this). |
HappyGerbil88 | LMAO the comments from that video are the best.
> Good video, I won't bother visiting 4chan because it sounds awful. If it's as bad as you say it will probably get removed soon anyways.
and the reply to that...
> 4chan has been around since 2003 fag.
We are the internet
We made all the maymays you loved
We are the reason you exist
We cause mass shootings
And stop abortions
We read bibles
And masturbate while doing so.
> Tl:dr OP is a fag | LMAO the comments from that video are the best.
> Good video, I won't bother visiting 4chan because it sounds awful. If it's as bad as you say it will probably get removed soon anyways.
and the reply to that...
> 4chan has been around since 2003 fag.
We are the internet
We made all the maymays you loved
We are the reason you exist
We cause mass shootings
And stop abortions
We read bibles
And masturbate while doing so.
> Tl:dr OP is a fag
| TumblrInAction | t5_2vizz | cip692b | LMAO the comments from that video are the best.
> Good video, I won't bother visiting 4chan because it sounds awful. If it's as bad as you say it will probably get removed soon anyways.
and the reply to that...
> 4chan has been around since 2003 fag.
We are the internet
We made all the maymays you loved
We are the reason you exist
We cause mass shootings
And stop abortions
We read bibles
And masturbate while doing so.
> | OP is a fag |
HaveSomeChicken | They were not the main reason Nazi Germany lost. The Eastern Front was already taking them down. The US did help, but it just accelerated the German defeat, possibly saving more lives. But by no means did they turn the tide of the war.
I recall hearing a story somewhere that some documents were found regarding the Normandy invasion, and that the reason for the storm was different, that Western allies were concerned about the progress of the Soviet Union. Apparently they did not want USSR to completely reach the coast of France, so the US, Canada, and other smaller nations set out to this epic invasion to make sure the Soviets cannot take Europe whole. They had that motive but wore the "making Germany fight a war on two (technically three if you count Africa) fronts" mask.
TL;DR The US didn't give two fucks about the millions of lives at War, and only joined the European theatre for economic and influential reasons. | They were not the main reason Nazi Germany lost. The Eastern Front was already taking them down. The US did help, but it just accelerated the German defeat, possibly saving more lives. But by no means did they turn the tide of the war.
I recall hearing a story somewhere that some documents were found regarding the Normandy invasion, and that the reason for the storm was different, that Western allies were concerned about the progress of the Soviet Union. Apparently they did not want USSR to completely reach the coast of France, so the US, Canada, and other smaller nations set out to this epic invasion to make sure the Soviets cannot take Europe whole. They had that motive but wore the "making Germany fight a war on two (technically three if you count Africa) fronts" mask.
TL;DR The US didn't give two fucks about the millions of lives at War, and only joined the European theatre for economic and influential reasons.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | cipwqca | They were not the main reason Nazi Germany lost. The Eastern Front was already taking them down. The US did help, but it just accelerated the German defeat, possibly saving more lives. But by no means did they turn the tide of the war.
I recall hearing a story somewhere that some documents were found regarding the Normandy invasion, and that the reason for the storm was different, that Western allies were concerned about the progress of the Soviet Union. Apparently they did not want USSR to completely reach the coast of France, so the US, Canada, and other smaller nations set out to this epic invasion to make sure the Soviets cannot take Europe whole. They had that motive but wore the "making Germany fight a war on two (technically three if you count Africa) fronts" mask. | The US didn't give two fucks about the millions of lives at War, and only joined the European theatre for economic and influential reasons. |
ShadowKing94 | I do agree, although I son't think that the sea world in WW with the boat and all was a restriction.
I absolutely loved that, it was an entire different way to explore, it wasnt just walking around anymore but you could discover entire ne islands and meet the people who lived there. Every island had some cool sidequest and stuff to do, whilst on the older ones there were towns they didnt have as huge of a world with over 30 towns. On WW you had so much exploring to do, so much awesomenes to be had.
TLDR: Boat in WW isnt a restriction it is a badass different way to explore! | I do agree, although I son't think that the sea world in WW with the boat and all was a restriction.
I absolutely loved that, it was an entire different way to explore, it wasnt just walking around anymore but you could discover entire ne islands and meet the people who lived there. Every island had some cool sidequest and stuff to do, whilst on the older ones there were towns they didnt have as huge of a world with over 30 towns. On WW you had so much exploring to do, so much awesomenes to be had.
TLDR: Boat in WW isnt a restriction it is a badass different way to explore!
| truezelda | t5_2tfzp | cipugxr | I do agree, although I son't think that the sea world in WW with the boat and all was a restriction.
I absolutely loved that, it was an entire different way to explore, it wasnt just walking around anymore but you could discover entire ne islands and meet the people who lived there. Every island had some cool sidequest and stuff to do, whilst on the older ones there were towns they didnt have as huge of a world with over 30 towns. On WW you had so much exploring to do, so much awesomenes to be had. | Boat in WW isnt a restriction it is a badass different way to explore! |
Zombrie_ | I broke up with my ex-boyfriend who was rather abusive, went on somewhat of a wilderness sabbatical, came back and made new friends. It was a change in my state of mind where I learned I have to become the change I wanted to create. If I wanted to be happy I had to cleanse my self of the toxic feelings around me (( though League of Legends doesn't help with the toxic)) I learned alot of things about breaking free.
TL:DR: Ex was a dick, we broke up, realised self-worth. | I broke up with my ex-boyfriend who was rather abusive, went on somewhat of a wilderness sabbatical, came back and made new friends. It was a change in my state of mind where I learned I have to become the change I wanted to create. If I wanted to be happy I had to cleanse my self of the toxic feelings around me (( though League of Legends doesn't help with the toxic)) I learned alot of things about breaking free.
TL:DR: Ex was a dick, we broke up, realised self-worth.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cipq7qd | I broke up with my ex-boyfriend who was rather abusive, went on somewhat of a wilderness sabbatical, came back and made new friends. It was a change in my state of mind where I learned I have to become the change I wanted to create. If I wanted to be happy I had to cleanse my self of the toxic feelings around me (( though League of Legends doesn't help with the toxic)) I learned alot of things about breaking free. | Ex was a dick, we broke up, realised self-worth. |
earthbutterfly | I used to live at the end of the W90/91 route. I don't know if it's still the same but there was a park right where the last bus stop was and it was where they would stop and wait until the next run into the city.
Sometimes you would get a nice bus driver that would go around the corner to the next stop, but other times you would get one who couldn't be assed going around the corner and made people walk. I particularly remember one fucktard who made an old lady walk to the next stop in the rain...
TL;DR - yes, the drivers can be real bastards | I used to live at the end of the W90/91 route. I don't know if it's still the same but there was a park right where the last bus stop was and it was where they would stop and wait until the next run into the city.
Sometimes you would get a nice bus driver that would go around the corner to the next stop, but other times you would get one who couldn't be assed going around the corner and made people walk. I particularly remember one fucktard who made an old lady walk to the next stop in the rain...
TL;DR - yes, the drivers can be real bastards
| Adelaide | t5_2r1ca | ciqcw82 | I used to live at the end of the W90/91 route. I don't know if it's still the same but there was a park right where the last bus stop was and it was where they would stop and wait until the next run into the city.
Sometimes you would get a nice bus driver that would go around the corner to the next stop, but other times you would get one who couldn't be assed going around the corner and made people walk. I particularly remember one fucktard who made an old lady walk to the next stop in the rain... | yes, the drivers can be real bastards |
quiteacaffufle | That's one of the best stories i have ever heard, mine's not as good, but here ya go:
I was about 5 or 6 and in year one of a church of England (cofe) infants school. As you can imagine, we had these big religious assemblies pretty much every day as part of the indoctrination process. During one of these assemblies, our head teacher convinced me that God was my dad ('God is the father'). I think you can see where this is going...
So i went home that night, and as my dad comes in from a hard day at work, pretty much the first thing i say to him is 'you're not my dad, god is'... As you can imagine, this got my non-religious parents... Well... A bit angry, so angry that they immediately phoned up my school and told them to stop filling my head with that shite, to paraphrase.
Now i am atheist, and in my final high school assembly, (this was at the point where i definitely knew i was atheist), i didn't say the word god in the song 'jubilate deo', and when our head teacher invited us to pray, i stayed sat down. Even when my friends sitting near me invited me to stand up, i simply said 'i don't believe in god'.
In hindsight, i should probably have chosen not to sit in the isle seat, as that made people notice (i even got a slightly disapproving glance from my headteacher, and i'm known for being a goody-goody-two shoes). Anyway, pretty much no one brought it up, surprisingly, the only significant time was at shirt signing when one of my history teachers jokingly questioned whether my not praying was an act of defiance. To this i simply replied: 'If everyone else wants to believe in their imaginary friend in the sky, they can go ahead, but i don't'.
TL;DR My head teacher in infants made me think god was my dad...
On another note, my copy of 'The God Delusion' was finally delivered! YEEES! | That's one of the best stories i have ever heard, mine's not as good, but here ya go:
I was about 5 or 6 and in year one of a church of England (cofe) infants school. As you can imagine, we had these big religious assemblies pretty much every day as part of the indoctrination process. During one of these assemblies, our head teacher convinced me that God was my dad ('God is the father'). I think you can see where this is going...
So i went home that night, and as my dad comes in from a hard day at work, pretty much the first thing i say to him is 'you're not my dad, god is'... As you can imagine, this got my non-religious parents... Well... A bit angry, so angry that they immediately phoned up my school and told them to stop filling my head with that shite, to paraphrase.
Now i am atheist, and in my final high school assembly, (this was at the point where i definitely knew i was atheist), i didn't say the word god in the song 'jubilate deo', and when our head teacher invited us to pray, i stayed sat down. Even when my friends sitting near me invited me to stand up, i simply said 'i don't believe in god'.
In hindsight, i should probably have chosen not to sit in the isle seat, as that made people notice (i even got a slightly disapproving glance from my headteacher, and i'm known for being a goody-goody-two shoes). Anyway, pretty much no one brought it up, surprisingly, the only significant time was at shirt signing when one of my history teachers jokingly questioned whether my not praying was an act of defiance. To this i simply replied: 'If everyone else wants to believe in their imaginary friend in the sky, they can go ahead, but i don't'.
TL;DR My head teacher in infants made me think god was my dad...
On another note, my copy of 'The God Delusion' was finally delivered! YEEES!
| atheism | t5_2qh2p | ciqiudb | That's one of the best stories i have ever heard, mine's not as good, but here ya go:
I was about 5 or 6 and in year one of a church of England (cofe) infants school. As you can imagine, we had these big religious assemblies pretty much every day as part of the indoctrination process. During one of these assemblies, our head teacher convinced me that God was my dad ('God is the father'). I think you can see where this is going...
So i went home that night, and as my dad comes in from a hard day at work, pretty much the first thing i say to him is 'you're not my dad, god is'... As you can imagine, this got my non-religious parents... Well... A bit angry, so angry that they immediately phoned up my school and told them to stop filling my head with that shite, to paraphrase.
Now i am atheist, and in my final high school assembly, (this was at the point where i definitely knew i was atheist), i didn't say the word god in the song 'jubilate deo', and when our head teacher invited us to pray, i stayed sat down. Even when my friends sitting near me invited me to stand up, i simply said 'i don't believe in god'.
In hindsight, i should probably have chosen not to sit in the isle seat, as that made people notice (i even got a slightly disapproving glance from my headteacher, and i'm known for being a goody-goody-two shoes). Anyway, pretty much no one brought it up, surprisingly, the only significant time was at shirt signing when one of my history teachers jokingly questioned whether my not praying was an act of defiance. To this i simply replied: 'If everyone else wants to believe in their imaginary friend in the sky, they can go ahead, but i don't'. | My head teacher in infants made me think god was my dad...
On another note, my copy of 'The God Delusion' was finally delivered! YEEES! |
GarrettDHall | I grew up as a Pentecostal minister's son. The speaking in tongues, passing out, dancing.. I've seen it all. My favorite story goes like this.. Once during service, my dad was preaching and someone thought it would be a good idea to interrupt with a "message in tongues." First of all, if God wanted to deliver a message to us, why would he do it in unintelligible nonsense? Secondly, of all the shit this "God" character could be doing, like solving world hunger, bringing peace to third world countries, or just generally cheering people up, why was he trying to give church people a message via mindless prattle? Anyways, on with the story, so the guy spits out all his nonsense and, as is customary in Pentecostal churches, everyone waits for someone to "interpret it". So we're all sitting there in silence when a man stands up and says "The lord is saying to us.... THE DEVIL IS A PUNK!"
TL;DR someone gave a message in tongues and the "interpretation" was "the devil is a punk" | I grew up as a Pentecostal minister's son. The speaking in tongues, passing out, dancing.. I've seen it all. My favorite story goes like this.. Once during service, my dad was preaching and someone thought it would be a good idea to interrupt with a "message in tongues." First of all, if God wanted to deliver a message to us, why would he do it in unintelligible nonsense? Secondly, of all the shit this "God" character could be doing, like solving world hunger, bringing peace to third world countries, or just generally cheering people up, why was he trying to give church people a message via mindless prattle? Anyways, on with the story, so the guy spits out all his nonsense and, as is customary in Pentecostal churches, everyone waits for someone to "interpret it". So we're all sitting there in silence when a man stands up and says "The lord is saying to us.... THE DEVIL IS A PUNK!"
TL;DR someone gave a message in tongues and the "interpretation" was "the devil is a punk"
| atheism | t5_2qh2p | cipzq6t | I grew up as a Pentecostal minister's son. The speaking in tongues, passing out, dancing.. I've seen it all. My favorite story goes like this.. Once during service, my dad was preaching and someone thought it would be a good idea to interrupt with a "message in tongues." First of all, if God wanted to deliver a message to us, why would he do it in unintelligible nonsense? Secondly, of all the shit this "God" character could be doing, like solving world hunger, bringing peace to third world countries, or just generally cheering people up, why was he trying to give church people a message via mindless prattle? Anyways, on with the story, so the guy spits out all his nonsense and, as is customary in Pentecostal churches, everyone waits for someone to "interpret it". So we're all sitting there in silence when a man stands up and says "The lord is saying to us.... THE DEVIL IS A PUNK!" | someone gave a message in tongues and the "interpretation" was "the devil is a punk" |
185139 | 1. Usually people would jump back and some would give a little scream. There were distinctive groups that would do different things:
Guys with girlfriends - Jump and give you a pissed off look
Girls - Obnoxious screaming
Black Guys - Holy shit... Jump extremely high, scream, and then run.
2. Occasionally someone may accidentally throw a punch out of a reaction but it wouldn't do any damage. No one would go out of there way to hurt someone. However, groping was a mjor problem with the girls. At least three of the girls I knew had been groped during their time working there and one of them quit because of it. Worst part is most of the girls were under 18.
3. Fucking grown ass people would try to scare us. And some would just get in your face to scream. One time a guy had yelled in my face and I had one of those moments where you think of something to say right there and then and not a week later in the shower.
TLDR: Black people get scared the easiest, violence isn't the issue, dude needs a breath mint. |
Usually people would jump back and some would give a little scream. There were distinctive groups that would do different things:
Guys with girlfriends - Jump and give you a pissed off look
Girls - Obnoxious screaming
Black Guys - Holy shit... Jump extremely high, scream, and then run.
Occasionally someone may accidentally throw a punch out of a reaction but it wouldn't do any damage. No one would go out of there way to hurt someone. However, groping was a mjor problem with the girls. At least three of the girls I knew had been groped during their time working there and one of them quit because of it. Worst part is most of the girls were under 18.
Fucking grown ass people would try to scare us. And some would just get in your face to scream. One time a guy had yelled in my face and I had one of those moments where you think of something to say right there and then and not a week later in the shower.
TLDR: Black people get scared the easiest, violence isn't the issue, dude needs a breath mint.
| JobFair | t5_32ex8 | ciq5niv | Usually people would jump back and some would give a little scream. There were distinctive groups that would do different things:
Guys with girlfriends - Jump and give you a pissed off look
Girls - Obnoxious screaming
Black Guys - Holy shit... Jump extremely high, scream, and then run.
Occasionally someone may accidentally throw a punch out of a reaction but it wouldn't do any damage. No one would go out of there way to hurt someone. However, groping was a mjor problem with the girls. At least three of the girls I knew had been groped during their time working there and one of them quit because of it. Worst part is most of the girls were under 18.
Fucking grown ass people would try to scare us. And some would just get in your face to scream. One time a guy had yelled in my face and I had one of those moments where you think of something to say right there and then and not a week later in the shower. | Black people get scared the easiest, violence isn't the issue, dude needs a breath mint. |
KhaleesiofDothraki1 | It's been a year since I studied conditioning, but I believe an unconditioned response can be replaced by a conditioned response. An unconditioned response cannot be created. Instead, it is a reflexive response elicited by a stimulus without learning. For example, whenever dogs see food, they salivate. The salivation in response to seeing food is a reflexive response, thus making it an unconditioned response.
Now, a conditioned response is a learned response, and that can be changed or unlearned. In /u/tossedidiot's example, before the experiment the girl probably responded to the bunny with either indifference or by wanting to pet it - this is an unconditioned response. But then experimenters added a loud noise (a neutral stimulus) which would make the girl cry. Pairing the loud noise with the bunny made the girl learn to cry whenever she saw the bunny. The crying is now a conditioned response (NOT an unconditioned response). In this instance, the conditioned response COULD have be unlearned if the experimenter's were to repeatedly present the bunny without the loud noise OR they could use positive reinforcement (such as giving the girl candy whenever she went near the bunny or whatever).
**TL;DR** An unconditioned response is a reflexive response to something, but it can be changed in that a conditioned response replaces it.
Edit: Words | It's been a year since I studied conditioning, but I believe an unconditioned response can be replaced by a conditioned response. An unconditioned response cannot be created. Instead, it is a reflexive response elicited by a stimulus without learning. For example, whenever dogs see food, they salivate. The salivation in response to seeing food is a reflexive response, thus making it an unconditioned response.
Now, a conditioned response is a learned response, and that can be changed or unlearned. In /u/tossedidiot's example, before the experiment the girl probably responded to the bunny with either indifference or by wanting to pet it - this is an unconditioned response. But then experimenters added a loud noise (a neutral stimulus) which would make the girl cry. Pairing the loud noise with the bunny made the girl learn to cry whenever she saw the bunny. The crying is now a conditioned response (NOT an unconditioned response). In this instance, the conditioned response COULD have be unlearned if the experimenter's were to repeatedly present the bunny without the loud noise OR they could use positive reinforcement (such as giving the girl candy whenever she went near the bunny or whatever).
TL;DR An unconditioned response is a reflexive response to something, but it can be changed in that a conditioned response replaces it.
Edit: Words
| Advice | t5_2qjdm | ciqi1ei | It's been a year since I studied conditioning, but I believe an unconditioned response can be replaced by a conditioned response. An unconditioned response cannot be created. Instead, it is a reflexive response elicited by a stimulus without learning. For example, whenever dogs see food, they salivate. The salivation in response to seeing food is a reflexive response, thus making it an unconditioned response.
Now, a conditioned response is a learned response, and that can be changed or unlearned. In /u/tossedidiot's example, before the experiment the girl probably responded to the bunny with either indifference or by wanting to pet it - this is an unconditioned response. But then experimenters added a loud noise (a neutral stimulus) which would make the girl cry. Pairing the loud noise with the bunny made the girl learn to cry whenever she saw the bunny. The crying is now a conditioned response (NOT an unconditioned response). In this instance, the conditioned response COULD have be unlearned if the experimenter's were to repeatedly present the bunny without the loud noise OR they could use positive reinforcement (such as giving the girl candy whenever she went near the bunny or whatever). | An unconditioned response is a reflexive response to something, but it can be changed in that a conditioned response replaces it.
Edit: Words |
tsparks1307 | Ayn Rand is NOT my "libertarian goddess". For the record, I think Ayn Rand is a terrible, self-serving author, and an all around awful human being. Atlas Shrugged was the biggest piece of garbage ever put on paper. Fuck Ayn Rand and the horse she rode in on. I'm all for helping others, so long as they are helping themselves. I'm not going to carry anyone, but I'll help them stand up.
Edit: I've been homeless since I was 19. I am healthy, able-bodied, and more than willing to work. There have been numerous programs and services come up that could help me, but instead, the powers that be decided that instead of helping someone who could truly benefit from it, and get their life on track, they give the opportunities to people who squander them. They recently designed and opened up an apartment complex in my town for the homeless. They had 29 spots open. About 200 applied. The people who got these apartments, have been perpetually drunk for the last decade, instead of giving these rent-free apartments to those who could get a job, or make the most of going to college, and end up getting their own places, freeing the free ones for the next batch of people who could use them to get on their feet, they gave these life changing homes to people who just squandered them. I've seen the aftermath first hand. The place has been open about a year, and already it's infested with cockroaches, bed bugs, and the structural damage is so bad they have to remodel. One of the requirements of living there is you're supposed to see a social worker to get your life on track, and eventually become stable enough to move out. Not one single resident who lives there is anywhere close to that, nor are they trying. There was a program called Rapid Re-Housing a couple months ago; the program covered your deposit, first month rent, and application fee. Instead of using this program to help single mothers, or Joe the factory worker, who got laid off, they used the funds to help at least THREE known drug dealers, and TWO mothers who didn't have custody of their children due to neglect charges. Of the two, one of them has already been evicted, and the other hasn't even attempted to get her kids back. In addition to being homeless, I also volunteered at the local resource center/day shelter for the homeless. This is a place where they can get showers, laundry machine access, breakfast and lunch, mail pick-up, clothing, hygiene supplies, etc. I volunteered there, while *also being a client* so I spent time on *both sides* of that social service desk. I've seen these people pan-handling in shifts, I see them at the local library, cursing out the staff, and then when they're told to leave for being disruptive, they curse some more, and want to know why they have to go. Maybe because you're yelling at each other about crap that would make George Carlin blush? And then when somebody asks you politely to keep it down, because your in a damn library, you want to challenge them to a fist fight? I've seen this crap first hand, the entitlement. The more you give, the more they want to take. Don't believe me? Volunteer at a soup kitchen every day for a few months. Don't just go in there a couple times, or once a week, either. That's copping out. Volunteer at a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen several days a week, for a couple of months, and you'll see first hand what I'm talking about.
TL;DR Ayn Rand sucks, and the poor and destitute aren't as humble and good as you think. Only help those who are trying to help themselves, the rest will just take until there's nothing left to take, while the rest of us foot the bill. | Ayn Rand is NOT my "libertarian goddess". For the record, I think Ayn Rand is a terrible, self-serving author, and an all around awful human being. Atlas Shrugged was the biggest piece of garbage ever put on paper. Fuck Ayn Rand and the horse she rode in on. I'm all for helping others, so long as they are helping themselves. I'm not going to carry anyone, but I'll help them stand up.
Edit: I've been homeless since I was 19. I am healthy, able-bodied, and more than willing to work. There have been numerous programs and services come up that could help me, but instead, the powers that be decided that instead of helping someone who could truly benefit from it, and get their life on track, they give the opportunities to people who squander them. They recently designed and opened up an apartment complex in my town for the homeless. They had 29 spots open. About 200 applied. The people who got these apartments, have been perpetually drunk for the last decade, instead of giving these rent-free apartments to those who could get a job, or make the most of going to college, and end up getting their own places, freeing the free ones for the next batch of people who could use them to get on their feet, they gave these life changing homes to people who just squandered them. I've seen the aftermath first hand. The place has been open about a year, and already it's infested with cockroaches, bed bugs, and the structural damage is so bad they have to remodel. One of the requirements of living there is you're supposed to see a social worker to get your life on track, and eventually become stable enough to move out. Not one single resident who lives there is anywhere close to that, nor are they trying. There was a program called Rapid Re-Housing a couple months ago; the program covered your deposit, first month rent, and application fee. Instead of using this program to help single mothers, or Joe the factory worker, who got laid off, they used the funds to help at least THREE known drug dealers, and TWO mothers who didn't have custody of their children due to neglect charges. Of the two, one of them has already been evicted, and the other hasn't even attempted to get her kids back. In addition to being homeless, I also volunteered at the local resource center/day shelter for the homeless. This is a place where they can get showers, laundry machine access, breakfast and lunch, mail pick-up, clothing, hygiene supplies, etc. I volunteered there, while also being a client so I spent time on both sides of that social service desk. I've seen these people pan-handling in shifts, I see them at the local library, cursing out the staff, and then when they're told to leave for being disruptive, they curse some more, and want to know why they have to go. Maybe because you're yelling at each other about crap that would make George Carlin blush? And then when somebody asks you politely to keep it down, because your in a damn library, you want to challenge them to a fist fight? I've seen this crap first hand, the entitlement. The more you give, the more they want to take. Don't believe me? Volunteer at a soup kitchen every day for a few months. Don't just go in there a couple times, or once a week, either. That's copping out. Volunteer at a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen several days a week, for a couple of months, and you'll see first hand what I'm talking about.
TL;DR Ayn Rand sucks, and the poor and destitute aren't as humble and good as you think. Only help those who are trying to help themselves, the rest will just take until there's nothing left to take, while the rest of us foot the bill.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | ciqv807 | Ayn Rand is NOT my "libertarian goddess". For the record, I think Ayn Rand is a terrible, self-serving author, and an all around awful human being. Atlas Shrugged was the biggest piece of garbage ever put on paper. Fuck Ayn Rand and the horse she rode in on. I'm all for helping others, so long as they are helping themselves. I'm not going to carry anyone, but I'll help them stand up.
Edit: I've been homeless since I was 19. I am healthy, able-bodied, and more than willing to work. There have been numerous programs and services come up that could help me, but instead, the powers that be decided that instead of helping someone who could truly benefit from it, and get their life on track, they give the opportunities to people who squander them. They recently designed and opened up an apartment complex in my town for the homeless. They had 29 spots open. About 200 applied. The people who got these apartments, have been perpetually drunk for the last decade, instead of giving these rent-free apartments to those who could get a job, or make the most of going to college, and end up getting their own places, freeing the free ones for the next batch of people who could use them to get on their feet, they gave these life changing homes to people who just squandered them. I've seen the aftermath first hand. The place has been open about a year, and already it's infested with cockroaches, bed bugs, and the structural damage is so bad they have to remodel. One of the requirements of living there is you're supposed to see a social worker to get your life on track, and eventually become stable enough to move out. Not one single resident who lives there is anywhere close to that, nor are they trying. There was a program called Rapid Re-Housing a couple months ago; the program covered your deposit, first month rent, and application fee. Instead of using this program to help single mothers, or Joe the factory worker, who got laid off, they used the funds to help at least THREE known drug dealers, and TWO mothers who didn't have custody of their children due to neglect charges. Of the two, one of them has already been evicted, and the other hasn't even attempted to get her kids back. In addition to being homeless, I also volunteered at the local resource center/day shelter for the homeless. This is a place where they can get showers, laundry machine access, breakfast and lunch, mail pick-up, clothing, hygiene supplies, etc. I volunteered there, while also being a client so I spent time on both sides of that social service desk. I've seen these people pan-handling in shifts, I see them at the local library, cursing out the staff, and then when they're told to leave for being disruptive, they curse some more, and want to know why they have to go. Maybe because you're yelling at each other about crap that would make George Carlin blush? And then when somebody asks you politely to keep it down, because your in a damn library, you want to challenge them to a fist fight? I've seen this crap first hand, the entitlement. The more you give, the more they want to take. Don't believe me? Volunteer at a soup kitchen every day for a few months. Don't just go in there a couple times, or once a week, either. That's copping out. Volunteer at a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen several days a week, for a couple of months, and you'll see first hand what I'm talking about. | Ayn Rand sucks, and the poor and destitute aren't as humble and good as you think. Only help those who are trying to help themselves, the rest will just take until there's nothing left to take, while the rest of us foot the bill. |
Wumaduce | Let's face it, guys will look if you're dressed in anything but a burka. Even then, they'll look. The nipple thing I agree with. If my girlfriend wasn't wearing a bra, I'd ask her to either wear a top that you can't see them through or a way to cover them. That's a matter of decency to me.
As far as the sheer tops where your bra might be visible, for the majority of occasions it's not a big deal. It's the way women's clothes are for a lot of things. Almost everything my girlfriend owns is at least somewhat see-through and/or off the shoulder. If it's a family event or something important to your boyfriend, I could understand him asking you to wear an undershirt or something. For going out or spending the day doing whatever, wear what you want.
As far as the shorts under a skirt/dress, if it's short enough your ass is all "Hi world!" I can understand the unease he's feeling. However, I doubt you're wearing anything that short.
Personally - the only time I mention anything to my girlfriend is if I can make out what her underwear is under what she's wearing, and I only do that because she's asked me about it in the past. Or if there's tags sticking out, because tags annoy me (personal pet peeve)
Tl;Dr - wear what you want, when you want. There's occasions where he could possibly be justified in his feelings (family or formal events), but other than that he's trying to control you and it's not right. | Let's face it, guys will look if you're dressed in anything but a burka. Even then, they'll look. The nipple thing I agree with. If my girlfriend wasn't wearing a bra, I'd ask her to either wear a top that you can't see them through or a way to cover them. That's a matter of decency to me.
As far as the sheer tops where your bra might be visible, for the majority of occasions it's not a big deal. It's the way women's clothes are for a lot of things. Almost everything my girlfriend owns is at least somewhat see-through and/or off the shoulder. If it's a family event or something important to your boyfriend, I could understand him asking you to wear an undershirt or something. For going out or spending the day doing whatever, wear what you want.
As far as the shorts under a skirt/dress, if it's short enough your ass is all "Hi world!" I can understand the unease he's feeling. However, I doubt you're wearing anything that short.
Personally - the only time I mention anything to my girlfriend is if I can make out what her underwear is under what she's wearing, and I only do that because she's asked me about it in the past. Or if there's tags sticking out, because tags annoy me (personal pet peeve)
Tl;Dr - wear what you want, when you want. There's occasions where he could possibly be justified in his feelings (family or formal events), but other than that he's trying to control you and it's not right.
| relationships | t5_2qjvn | ciqoj8g | Let's face it, guys will look if you're dressed in anything but a burka. Even then, they'll look. The nipple thing I agree with. If my girlfriend wasn't wearing a bra, I'd ask her to either wear a top that you can't see them through or a way to cover them. That's a matter of decency to me.
As far as the sheer tops where your bra might be visible, for the majority of occasions it's not a big deal. It's the way women's clothes are for a lot of things. Almost everything my girlfriend owns is at least somewhat see-through and/or off the shoulder. If it's a family event or something important to your boyfriend, I could understand him asking you to wear an undershirt or something. For going out or spending the day doing whatever, wear what you want.
As far as the shorts under a skirt/dress, if it's short enough your ass is all "Hi world!" I can understand the unease he's feeling. However, I doubt you're wearing anything that short.
Personally - the only time I mention anything to my girlfriend is if I can make out what her underwear is under what she's wearing, and I only do that because she's asked me about it in the past. Or if there's tags sticking out, because tags annoy me (personal pet peeve) | wear what you want, when you want. There's occasions where he could possibly be justified in his feelings (family or formal events), but other than that he's trying to control you and it's not right. |
sournote103 | Volt: VERY strong, but his utility drops off in the endgame. A great choice for beginners. I'd start with him. The main problem with him in endgame is a problem that the devs have been working to address: in high-level content, it's just not possible to get pure damage abilities to compete with guns at all (and Volt's most-used abilities are damage-based). That said, his powers do still have decent utility because you can stun large groups of enemies and you have Electric Shield which increases your weapon damage while providing cover for your allies. So if you want to support your allies, Volt could be a good, if unconventional, choice. Also, just a personal thing: try not to use Speed too much. Some people like it, but I find it REALLY annoying when the team's Volt suddenly decides we all have to run as fast as possible.
Saryn: Personally, I'm not a fan, and I don't think she'd really be a good choice for beginners. Plus I've never seen a single Saryn in endgame content so that should tell you something. I find her first ability mostly pointless. Her second does not mesh well with her playstyle. Her third is just mediocre. Her fourth is decent but there are better ones the whole game through. Saryn is most definitely not a support frame.
Frost: A decently strong choice for the whole game. Not the easiest for a new player, I wouldn't think, but certainly a solid choice. Frost is DEFINITELY a support frame with his main power being snow globe, a sphere that you and your allies can shoot out of but enemies can't shoot into.
Vauban: Situationally one of the best Warframes. Outside of Defense and Infested Survival, he dies a lot and isn't particularly great. Not a good choice for a new player, even in the off chance that you could get his parts in a timely manner, I'd suggest someone else for now. He also really wants some higher level mods to work well.
tl;dr I'd suggest Volt (less support, more new-player friendly, more damage) or Frost (more support, less new-player friendly, less damage). | Volt: VERY strong, but his utility drops off in the endgame. A great choice for beginners. I'd start with him. The main problem with him in endgame is a problem that the devs have been working to address: in high-level content, it's just not possible to get pure damage abilities to compete with guns at all (and Volt's most-used abilities are damage-based). That said, his powers do still have decent utility because you can stun large groups of enemies and you have Electric Shield which increases your weapon damage while providing cover for your allies. So if you want to support your allies, Volt could be a good, if unconventional, choice. Also, just a personal thing: try not to use Speed too much. Some people like it, but I find it REALLY annoying when the team's Volt suddenly decides we all have to run as fast as possible.
Saryn: Personally, I'm not a fan, and I don't think she'd really be a good choice for beginners. Plus I've never seen a single Saryn in endgame content so that should tell you something. I find her first ability mostly pointless. Her second does not mesh well with her playstyle. Her third is just mediocre. Her fourth is decent but there are better ones the whole game through. Saryn is most definitely not a support frame.
Frost: A decently strong choice for the whole game. Not the easiest for a new player, I wouldn't think, but certainly a solid choice. Frost is DEFINITELY a support frame with his main power being snow globe, a sphere that you and your allies can shoot out of but enemies can't shoot into.
Vauban: Situationally one of the best Warframes. Outside of Defense and Infested Survival, he dies a lot and isn't particularly great. Not a good choice for a new player, even in the off chance that you could get his parts in a timely manner, I'd suggest someone else for now. He also really wants some higher level mods to work well.
tl;dr I'd suggest Volt (less support, more new-player friendly, more damage) or Frost (more support, less new-player friendly, less damage).
| Warframe | t5_2urg0 | ciqpix5 | Volt: VERY strong, but his utility drops off in the endgame. A great choice for beginners. I'd start with him. The main problem with him in endgame is a problem that the devs have been working to address: in high-level content, it's just not possible to get pure damage abilities to compete with guns at all (and Volt's most-used abilities are damage-based). That said, his powers do still have decent utility because you can stun large groups of enemies and you have Electric Shield which increases your weapon damage while providing cover for your allies. So if you want to support your allies, Volt could be a good, if unconventional, choice. Also, just a personal thing: try not to use Speed too much. Some people like it, but I find it REALLY annoying when the team's Volt suddenly decides we all have to run as fast as possible.
Saryn: Personally, I'm not a fan, and I don't think she'd really be a good choice for beginners. Plus I've never seen a single Saryn in endgame content so that should tell you something. I find her first ability mostly pointless. Her second does not mesh well with her playstyle. Her third is just mediocre. Her fourth is decent but there are better ones the whole game through. Saryn is most definitely not a support frame.
Frost: A decently strong choice for the whole game. Not the easiest for a new player, I wouldn't think, but certainly a solid choice. Frost is DEFINITELY a support frame with his main power being snow globe, a sphere that you and your allies can shoot out of but enemies can't shoot into.
Vauban: Situationally one of the best Warframes. Outside of Defense and Infested Survival, he dies a lot and isn't particularly great. Not a good choice for a new player, even in the off chance that you could get his parts in a timely manner, I'd suggest someone else for now. He also really wants some higher level mods to work well. | I'd suggest Volt (less support, more new-player friendly, more damage) or Frost (more support, less new-player friendly, less damage). |
ALL_PMs_GET_DICK_PIC | I was put into such a program in the first grade, and was in it for four years or so. Then the funding got canceled. I was at the time doing sixth grade work, but d supposed to be in fifth grade. So when the funding got cut, they stuck me in the grade for my age. Fifth. Which I had already done.
Tl;dr - accelerated program was cut, had to repeat fifth grade. | I was put into such a program in the first grade, and was in it for four years or so. Then the funding got canceled. I was at the time doing sixth grade work, but d supposed to be in fifth grade. So when the funding got cut, they stuck me in the grade for my age. Fifth. Which I had already done.
Tl;dr - accelerated program was cut, had to repeat fifth grade.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciqy719 | I was put into such a program in the first grade, and was in it for four years or so. Then the funding got canceled. I was at the time doing sixth grade work, but d supposed to be in fifth grade. So when the funding got cut, they stuck me in the grade for my age. Fifth. Which I had already done. | accelerated program was cut, had to repeat fifth grade. |
Valde314 | >You're starting to get it!
Get what? you cut out a huge portion of the sentence and the following sentence which made the clear point that different champions are stronger/weaker in the meta. In certain other games, the characters/champions are more balanced so every pick serves a specific purpose. League of Legends is not like that. Compare Lux to Ziggs. Ziggs is safer, has more damage over time, has more burst damage, deals more damage to structures, can global clear, can permawaveclear. What does Lux do significantly better than Ziggs? Almost nothing. Which is why Ziggs is played over her.
>Or they're scared to try things that haven't proved to work. Either way, its NOT similar to soloq, at all.
A pro team, in its combined players, probably has over 10,000 games played. Do you think they haven't tried almost everything at least once? Do you think that their coaching staff and analysts have no idea what they're doing? In a competitive meta with competent junglers, higher degree of vision control, and greater team coordination certain picks will be stronger there than in soloque. However, it's still the same game. If Kassadin is super strong in competitive games it's likely that he's strong in soloq games as well. At Gold and below, hell even plat, any pick is viable. But once you get high enough up the ladder, one is only handicapping themselves by playing champions that are significantly weaker than meta champions. If one is extremely good on a champion or it's a hidden OP then yeah it's a great idea to play it. But most players, who don't have a main champion, will perform best using the meta champions.
>No, it couldn't
As I mentioned, and you cut out of your quotation, winrate does not always equal champion popularity. For example, pre-rework Xerath. However, if a champion is majorly terrible, like post-rework Skarner, it will lose popularity because players don't usually like playing champions that don't win games when played well. It's not a perfect correlation between popularity and winrate but the champions with much higher winrates get played more than champions with very low winrates.
>Yes, they are. You WILL NEVER play against someone of exactly equal skill, ever. The pros are so close to each other in terms of mechanical skill and game sense, so they might have a problem playing Ashe or Quinn. You will never have that problem. If you have more games on Ashe/Quinn than Draven/Jinx, THEN THEY'RE THE BETTER/STRONGER PICKS, every single time.
Once again, a logical fallacy. Sure, if you have played twice as many games on a champion you are more comfortable there and will perform better than a champion you are uncomfortable with. However, one cannot ignore the fact that, if they played a stronger pick just as much, they could've been performing EVEN BETTER than on their comfort champion. Pros do have more equal skill levels than the average soloq game, but if a champion is completely broken then the average player can abuse it just as much as a pro player.
Tell me, why do I have 3x as many games played on Zed, TF, and Nidalee but all of them have 30% less winrate than my Kassadin? Because Kassadin is a patently stronger pick, not because I play it better. I know far more/am more comfortable playing Zed/TF/Nidalee than Kassadin, yet my Kassadin winrate is super high. Clearly there are different tiers of champions, however, I'm not advocating to only play those champions.
If one enjoys playing the champion, then go ahead and play it. In soloq, there's a bonus edge that a player has by playing an uncommon champion. Like how everyone assumes Poppy is terrible then get bursted down going "where the fuck did that come from?" But that champion might not be as powerful as a meta champion. For example, compare Gangplank and Lulu top. Is there anything Gangplank does significantly better than Lulu? Except for providing global ult support, there's nothing. Lulu has more damage, utility, range, safety, and can better utilize teleport. If one wants to win, one should always pick Lulu over Gangplank unless you have never played Lulu before and Gangplank you have 100x as much experience.
TL;DR
Different picks are probably stronger than other picks. That is a a fact. Riot wouldn't need to balance their game otherwise and different champions wouldn't have different winrates in soloque if that was the case. | >You're starting to get it!
Get what? you cut out a huge portion of the sentence and the following sentence which made the clear point that different champions are stronger/weaker in the meta. In certain other games, the characters/champions are more balanced so every pick serves a specific purpose. League of Legends is not like that. Compare Lux to Ziggs. Ziggs is safer, has more damage over time, has more burst damage, deals more damage to structures, can global clear, can permawaveclear. What does Lux do significantly better than Ziggs? Almost nothing. Which is why Ziggs is played over her.
>Or they're scared to try things that haven't proved to work. Either way, its NOT similar to soloq, at all.
A pro team, in its combined players, probably has over 10,000 games played. Do you think they haven't tried almost everything at least once? Do you think that their coaching staff and analysts have no idea what they're doing? In a competitive meta with competent junglers, higher degree of vision control, and greater team coordination certain picks will be stronger there than in soloque. However, it's still the same game. If Kassadin is super strong in competitive games it's likely that he's strong in soloq games as well. At Gold and below, hell even plat, any pick is viable. But once you get high enough up the ladder, one is only handicapping themselves by playing champions that are significantly weaker than meta champions. If one is extremely good on a champion or it's a hidden OP then yeah it's a great idea to play it. But most players, who don't have a main champion, will perform best using the meta champions.
>No, it couldn't
As I mentioned, and you cut out of your quotation, winrate does not always equal champion popularity. For example, pre-rework Xerath. However, if a champion is majorly terrible, like post-rework Skarner, it will lose popularity because players don't usually like playing champions that don't win games when played well. It's not a perfect correlation between popularity and winrate but the champions with much higher winrates get played more than champions with very low winrates.
>Yes, they are. You WILL NEVER play against someone of exactly equal skill, ever. The pros are so close to each other in terms of mechanical skill and game sense, so they might have a problem playing Ashe or Quinn. You will never have that problem. If you have more games on Ashe/Quinn than Draven/Jinx, THEN THEY'RE THE BETTER/STRONGER PICKS, every single time.
Once again, a logical fallacy. Sure, if you have played twice as many games on a champion you are more comfortable there and will perform better than a champion you are uncomfortable with. However, one cannot ignore the fact that, if they played a stronger pick just as much, they could've been performing EVEN BETTER than on their comfort champion. Pros do have more equal skill levels than the average soloq game, but if a champion is completely broken then the average player can abuse it just as much as a pro player.
Tell me, why do I have 3x as many games played on Zed, TF, and Nidalee but all of them have 30% less winrate than my Kassadin? Because Kassadin is a patently stronger pick, not because I play it better. I know far more/am more comfortable playing Zed/TF/Nidalee than Kassadin, yet my Kassadin winrate is super high. Clearly there are different tiers of champions, however, I'm not advocating to only play those champions.
If one enjoys playing the champion, then go ahead and play it. In soloq, there's a bonus edge that a player has by playing an uncommon champion. Like how everyone assumes Poppy is terrible then get bursted down going "where the fuck did that come from?" But that champion might not be as powerful as a meta champion. For example, compare Gangplank and Lulu top. Is there anything Gangplank does significantly better than Lulu? Except for providing global ult support, there's nothing. Lulu has more damage, utility, range, safety, and can better utilize teleport. If one wants to win, one should always pick Lulu over Gangplank unless you have never played Lulu before and Gangplank you have 100x as much experience.
TL;DR
Different picks are probably stronger than other picks. That is a a fact. Riot wouldn't need to balance their game otherwise and different champions wouldn't have different winrates in soloque if that was the case.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cirerj9 | You're starting to get it!
Get what? you cut out a huge portion of the sentence and the following sentence which made the clear point that different champions are stronger/weaker in the meta. In certain other games, the characters/champions are more balanced so every pick serves a specific purpose. League of Legends is not like that. Compare Lux to Ziggs. Ziggs is safer, has more damage over time, has more burst damage, deals more damage to structures, can global clear, can permawaveclear. What does Lux do significantly better than Ziggs? Almost nothing. Which is why Ziggs is played over her.
>Or they're scared to try things that haven't proved to work. Either way, its NOT similar to soloq, at all.
A pro team, in its combined players, probably has over 10,000 games played. Do you think they haven't tried almost everything at least once? Do you think that their coaching staff and analysts have no idea what they're doing? In a competitive meta with competent junglers, higher degree of vision control, and greater team coordination certain picks will be stronger there than in soloque. However, it's still the same game. If Kassadin is super strong in competitive games it's likely that he's strong in soloq games as well. At Gold and below, hell even plat, any pick is viable. But once you get high enough up the ladder, one is only handicapping themselves by playing champions that are significantly weaker than meta champions. If one is extremely good on a champion or it's a hidden OP then yeah it's a great idea to play it. But most players, who don't have a main champion, will perform best using the meta champions.
>No, it couldn't
As I mentioned, and you cut out of your quotation, winrate does not always equal champion popularity. For example, pre-rework Xerath. However, if a champion is majorly terrible, like post-rework Skarner, it will lose popularity because players don't usually like playing champions that don't win games when played well. It's not a perfect correlation between popularity and winrate but the champions with much higher winrates get played more than champions with very low winrates.
>Yes, they are. You WILL NEVER play against someone of exactly equal skill, ever. The pros are so close to each other in terms of mechanical skill and game sense, so they might have a problem playing Ashe or Quinn. You will never have that problem. If you have more games on Ashe/Quinn than Draven/Jinx, THEN THEY'RE THE BETTER/STRONGER PICKS, every single time.
Once again, a logical fallacy. Sure, if you have played twice as many games on a champion you are more comfortable there and will perform better than a champion you are uncomfortable with. However, one cannot ignore the fact that, if they played a stronger pick just as much, they could've been performing EVEN BETTER than on their comfort champion. Pros do have more equal skill levels than the average soloq game, but if a champion is completely broken then the average player can abuse it just as much as a pro player.
Tell me, why do I have 3x as many games played on Zed, TF, and Nidalee but all of them have 30% less winrate than my Kassadin? Because Kassadin is a patently stronger pick, not because I play it better. I know far more/am more comfortable playing Zed/TF/Nidalee than Kassadin, yet my Kassadin winrate is super high. Clearly there are different tiers of champions, however, I'm not advocating to only play those champions.
If one enjoys playing the champion, then go ahead and play it. In soloq, there's a bonus edge that a player has by playing an uncommon champion. Like how everyone assumes Poppy is terrible then get bursted down going "where the fuck did that come from?" But that champion might not be as powerful as a meta champion. For example, compare Gangplank and Lulu top. Is there anything Gangplank does significantly better than Lulu? Except for providing global ult support, there's nothing. Lulu has more damage, utility, range, safety, and can better utilize teleport. If one wants to win, one should always pick Lulu over Gangplank unless you have never played Lulu before and Gangplank you have 100x as much experience. | Different picks are probably stronger than other picks. That is a a fact. Riot wouldn't need to balance their game otherwise and different champions wouldn't have different winrates in soloque if that was the case. |
Raakuth | Reddit a few weeks ago: Lucian is OP he dominates all the scene for AD Carries and he excels at literally everything
Riot: How about we nerf him then and make his range lower, that seems reasonable enough and to compensate we can make him even more ability based with lower cooldowns, more chase potential and lower mana costs
Reddit: OMG RITO RIP LUCIAN
Get a grip guys. You aint playing in the LCS, you can play any adc. If you truly enjoy the champion dont go being pissy because they got nerfed and just play your champion anyways. If there's people still playing Jayce, Zac, Cho etc. You can still play an ADC who's tentative nerfs could be way worse. This new cooldown and cooldown reduction for Lucian's dash might even make him actually have powerspikes rather than be good all the time, as he could end up having much more interesting combo's in lane that are much better early game. Sure, range nerfs are HUGE but they've given him decent stuff to compensate, from a trading standpoint he isnt that worse off and mid-late game he has the ability to reposition more frequently each fight making him hard to dive on as a bruiser. I understand Seraph's POV on this, but only as he plays at high elo. 90% of you guys are Bronze or Silver just like me, That's just common knowledge, and if you truly enjoy Lucian and main him like you say just fucking play him. The advantages at low elo from straight outplay far outweigh those from champion strength and none of you have even tried Lucian after these nerfs, why jump to conclusions?
tl;dr: These nerfs wont be too devastating and its what you guys asked for anyways. If you enjoy Lucian, enjoy the fact that he'll still be completely viable in everything besides competitive play (and may even still be seen in competitve for all we know), like every other champion. | Reddit a few weeks ago: Lucian is OP he dominates all the scene for AD Carries and he excels at literally everything
Riot: How about we nerf him then and make his range lower, that seems reasonable enough and to compensate we can make him even more ability based with lower cooldowns, more chase potential and lower mana costs
Reddit: OMG RITO RIP LUCIAN
Get a grip guys. You aint playing in the LCS, you can play any adc. If you truly enjoy the champion dont go being pissy because they got nerfed and just play your champion anyways. If there's people still playing Jayce, Zac, Cho etc. You can still play an ADC who's tentative nerfs could be way worse. This new cooldown and cooldown reduction for Lucian's dash might even make him actually have powerspikes rather than be good all the time, as he could end up having much more interesting combo's in lane that are much better early game. Sure, range nerfs are HUGE but they've given him decent stuff to compensate, from a trading standpoint he isnt that worse off and mid-late game he has the ability to reposition more frequently each fight making him hard to dive on as a bruiser. I understand Seraph's POV on this, but only as he plays at high elo. 90% of you guys are Bronze or Silver just like me, That's just common knowledge, and if you truly enjoy Lucian and main him like you say just fucking play him. The advantages at low elo from straight outplay far outweigh those from champion strength and none of you have even tried Lucian after these nerfs, why jump to conclusions?
tl;dr: These nerfs wont be too devastating and its what you guys asked for anyways. If you enjoy Lucian, enjoy the fact that he'll still be completely viable in everything besides competitive play (and may even still be seen in competitve for all we know), like every other champion.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cirf6zw | Reddit a few weeks ago: Lucian is OP he dominates all the scene for AD Carries and he excels at literally everything
Riot: How about we nerf him then and make his range lower, that seems reasonable enough and to compensate we can make him even more ability based with lower cooldowns, more chase potential and lower mana costs
Reddit: OMG RITO RIP LUCIAN
Get a grip guys. You aint playing in the LCS, you can play any adc. If you truly enjoy the champion dont go being pissy because they got nerfed and just play your champion anyways. If there's people still playing Jayce, Zac, Cho etc. You can still play an ADC who's tentative nerfs could be way worse. This new cooldown and cooldown reduction for Lucian's dash might even make him actually have powerspikes rather than be good all the time, as he could end up having much more interesting combo's in lane that are much better early game. Sure, range nerfs are HUGE but they've given him decent stuff to compensate, from a trading standpoint he isnt that worse off and mid-late game he has the ability to reposition more frequently each fight making him hard to dive on as a bruiser. I understand Seraph's POV on this, but only as he plays at high elo. 90% of you guys are Bronze or Silver just like me, That's just common knowledge, and if you truly enjoy Lucian and main him like you say just fucking play him. The advantages at low elo from straight outplay far outweigh those from champion strength and none of you have even tried Lucian after these nerfs, why jump to conclusions? | These nerfs wont be too devastating and its what you guys asked for anyways. If you enjoy Lucian, enjoy the fact that he'll still be completely viable in everything besides competitive play (and may even still be seen in competitve for all we know), like every other champion. |
Valde314 | >No it isn't dude. Play more games and it'll move to 50%. Also are you climbing consistently? Or are you playing people at your skill level? Last season, i had 666 AP nidalee games, 51.8% winrate. 95 games on OLD yasuo 51.6% winrate. YOU WILL get about 50% winnrate always, when playing at your skill level (And more than 10 goddamn games).
At the time I had a 47% winrate, I was not climbing the ladder. When I get to around 30 games on a champion it's usually a 60% winrate. The point is, stronger champions tend to have higher winrate.
>No, they never do that.
Here is Phreak using winrate as an indicator of power level. By saying "winrate doesn't mean everything," he's clearly indicating it means something. Otherwise he would've said "winrate means nothing."
Here is Meddler talking about differing champion power levels, clearly indicating that they exist and can affect regular players.
TL;DR
-Riot says power levels exist
-Riot uses winrate as a sign of power level strength
| >No it isn't dude. Play more games and it'll move to 50%. Also are you climbing consistently? Or are you playing people at your skill level? Last season, i had 666 AP nidalee games, 51.8% winrate. 95 games on OLD yasuo 51.6% winrate. YOU WILL get about 50% winnrate always, when playing at your skill level (And more than 10 goddamn games).
At the time I had a 47% winrate, I was not climbing the ladder. When I get to around 30 games on a champion it's usually a 60% winrate. The point is, stronger champions tend to have higher winrate.
>No, they never do that.
Here is Phreak using winrate as an indicator of power level. By saying "winrate doesn't mean everything," he's clearly indicating it means something. Otherwise he would've said "winrate means nothing."
Here is Meddler talking about differing champion power levels, clearly indicating that they exist and can affect regular players.
TL;DR
-Riot says power levels exist
-Riot uses winrate as a sign of power level strength
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cisye51 | No it isn't dude. Play more games and it'll move to 50%. Also are you climbing consistently? Or are you playing people at your skill level? Last season, i had 666 AP nidalee games, 51.8% winrate. 95 games on OLD yasuo 51.6% winrate. YOU WILL get about 50% winnrate always, when playing at your skill level (And more than 10 goddamn games).
At the time I had a 47% winrate, I was not climbing the ladder. When I get to around 30 games on a champion it's usually a 60% winrate. The point is, stronger champions tend to have higher winrate.
>No, they never do that.
Here is Phreak using winrate as an indicator of power level. By saying "winrate doesn't mean everything," he's clearly indicating it means something. Otherwise he would've said "winrate means nothing."
Here is Meddler talking about differing champion power levels, clearly indicating that they exist and can affect regular players. | Riot says power levels exist
-Riot uses winrate as a sign of power level strength |
Sakusu | I agree with this post.
Thing is, tho, that gamers tend to be more inside than others,and therefor I think it'll be hard to reach everybody using flyers.
And there is no guaranteed way of reaching them online (unless you've got plenty of cash).
But I guess flyers are still the best way to go.
Hopefully a friend of a smasher finds it and tells him/her about it.
Tl;dr - there's no optimal way to ensure contact with all your local smashers but flyers is pretty damn close. | I agree with this post.
Thing is, tho, that gamers tend to be more inside than others,and therefor I think it'll be hard to reach everybody using flyers.
And there is no guaranteed way of reaching them online (unless you've got plenty of cash).
But I guess flyers are still the best way to go.
Hopefully a friend of a smasher finds it and tells him/her about it.
Tl;dr - there's no optimal way to ensure contact with all your local smashers but flyers is pretty damn close.
| smashbros | t5_2qiep | cird6s8 | I agree with this post.
Thing is, tho, that gamers tend to be more inside than others,and therefor I think it'll be hard to reach everybody using flyers.
And there is no guaranteed way of reaching them online (unless you've got plenty of cash).
But I guess flyers are still the best way to go.
Hopefully a friend of a smasher finds it and tells him/her about it. | there's no optimal way to ensure contact with all your local smashers but flyers is pretty damn close. |
Downfaller | I like Mukla I'll probably take out a Companion for him. But I suggest dropping Leeroy as he needs a timber + Unleash to be strong. Boar+Kill command cost the same and isn't dependent on a charge minion getting through. Now with Leeroy gone I suggest Explosive trap. It does nearly the same damage (2+3Bow) but is a board clear. I found the Animal Companion RNG not reliable but fun so I would drop one for Mukla. 3 drop same thing right. Otherwise the deck has been working in the lower brackets 10-5.
Tl;dr:
+(2x) Explosive Trap
-LeeRoy, Animal Companion
Otherwise No Mukla add companion. | I like Mukla I'll probably take out a Companion for him. But I suggest dropping Leeroy as he needs a timber + Unleash to be strong. Boar+Kill command cost the same and isn't dependent on a charge minion getting through. Now with Leeroy gone I suggest Explosive trap. It does nearly the same damage (2+3Bow) but is a board clear. I found the Animal Companion RNG not reliable but fun so I would drop one for Mukla. 3 drop same thing right. Otherwise the deck has been working in the lower brackets 10-5.
Tl;dr:
+(2x) Explosive Trap
-LeeRoy, Animal Companion
Otherwise No Mukla add companion.
| hearthstone | t5_2w31t | cirq01c | I like Mukla I'll probably take out a Companion for him. But I suggest dropping Leeroy as he needs a timber + Unleash to be strong. Boar+Kill command cost the same and isn't dependent on a charge minion getting through. Now with Leeroy gone I suggest Explosive trap. It does nearly the same damage (2+3Bow) but is a board clear. I found the Animal Companion RNG not reliable but fun so I would drop one for Mukla. 3 drop same thing right. Otherwise the deck has been working in the lower brackets 10-5. | 2x) Explosive Trap
-LeeRoy, Animal Companion
Otherwise No Mukla add companion. |
__s | To efficiently remove Snapjaw they need to use minions. Burn gets value by ignoring attack, but snapjaw has no attack worth ignoring. Hard removal on a 4 drop is meh when you want to save it for Highmane
tl;dr Yeti dies to Shiv+Evis, Snapjaw doesn't. & beast | To efficiently remove Snapjaw they need to use minions. Burn gets value by ignoring attack, but snapjaw has no attack worth ignoring. Hard removal on a 4 drop is meh when you want to save it for Highmane
tl;dr Yeti dies to Shiv+Evis, Snapjaw doesn't. & beast
| hearthstone | t5_2w31t | cirrsf8 | To efficiently remove Snapjaw they need to use minions. Burn gets value by ignoring attack, but snapjaw has no attack worth ignoring. Hard removal on a 4 drop is meh when you want to save it for Highmane | Yeti dies to Shiv+Evis, Snapjaw doesn't. & beast |
Tyranith | Many years ago I was one of the top players in the not very large but still quite competitive community of Soldier of Fortune 2. I was somewhat aware of the "acceleration is bad" mindset, but eschewed it because I realised that with acceleration, you could theoretically have the best of both worlds - the high precision small movements of low sensitivty, as well as the responsive quick turning of high sensitivity. It was really useful in SoF2 because you needed a certain amount of both. The real problem is getting used to it in terms of muscle memory - It takes much more getting used to than a standard linear mouse speed. I had my own custom sensitivity and acceleration cvars set up in the game (the game allowed you to basically customise your own acceleration curve, it was based on the Q3 engine), and practised a shit-ton to get totally used to it, which I did.
Now that I don't play nearly as competitively, and play a wide range of games with wildly differing sensitivity settings, I much prefer to use a linear sensitivity because it's far easier to get used to differing values.
tl;dr: acceleration is perfectly viable if you take the time to customise and get used to it | Many years ago I was one of the top players in the not very large but still quite competitive community of Soldier of Fortune 2. I was somewhat aware of the "acceleration is bad" mindset, but eschewed it because I realised that with acceleration, you could theoretically have the best of both worlds - the high precision small movements of low sensitivty, as well as the responsive quick turning of high sensitivity. It was really useful in SoF2 because you needed a certain amount of both. The real problem is getting used to it in terms of muscle memory - It takes much more getting used to than a standard linear mouse speed. I had my own custom sensitivity and acceleration cvars set up in the game (the game allowed you to basically customise your own acceleration curve, it was based on the Q3 engine), and practised a shit-ton to get totally used to it, which I did.
Now that I don't play nearly as competitively, and play a wide range of games with wildly differing sensitivity settings, I much prefer to use a linear sensitivity because it's far easier to get used to differing values.
tl;dr: acceleration is perfectly viable if you take the time to customise and get used to it
| pcgaming | t5_2qhfg | cisb8kc | Many years ago I was one of the top players in the not very large but still quite competitive community of Soldier of Fortune 2. I was somewhat aware of the "acceleration is bad" mindset, but eschewed it because I realised that with acceleration, you could theoretically have the best of both worlds - the high precision small movements of low sensitivty, as well as the responsive quick turning of high sensitivity. It was really useful in SoF2 because you needed a certain amount of both. The real problem is getting used to it in terms of muscle memory - It takes much more getting used to than a standard linear mouse speed. I had my own custom sensitivity and acceleration cvars set up in the game (the game allowed you to basically customise your own acceleration curve, it was based on the Q3 engine), and practised a shit-ton to get totally used to it, which I did.
Now that I don't play nearly as competitively, and play a wide range of games with wildly differing sensitivity settings, I much prefer to use a linear sensitivity because it's far easier to get used to differing values. | acceleration is perfectly viable if you take the time to customise and get used to it |
TheWijiBoard | If you have a link for this, that'd be great.
Everytime I see a thread about how the Leafs will do this year, or whether person X leaving/joining is better for us (and etc.), I really think that for most part: **It doesn't matter**.
The horrible system we played last year would make most teams suffer and unless we're willing to change it, we will continue to suffer.
TL:DR - I really hope it's true. | If you have a link for this, that'd be great.
Everytime I see a thread about how the Leafs will do this year, or whether person X leaving/joining is better for us (and etc.), I really think that for most part: It doesn't matter .
The horrible system we played last year would make most teams suffer and unless we're willing to change it, we will continue to suffer.
TL:DR - I really hope it's true.
| leafs | t5_2r8hf | cis1q75 | If you have a link for this, that'd be great.
Everytime I see a thread about how the Leafs will do this year, or whether person X leaving/joining is better for us (and etc.), I really think that for most part: It doesn't matter .
The horrible system we played last year would make most teams suffer and unless we're willing to change it, we will continue to suffer. | I really hope it's true. |
-wethegreenpeople- | Generally there's nothing any wants to do, or can do with your IP.
There's two different IP you're using, and internal and external.
And also, like some one else said, IP work like addresses, both you and a website have one, and you're using them to send information between the two.
Getting an external ip is trivial, any time you access a website that website has access to your external ip. You can check your external ip online. If you've ever used a forum, you know about ip bans. They issue them so a person can't make another account from their house, obviously there's ways around this but that's their purpose. When running a forum I can see your external IP. Honestly it's really worthless knowledge without
1) serious knowledge
2) a person just completely disregarding all firewalls and shit
An internal ip works as an address as well, but it works from your computer to your router (yes there's loads of other things that go into this, but keeping it simple, that's how it works) just like an external ip works from your computer to a server.
There's more that you can do with your internal router than with your external, but it required you to all ready connected to your Internet.
You can tell the difference between the two when you look at the numbers. Internal are generally pretty simple and stick to a pattern (192.168.0.0, 192.168.0.1, 10.0.0.1) while external look a little more random (72.185.32.1)
Tldr : it's easy to find an ip, hard to use it, don't worry about it. Use a firewall.
| Generally there's nothing any wants to do, or can do with your IP.
There's two different IP you're using, and internal and external.
And also, like some one else said, IP work like addresses, both you and a website have one, and you're using them to send information between the two.
Getting an external ip is trivial, any time you access a website that website has access to your external ip. You can check your external ip online. If you've ever used a forum, you know about ip bans. They issue them so a person can't make another account from their house, obviously there's ways around this but that's their purpose. When running a forum I can see your external IP. Honestly it's really worthless knowledge without
1) serious knowledge
2) a person just completely disregarding all firewalls and shit
An internal ip works as an address as well, but it works from your computer to your router (yes there's loads of other things that go into this, but keeping it simple, that's how it works) just like an external ip works from your computer to a server.
There's more that you can do with your internal router than with your external, but it required you to all ready connected to your Internet.
You can tell the difference between the two when you look at the numbers. Internal are generally pretty simple and stick to a pattern (192.168.0.0, 192.168.0.1, 10.0.0.1) while external look a little more random (72.185.32.1)
Tldr : it's easy to find an ip, hard to use it, don't worry about it. Use a firewall.
| NoStupidQuestions | t5_2w844 | cisk9pt | Generally there's nothing any wants to do, or can do with your IP.
There's two different IP you're using, and internal and external.
And also, like some one else said, IP work like addresses, both you and a website have one, and you're using them to send information between the two.
Getting an external ip is trivial, any time you access a website that website has access to your external ip. You can check your external ip online. If you've ever used a forum, you know about ip bans. They issue them so a person can't make another account from their house, obviously there's ways around this but that's their purpose. When running a forum I can see your external IP. Honestly it's really worthless knowledge without
1) serious knowledge
2) a person just completely disregarding all firewalls and shit
An internal ip works as an address as well, but it works from your computer to your router (yes there's loads of other things that go into this, but keeping it simple, that's how it works) just like an external ip works from your computer to a server.
There's more that you can do with your internal router than with your external, but it required you to all ready connected to your Internet.
You can tell the difference between the two when you look at the numbers. Internal are generally pretty simple and stick to a pattern (192.168.0.0, 192.168.0.1, 10.0.0.1) while external look a little more random (72.185.32.1) | it's easy to find an ip, hard to use it, don't worry about it. Use a firewall. |
twwwy | >* It was so smooth and it made me feel so pretty, but I feel bad because I didn't mean to come off as being receptive to his affection. His comment today took me aback and I wasn't really expecting it, as before now, I've had a suspicion he was trying to flirt, but never any proof.
>* but he's also the type of douchebag I've historically always fallen for and have been trying to get away from
sounds like the problem is AT YOUR END. that guy's just 'flirting with the cashier', doing repeatedly sucks but if you're not saying/doing anything to discourage it/asking him to stop, why're you blaming him?
neither did he violate your personal space or did anything excessive. he just made a funny comment on a cheesy-quote shirt a doughnut shop assistant was wearing.
> I won't cheat on my boyfriend, but I feel still guilty because I was more receptive to his compliments than I would like.
Stop absolving/deflecting blame from yourself, and learn to handle customers professionally. Or when he comes in the next time, ask him not to engage in light convo ~~'flirting'~~ with you. It's not that hard, is it?
>I'm worried that he's getting more and more aggressive about it, and while I'm not concerned for my safety I still want him to stop flirting with me. It's not progressed to the point where I need to get the police involved or anything, and I'd rather not go there unless I fear for my safety.
Police, Safety, Escalate: WAT? Lady, someone's trying to chat you up. And you've not asked him to stop. What's the deal? Take a chill-pill.
>ow do I tell this guy to fuck off within the restraints of the cashier-customer relationship?
1. Firstly, calm down. No wrath of god/mankind has been brought down upon you. You're just being chatted-up. Cool down and relax,
2. Then, find out why you're so pissed-off. Is is because you subconsciously like being chatted up like that? *"but he's also the type of douchebag I've historically always fallen for"*
3. Once you figure that out, learn how not to 'simply fall for such banter' and act accordingly.
4. Then, realize if you work in retail, some customers will try to do that. It's not really illegal, and if you didn't have a bf (or even in the current scenario) you'd have been receptive.
And he's not done or said anything illegal or even assholic. You're throwing an unnecessary tantrum involving safety-concerns/police/etc. here.
5. Then, when he comes in again, mention your bf casually. If still he doesn't stop, ask him personally to stop that. Most probably: he will.
6. If he doesn't, ask your manager to talk with that guy. Do this as a last resort.
**TL;DR: Chill out. It's just harmless fun. If you don't like it, ask him to stop.**
| > It was so smooth and it made me feel so pretty, but I feel bad because I didn't mean to come off as being receptive to his affection. His comment today took me aback and I wasn't really expecting it, as before now, I've had a suspicion he was trying to flirt, but never any proof.
> but he's also the type of douchebag I've historically always fallen for and have been trying to get away from
sounds like the problem is AT YOUR END. that guy's just 'flirting with the cashier', doing repeatedly sucks but if you're not saying/doing anything to discourage it/asking him to stop, why're you blaming him?
neither did he violate your personal space or did anything excessive. he just made a funny comment on a cheesy-quote shirt a doughnut shop assistant was wearing.
> I won't cheat on my boyfriend, but I feel still guilty because I was more receptive to his compliments than I would like.
Stop absolving/deflecting blame from yourself, and learn to handle customers professionally. Or when he comes in the next time, ask him not to engage in light convo 'flirting' with you. It's not that hard, is it?
>I'm worried that he's getting more and more aggressive about it, and while I'm not concerned for my safety I still want him to stop flirting with me. It's not progressed to the point where I need to get the police involved or anything, and I'd rather not go there unless I fear for my safety.
Police, Safety, Escalate: WAT? Lady, someone's trying to chat you up. And you've not asked him to stop. What's the deal? Take a chill-pill.
>ow do I tell this guy to fuck off within the restraints of the cashier-customer relationship?
Firstly, calm down. No wrath of god/mankind has been brought down upon you. You're just being chatted-up. Cool down and relax,
Then, find out why you're so pissed-off. Is is because you subconsciously like being chatted up like that? "but he's also the type of douchebag I've historically always fallen for"
Once you figure that out, learn how not to 'simply fall for such banter' and act accordingly.
Then, realize if you work in retail, some customers will try to do that. It's not really illegal, and if you didn't have a bf (or even in the current scenario) you'd have been receptive.
And he's not done or said anything illegal or even assholic. You're throwing an unnecessary tantrum involving safety-concerns/police/etc. here.
Then, when he comes in again, mention your bf casually. If still he doesn't stop, ask him personally to stop that. Most probably: he will.
If he doesn't, ask your manager to talk with that guy. Do this as a last resort.
TL;DR: Chill out. It's just harmless fun. If you don't like it, ask him to stop.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | cisivxy | It was so smooth and it made me feel so pretty, but I feel bad because I didn't mean to come off as being receptive to his affection. His comment today took me aback and I wasn't really expecting it, as before now, I've had a suspicion he was trying to flirt, but never any proof.
> but he's also the type of douchebag I've historically always fallen for and have been trying to get away from
sounds like the problem is AT YOUR END. that guy's just 'flirting with the cashier', doing repeatedly sucks but if you're not saying/doing anything to discourage it/asking him to stop, why're you blaming him?
neither did he violate your personal space or did anything excessive. he just made a funny comment on a cheesy-quote shirt a doughnut shop assistant was wearing.
> I won't cheat on my boyfriend, but I feel still guilty because I was more receptive to his compliments than I would like.
Stop absolving/deflecting blame from yourself, and learn to handle customers professionally. Or when he comes in the next time, ask him not to engage in light convo 'flirting' with you. It's not that hard, is it?
>I'm worried that he's getting more and more aggressive about it, and while I'm not concerned for my safety I still want him to stop flirting with me. It's not progressed to the point where I need to get the police involved or anything, and I'd rather not go there unless I fear for my safety.
Police, Safety, Escalate: WAT? Lady, someone's trying to chat you up. And you've not asked him to stop. What's the deal? Take a chill-pill.
>ow do I tell this guy to fuck off within the restraints of the cashier-customer relationship?
Firstly, calm down. No wrath of god/mankind has been brought down upon you. You're just being chatted-up. Cool down and relax,
Then, find out why you're so pissed-off. Is is because you subconsciously like being chatted up like that? "but he's also the type of douchebag I've historically always fallen for"
Once you figure that out, learn how not to 'simply fall for such banter' and act accordingly.
Then, realize if you work in retail, some customers will try to do that. It's not really illegal, and if you didn't have a bf (or even in the current scenario) you'd have been receptive.
And he's not done or said anything illegal or even assholic. You're throwing an unnecessary tantrum involving safety-concerns/police/etc. here.
Then, when he comes in again, mention your bf casually. If still he doesn't stop, ask him personally to stop that. Most probably: he will.
If he doesn't, ask your manager to talk with that guy. Do this as a last resort. | Chill out. It's just harmless fun. If you don't like it, ask him to stop. |
tomatotomatotomato | 1. The study that found high NO2 levels was made in Oxford Street. Not all of London.
2. The [European Green City Index Report]( ranks London 12th of 30 European capitals in terms of Air Quality (an index based on NO2, Ozone, Particulates, SO2 and clean air policies).
TL;DR. Sensationalist bullshit from the guardian. |
The study that found high NO2 levels was made in Oxford Street. Not all of London.
The European Green City Index Report .
TL;DR. Sensationalist bullshit from the guardian.
| europe | t5_2qh4j | cisg10c | The study that found high NO2 levels was made in Oxford Street. Not all of London.
The European Green City Index Report . | Sensationalist bullshit from the guardian. |
Darklordofbunnies | I hear this a lot in this sub, maybe it's because my local EDH scene is more robust but I don't get the complaints. Just as a bar: the only local rule is that using a combo that uses more than 15 of the same activations in a turn costs you a point; this is mostly for gameplay speed, but it does nerf some combos. That is the only restriction we have other than what's in the core rules.
EDIT: I forgot, you have to take 20 or 21 (for get which) infect damage to die instead of 10.
What I don't get is why people are surprised when they sit down for a competitive challenge (playing cards vs each other) and are surprised when someone tries to win.
EDH is not a low power format in many ways it can be as harsh as Modern, singleton restriction notwithstanding. Locally we have a competitive event on Tuesdays and a casual event on Saturdays. Tuesday is brutal, filled with solid, weapons-grade bullshit. Don't want to get stuck playing vs Infect aggro and B/G control bullshit? Come on Saturday and go play against Team America jank. We're still trying to win but we don't need to grind everything to dust by turn 3-4.
TL;DR: If 4-6 dudes just wanted to sit down and see what cool cards you have, we'd look at your binder. | I hear this a lot in this sub, maybe it's because my local EDH scene is more robust but I don't get the complaints. Just as a bar: the only local rule is that using a combo that uses more than 15 of the same activations in a turn costs you a point; this is mostly for gameplay speed, but it does nerf some combos. That is the only restriction we have other than what's in the core rules.
EDIT: I forgot, you have to take 20 or 21 (for get which) infect damage to die instead of 10.
What I don't get is why people are surprised when they sit down for a competitive challenge (playing cards vs each other) and are surprised when someone tries to win.
EDH is not a low power format in many ways it can be as harsh as Modern, singleton restriction notwithstanding. Locally we have a competitive event on Tuesdays and a casual event on Saturdays. Tuesday is brutal, filled with solid, weapons-grade bullshit. Don't want to get stuck playing vs Infect aggro and B/G control bullshit? Come on Saturday and go play against Team America jank. We're still trying to win but we don't need to grind everything to dust by turn 3-4.
TL;DR: If 4-6 dudes just wanted to sit down and see what cool cards you have, we'd look at your binder.
| EDH | t5_2scee | cisnamu | I hear this a lot in this sub, maybe it's because my local EDH scene is more robust but I don't get the complaints. Just as a bar: the only local rule is that using a combo that uses more than 15 of the same activations in a turn costs you a point; this is mostly for gameplay speed, but it does nerf some combos. That is the only restriction we have other than what's in the core rules.
EDIT: I forgot, you have to take 20 or 21 (for get which) infect damage to die instead of 10.
What I don't get is why people are surprised when they sit down for a competitive challenge (playing cards vs each other) and are surprised when someone tries to win.
EDH is not a low power format in many ways it can be as harsh as Modern, singleton restriction notwithstanding. Locally we have a competitive event on Tuesdays and a casual event on Saturdays. Tuesday is brutal, filled with solid, weapons-grade bullshit. Don't want to get stuck playing vs Infect aggro and B/G control bullshit? Come on Saturday and go play against Team America jank. We're still trying to win but we don't need to grind everything to dust by turn 3-4. | If 4-6 dudes just wanted to sit down and see what cool cards you have, we'd look at your binder. |
chewgl | We're approaching this problem of defining the number of protein coding genes from two angles.
One is from a close read of the genome, looking at the 3 billion bases we've sequenced for stretches of DNA that look like protein coding genes. This helps us place the upper-bound on the number of genes there are; the better we become at reading the genome, the lower this number seems to get.
The other is from detecting physical evidence of the protein itself. Remember that the genome only encodes the instructions for making the protein, not only the composition of the protein, but when and where to make it; these instructions need to be interpreted and executed for the protein to physically exist.
We can use mass-spectrometry to detect *fragments* of proteins, however, not all protein fragments are detectable, and so the failure to detect a particular protein for which we have found the instructions for may either mean that the protein does not fragment into detectable fragments, or that the protein wasn't there because the instructions did not require it to be made at that particular point in time. Therefore, such experiments help us set the lower-bound for the number of protein coding genes.
This particular proteomics study takes the latter approach, so it's no surprise that the number is smaller. However, the fact that the upper and lower estimates for the number of genes are getting closer suggests that we're getting close to a real number.
*However*, there is a burgeoning field of research (that I'm partly involved in) that has found many new protein-coding genes. These genes hadn't been found before because they were previously considered as too small to code for anything meaningful. Coincidentally, being too small makes the protein more difficult to be detected by physical means as well, so they were missed by both approaches. Many of these new protein-coding genes are found in the noncoding RNAs mentioned by u/Epistaxis. The number of protein coding genes may yet rise again...
TL;DR: number goes up, number goes down, you *can* explain that. | We're approaching this problem of defining the number of protein coding genes from two angles.
One is from a close read of the genome, looking at the 3 billion bases we've sequenced for stretches of DNA that look like protein coding genes. This helps us place the upper-bound on the number of genes there are; the better we become at reading the genome, the lower this number seems to get.
The other is from detecting physical evidence of the protein itself. Remember that the genome only encodes the instructions for making the protein, not only the composition of the protein, but when and where to make it; these instructions need to be interpreted and executed for the protein to physically exist.
We can use mass-spectrometry to detect fragments of proteins, however, not all protein fragments are detectable, and so the failure to detect a particular protein for which we have found the instructions for may either mean that the protein does not fragment into detectable fragments, or that the protein wasn't there because the instructions did not require it to be made at that particular point in time. Therefore, such experiments help us set the lower-bound for the number of protein coding genes.
This particular proteomics study takes the latter approach, so it's no surprise that the number is smaller. However, the fact that the upper and lower estimates for the number of genes are getting closer suggests that we're getting close to a real number.
However , there is a burgeoning field of research (that I'm partly involved in) that has found many new protein-coding genes. These genes hadn't been found before because they were previously considered as too small to code for anything meaningful. Coincidentally, being too small makes the protein more difficult to be detected by physical means as well, so they were missed by both approaches. Many of these new protein-coding genes are found in the noncoding RNAs mentioned by u/Epistaxis. The number of protein coding genes may yet rise again...
TL;DR: number goes up, number goes down, you can explain that.
| biology | t5_2qhn7 | cisi9av | We're approaching this problem of defining the number of protein coding genes from two angles.
One is from a close read of the genome, looking at the 3 billion bases we've sequenced for stretches of DNA that look like protein coding genes. This helps us place the upper-bound on the number of genes there are; the better we become at reading the genome, the lower this number seems to get.
The other is from detecting physical evidence of the protein itself. Remember that the genome only encodes the instructions for making the protein, not only the composition of the protein, but when and where to make it; these instructions need to be interpreted and executed for the protein to physically exist.
We can use mass-spectrometry to detect fragments of proteins, however, not all protein fragments are detectable, and so the failure to detect a particular protein for which we have found the instructions for may either mean that the protein does not fragment into detectable fragments, or that the protein wasn't there because the instructions did not require it to be made at that particular point in time. Therefore, such experiments help us set the lower-bound for the number of protein coding genes.
This particular proteomics study takes the latter approach, so it's no surprise that the number is smaller. However, the fact that the upper and lower estimates for the number of genes are getting closer suggests that we're getting close to a real number.
However , there is a burgeoning field of research (that I'm partly involved in) that has found many new protein-coding genes. These genes hadn't been found before because they were previously considered as too small to code for anything meaningful. Coincidentally, being too small makes the protein more difficult to be detected by physical means as well, so they were missed by both approaches. Many of these new protein-coding genes are found in the noncoding RNAs mentioned by u/Epistaxis. The number of protein coding genes may yet rise again... | number goes up, number goes down, you can explain that. |
flancresty | Everything that happens on the field can be quantified. The value of that quantification is open to debate, but we are seeing more and more quantification in football every day, with sensors tracking player movement throughout the match, touches, and everything else. Maybe not player spacing as a skill, though that can be measured.
You think the problem is with statistics (and blame this on American sports culture for reasons that obviously have to do with your personal distaste for America and/or its sports culture) when what seems apparent is that you don't think arguments should be supported with facts. Whether it's the jingoistic and unsupported assertion that the use of statistics in American sports blind some to the overuse of stats, or more broadly your continued claim that we can't possibly know anything from statistics, and that an eye test, nay YOUR eye test is the only way to understand the truth of a match.
That you enjoy dismissing entire fields of study because they don't please you is what's truly preposterous. Try being a bit more inquisitive, a bit less certain, a bit more interested in understanding and less in telling everyone else what you know. It may not be how to win the internet, but it's really helpful in real life.
tl/dr: it's not statistics, it's you.
| Everything that happens on the field can be quantified. The value of that quantification is open to debate, but we are seeing more and more quantification in football every day, with sensors tracking player movement throughout the match, touches, and everything else. Maybe not player spacing as a skill, though that can be measured.
You think the problem is with statistics (and blame this on American sports culture for reasons that obviously have to do with your personal distaste for America and/or its sports culture) when what seems apparent is that you don't think arguments should be supported with facts. Whether it's the jingoistic and unsupported assertion that the use of statistics in American sports blind some to the overuse of stats, or more broadly your continued claim that we can't possibly know anything from statistics, and that an eye test, nay YOUR eye test is the only way to understand the truth of a match.
That you enjoy dismissing entire fields of study because they don't please you is what's truly preposterous. Try being a bit more inquisitive, a bit less certain, a bit more interested in understanding and less in telling everyone else what you know. It may not be how to win the internet, but it's really helpful in real life.
tl/dr: it's not statistics, it's you.
| soccer | t5_2qi58 | citrmit | Everything that happens on the field can be quantified. The value of that quantification is open to debate, but we are seeing more and more quantification in football every day, with sensors tracking player movement throughout the match, touches, and everything else. Maybe not player spacing as a skill, though that can be measured.
You think the problem is with statistics (and blame this on American sports culture for reasons that obviously have to do with your personal distaste for America and/or its sports culture) when what seems apparent is that you don't think arguments should be supported with facts. Whether it's the jingoistic and unsupported assertion that the use of statistics in American sports blind some to the overuse of stats, or more broadly your continued claim that we can't possibly know anything from statistics, and that an eye test, nay YOUR eye test is the only way to understand the truth of a match.
That you enjoy dismissing entire fields of study because they don't please you is what's truly preposterous. Try being a bit more inquisitive, a bit less certain, a bit more interested in understanding and less in telling everyone else what you know. It may not be how to win the internet, but it's really helpful in real life. | it's not statistics, it's you. |
derdroflas | Wow, it's amazing how you went through that whole post without countering a single thing I said.
>Everything that happens on the field can be quantified.
No it cannot. Football is a game about space and decision making concerning the attack and defence of that space, made in real time. Judging of performances comes from the quality and quantity of decisions made.
No statistic can measure that.
I've actually spent a lot of time researching these things. And I admit I was overly dismissive of stats in the beginning, but that was mostly in reference to people like you who throw a useless stat like 'shots taken' as if it means anything.
[This is a great video by a professional in the field which might help you better understand how exactly stats are used by the professionals. And you will see why they have a limited role.](
>when what seems apparent is that you don't think arguments should be supported with facts.
No. I'm saying that there are few accurate enough facts which can be used.
For example your use of shots taken, was a fucking atrocious use of stats.
>or more broadly your continued claim that we can't possibly know anything from statistics
Wrong I never said that.
I said that their role is limited. And this is backed up by football clubs and how they run. Even the biggest clubs utilise statistics in a very limited manner.
>and blame this on American sports culture for reasons that obviously have to do with your personal distaste for America
You know instead of trying to sound smart and educated, if you tried reading more carefully, it would help you so much.
I never blamed my problem with statistics on American sports culture. I blamed my problem of Americans failing to understand the limited role of stats in the sport on American sports culture.
> nay YOUR eye test is the only way to understand the truth of a match.
No, you witless ape, I never said that either. Christ.
>That you enjoy dismissing entire fields of study because they don't please you is what's truly preposterous.
I never did that either. I said their role is limited. And it is. The biggest of clubs still have very small performance analysis departments.
The sport is too dynamic and there are too many variables for too much to be read into those thing.
Moreover, what I said was in response to your truly autistic use of statistics.
TL;DR :- Less patronising and more careful reading and reflection/research about the sport would be best for you. | Wow, it's amazing how you went through that whole post without countering a single thing I said.
>Everything that happens on the field can be quantified.
No it cannot. Football is a game about space and decision making concerning the attack and defence of that space, made in real time. Judging of performances comes from the quality and quantity of decisions made.
No statistic can measure that.
I've actually spent a lot of time researching these things. And I admit I was overly dismissive of stats in the beginning, but that was mostly in reference to people like you who throw a useless stat like 'shots taken' as if it means anything.
[This is a great video by a professional in the field which might help you better understand how exactly stats are used by the professionals. And you will see why they have a limited role.](
>when what seems apparent is that you don't think arguments should be supported with facts.
No. I'm saying that there are few accurate enough facts which can be used.
For example your use of shots taken, was a fucking atrocious use of stats.
>or more broadly your continued claim that we can't possibly know anything from statistics
Wrong I never said that.
I said that their role is limited. And this is backed up by football clubs and how they run. Even the biggest clubs utilise statistics in a very limited manner.
>and blame this on American sports culture for reasons that obviously have to do with your personal distaste for America
You know instead of trying to sound smart and educated, if you tried reading more carefully, it would help you so much.
I never blamed my problem with statistics on American sports culture. I blamed my problem of Americans failing to understand the limited role of stats in the sport on American sports culture.
> nay YOUR eye test is the only way to understand the truth of a match.
No, you witless ape, I never said that either. Christ.
>That you enjoy dismissing entire fields of study because they don't please you is what's truly preposterous.
I never did that either. I said their role is limited. And it is. The biggest of clubs still have very small performance analysis departments.
The sport is too dynamic and there are too many variables for too much to be read into those thing.
Moreover, what I said was in response to your truly autistic use of statistics.
TL;DR :- Less patronising and more careful reading and reflection/research about the sport would be best for you.
| soccer | t5_2qi58 | ciu3o5p | Wow, it's amazing how you went through that whole post without countering a single thing I said.
>Everything that happens on the field can be quantified.
No it cannot. Football is a game about space and decision making concerning the attack and defence of that space, made in real time. Judging of performances comes from the quality and quantity of decisions made.
No statistic can measure that.
I've actually spent a lot of time researching these things. And I admit I was overly dismissive of stats in the beginning, but that was mostly in reference to people like you who throw a useless stat like 'shots taken' as if it means anything.
[This is a great video by a professional in the field which might help you better understand how exactly stats are used by the professionals. And you will see why they have a limited role.](
>when what seems apparent is that you don't think arguments should be supported with facts.
No. I'm saying that there are few accurate enough facts which can be used.
For example your use of shots taken, was a fucking atrocious use of stats.
>or more broadly your continued claim that we can't possibly know anything from statistics
Wrong I never said that.
I said that their role is limited. And this is backed up by football clubs and how they run. Even the biggest clubs utilise statistics in a very limited manner.
>and blame this on American sports culture for reasons that obviously have to do with your personal distaste for America
You know instead of trying to sound smart and educated, if you tried reading more carefully, it would help you so much.
I never blamed my problem with statistics on American sports culture. I blamed my problem of Americans failing to understand the limited role of stats in the sport on American sports culture.
> nay YOUR eye test is the only way to understand the truth of a match.
No, you witless ape, I never said that either. Christ.
>That you enjoy dismissing entire fields of study because they don't please you is what's truly preposterous.
I never did that either. I said their role is limited. And it is. The biggest of clubs still have very small performance analysis departments.
The sport is too dynamic and there are too many variables for too much to be read into those thing.
Moreover, what I said was in response to your truly autistic use of statistics. | Less patronising and more careful reading and reflection/research about the sport would be best for you. |
aronsz | How on Earth did you get -156 comment karma AND gold in one five-hundred-comment post? I'm a bit tired and I already read War and Peace and the Ilyad this evening, so can you first-hand TL;DR that whole thread for me? | How on Earth did you get -156 comment karma AND gold in one five-hundred-comment post? I'm a bit tired and I already read War and Peace and the Ilyad this evening, so can you first-hand TL;DR that whole thread for me?
| WorldofTanks | t5_2s113 | ciswdcu | How on Earth did you get -156 comment karma AND gold in one five-hundred-comment post? I'm a bit tired and I already read War and Peace and the Ilyad this evening, so can you first-hand | that whole thread for me? |
tubcat | From my brief experience, the $100 figures are big juggernaut type units for each faction that aren't even used in standard battle group play. Some factions do have some big heavy medium-expensive units that see frequent play, but you're looking at a faction that is built on the theme of a couple heavies vs other teams with a swarm of little guys.
Overall, it's more a skirmish game. so that starter box and a couple of extra figures can make a fun group you can take and play successfully at your local meetup if you have some skill. Even if you field fewer figs that what many WH40K players do, it's still a hobby miniatures game. There's still a lot of money and time put into it simply because part of the attraction of mini-war gaming is buying little statues and painting them up so they look better than everyone else around.
tl:dr I'm not crazy about mini gaming, but if Warmachine/Hordes have a decent starting price point for those wanting to dip their feet in. | From my brief experience, the $100 figures are big juggernaut type units for each faction that aren't even used in standard battle group play. Some factions do have some big heavy medium-expensive units that see frequent play, but you're looking at a faction that is built on the theme of a couple heavies vs other teams with a swarm of little guys.
Overall, it's more a skirmish game. so that starter box and a couple of extra figures can make a fun group you can take and play successfully at your local meetup if you have some skill. Even if you field fewer figs that what many WH40K players do, it's still a hobby miniatures game. There's still a lot of money and time put into it simply because part of the attraction of mini-war gaming is buying little statues and painting them up so they look better than everyone else around.
tl:dr I'm not crazy about mini gaming, but if Warmachine/Hordes have a decent starting price point for those wanting to dip their feet in.
| boardgames | t5_2qmjp | cit9mks | From my brief experience, the $100 figures are big juggernaut type units for each faction that aren't even used in standard battle group play. Some factions do have some big heavy medium-expensive units that see frequent play, but you're looking at a faction that is built on the theme of a couple heavies vs other teams with a swarm of little guys.
Overall, it's more a skirmish game. so that starter box and a couple of extra figures can make a fun group you can take and play successfully at your local meetup if you have some skill. Even if you field fewer figs that what many WH40K players do, it's still a hobby miniatures game. There's still a lot of money and time put into it simply because part of the attraction of mini-war gaming is buying little statues and painting them up so they look better than everyone else around. | I'm not crazy about mini gaming, but if Warmachine/Hordes have a decent starting price point for those wanting to dip their feet in. |
ay1717 | Depends on how you're mixing it, but that seems like a really broad statement to make and clearly very misleading. People mix lavs and shotgun mics all the time, even in the way I was describing where certain things have to cut from one source to another. It all depends on the smoothness of the sound edit, and it's not that hard to fade in between those two things.
Lavs are a lot better at getting vocals in a controlled environment (i.e. interviews). I don't know where this information regarding using only a boom mic came from, but if you have lavs, use them.
There's no reason you can't use both right? I'm not familiar with the DR60D but my guess is that it has more than one input, so you'll be at least able to use the lav-boom setup on oners and then just put the NTG3 into the camera for if you need more than one subject.
TL;DR - In a one-person interview setup, if you have enough inputs on your sound recorder, and you have lavs in addition to a shotgun mic, use them all, it'll sound better and that's generally how people do that. In a multi-person interview, you are correct in doing that setup with two lavs and a shotgun, though cameramounted is not ideal (but you only have so many hands I guess). | Depends on how you're mixing it, but that seems like a really broad statement to make and clearly very misleading. People mix lavs and shotgun mics all the time, even in the way I was describing where certain things have to cut from one source to another. It all depends on the smoothness of the sound edit, and it's not that hard to fade in between those two things.
Lavs are a lot better at getting vocals in a controlled environment (i.e. interviews). I don't know where this information regarding using only a boom mic came from, but if you have lavs, use them.
There's no reason you can't use both right? I'm not familiar with the DR60D but my guess is that it has more than one input, so you'll be at least able to use the lav-boom setup on oners and then just put the NTG3 into the camera for if you need more than one subject.
TL;DR - In a one-person interview setup, if you have enough inputs on your sound recorder, and you have lavs in addition to a shotgun mic, use them all, it'll sound better and that's generally how people do that. In a multi-person interview, you are correct in doing that setup with two lavs and a shotgun, though cameramounted is not ideal (but you only have so many hands I guess).
| Filmmakers | t5_2r1ip | cit8x04 | Depends on how you're mixing it, but that seems like a really broad statement to make and clearly very misleading. People mix lavs and shotgun mics all the time, even in the way I was describing where certain things have to cut from one source to another. It all depends on the smoothness of the sound edit, and it's not that hard to fade in between those two things.
Lavs are a lot better at getting vocals in a controlled environment (i.e. interviews). I don't know where this information regarding using only a boom mic came from, but if you have lavs, use them.
There's no reason you can't use both right? I'm not familiar with the DR60D but my guess is that it has more than one input, so you'll be at least able to use the lav-boom setup on oners and then just put the NTG3 into the camera for if you need more than one subject. | In a one-person interview setup, if you have enough inputs on your sound recorder, and you have lavs in addition to a shotgun mic, use them all, it'll sound better and that's generally how people do that. In a multi-person interview, you are correct in doing that setup with two lavs and a shotgun, though cameramounted is not ideal (but you only have so many hands I guess). |
bushypeepee | Agreed, and since it's going to take place whether or not we like it, or whether or not it makes sense, let's make lemonade out of these lemons!
We have all heard of book burning, but I can say that the majority of us have never actually seen it happening. Why not publicize the date, time and location, and make it a full-fledged community event! I've still got that white t-shirt that I bought specially for that weekend in June =). Families and friends can all turn up together and we can even let the children toss in a few of the banned books themselves, because this whole event is to protect them, right?
I would totally turn up and I'll cheer the loudest, because I'm ssoo excited! I've only come across the idea of book burning at Bebelplatz in Germany, and in the book Fahrenheit 451. Oh my that gives me an idea! We can even check if the autoignition point of books is really 233 Celsius (451 Fahrenheit)!!
Oh my goodness look at all my lemonade!!!
tl;dr Make it a public event & let children toss in the books | Agreed, and since it's going to take place whether or not we like it, or whether or not it makes sense, let's make lemonade out of these lemons!
We have all heard of book burning, but I can say that the majority of us have never actually seen it happening. Why not publicize the date, time and location, and make it a full-fledged community event! I've still got that white t-shirt that I bought specially for that weekend in June =). Families and friends can all turn up together and we can even let the children toss in a few of the banned books themselves, because this whole event is to protect them, right?
I would totally turn up and I'll cheer the loudest, because I'm ssoo excited! I've only come across the idea of book burning at Bebelplatz in Germany, and in the book Fahrenheit 451. Oh my that gives me an idea! We can even check if the autoignition point of books is really 233 Celsius (451 Fahrenheit)!!
Oh my goodness look at all my lemonade!!!
tl;dr Make it a public event & let children toss in the books
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ciu2ud7 | Agreed, and since it's going to take place whether or not we like it, or whether or not it makes sense, let's make lemonade out of these lemons!
We have all heard of book burning, but I can say that the majority of us have never actually seen it happening. Why not publicize the date, time and location, and make it a full-fledged community event! I've still got that white t-shirt that I bought specially for that weekend in June =). Families and friends can all turn up together and we can even let the children toss in a few of the banned books themselves, because this whole event is to protect them, right?
I would totally turn up and I'll cheer the loudest, because I'm ssoo excited! I've only come across the idea of book burning at Bebelplatz in Germany, and in the book Fahrenheit 451. Oh my that gives me an idea! We can even check if the autoignition point of books is really 233 Celsius (451 Fahrenheit)!!
Oh my goodness look at all my lemonade!!! | Make it a public event & let children toss in the books |
BrainWav | There was a story last week which was similar.
If you're not IT, don't go into the server room. Granted, they should have had it locked and/or head of IT shouldn't have let you in.
There was likely a good reason they hadn't rebooted the server, and while it worked (as far as you know) this time, that doesn't mean a sudden, unplanned restart won't be an issue next time, or that it will be this simple on a different machine. Doubly-so as you hit a hardware button to do it, not a controlled restart via software.
It's also possible that they were attempting to find a root cause and/or didn't want to reboot the server as you may have taken down other departments' services. It might have reached the point where IT would do it themselves, but "reboot the server" is usually not the first option, and a hard reset is always a last resort.
tl;dr: You got lucky. | There was a story last week which was similar.
If you're not IT, don't go into the server room. Granted, they should have had it locked and/or head of IT shouldn't have let you in.
There was likely a good reason they hadn't rebooted the server, and while it worked (as far as you know) this time, that doesn't mean a sudden, unplanned restart won't be an issue next time, or that it will be this simple on a different machine. Doubly-so as you hit a hardware button to do it, not a controlled restart via software.
It's also possible that they were attempting to find a root cause and/or didn't want to reboot the server as you may have taken down other departments' services. It might have reached the point where IT would do it themselves, but "reboot the server" is usually not the first option, and a hard reset is always a last resort.
tl;dr: You got lucky.
| talesfromtechsupport | t5_2sfg5 | citstsy | There was a story last week which was similar.
If you're not IT, don't go into the server room. Granted, they should have had it locked and/or head of IT shouldn't have let you in.
There was likely a good reason they hadn't rebooted the server, and while it worked (as far as you know) this time, that doesn't mean a sudden, unplanned restart won't be an issue next time, or that it will be this simple on a different machine. Doubly-so as you hit a hardware button to do it, not a controlled restart via software.
It's also possible that they were attempting to find a root cause and/or didn't want to reboot the server as you may have taken down other departments' services. It might have reached the point where IT would do it themselves, but "reboot the server" is usually not the first option, and a hard reset is always a last resort. | You got lucky. |
holocauster-ride | The IMF is deliberately undermining itself, according to some rumors.
edit: sources (again these are not that reputable, so grains of salt):
- [G20 gives US ultimatum over IMF reform](
- [Reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions: The IMF Might Not Live to See Its Anniversary](
- [Wall Street Journal: IMF Members Weigh Options to Sidestep U.S. Congress on Overhaul](
TL;DR - the members of the IMF other than the US want some reforms, but the US is blocking them with its permanent veto, so the IMF member nations are implementing a controlled drawdown of the IMF and replacement with an alternate system. | The IMF is deliberately undermining itself, according to some rumors.
edit: sources (again these are not that reputable, so grains of salt):
[G20 gives US ultimatum over IMF reform](
[Reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions: The IMF Might Not Live to See Its Anniversary](
[Wall Street Journal: IMF Members Weigh Options to Sidestep U.S. Congress on Overhaul](
TL;DR - the members of the IMF other than the US want some reforms, but the US is blocking them with its permanent veto, so the IMF member nations are implementing a controlled drawdown of the IMF and replacement with an alternate system.
| conspiracy | t5_2qh4r | civ83s3 | The IMF is deliberately undermining itself, according to some rumors.
edit: sources (again these are not that reputable, so grains of salt):
[G20 gives US ultimatum over IMF reform](
[Reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions: The IMF Might Not Live to See Its Anniversary](
[Wall Street Journal: IMF Members Weigh Options to Sidestep U.S. Congress on Overhaul]( | the members of the IMF other than the US want some reforms, but the US is blocking them with its permanent veto, so the IMF member nations are implementing a controlled drawdown of the IMF and replacement with an alternate system. |
tzumukan | I want to say my opinion. I'd love if hearthstone increase the interactivity between opponents. Imho this could be done with a little change to secret mechanic
Let be that we can choose when activate the secret.
When we play a secret, we can have a little time of freeze game (2 second can be enough) when the opponent make a play. In this window of time we can.click on the secret we want to activate that has his condiction activated.
With this little change we can have the interaction we want and stop some meta.
Let's make an example. If I have a spellbender secret on, when the opponent play a spell we have a 1-2 second of time for clicking the secret icon and activate him, if you no click him the secret will not activate. You will see the spell used but not on who is used. You have to decide if block the spell or not
This will open the game to a real bluff mechanic between the secret keeper and the player in turn that will make a great difference from pro and casual player
Sorry for my english, this isn't my native language.
Tl;Dr : make the secret "interactive" with the possibility of click on their icon to decide if activate them. | I want to say my opinion. I'd love if hearthstone increase the interactivity between opponents. Imho this could be done with a little change to secret mechanic
Let be that we can choose when activate the secret.
When we play a secret, we can have a little time of freeze game (2 second can be enough) when the opponent make a play. In this window of time we can.click on the secret we want to activate that has his condiction activated.
With this little change we can have the interaction we want and stop some meta.
Let's make an example. If I have a spellbender secret on, when the opponent play a spell we have a 1-2 second of time for clicking the secret icon and activate him, if you no click him the secret will not activate. You will see the spell used but not on who is used. You have to decide if block the spell or not
This will open the game to a real bluff mechanic between the secret keeper and the player in turn that will make a great difference from pro and casual player
Sorry for my english, this isn't my native language.
Tl;Dr : make the secret "interactive" with the possibility of click on their icon to decide if activate them.
| hearthstone | t5_2w31t | civj94i | I want to say my opinion. I'd love if hearthstone increase the interactivity between opponents. Imho this could be done with a little change to secret mechanic
Let be that we can choose when activate the secret.
When we play a secret, we can have a little time of freeze game (2 second can be enough) when the opponent make a play. In this window of time we can.click on the secret we want to activate that has his condiction activated.
With this little change we can have the interaction we want and stop some meta.
Let's make an example. If I have a spellbender secret on, when the opponent play a spell we have a 1-2 second of time for clicking the secret icon and activate him, if you no click him the secret will not activate. You will see the spell used but not on who is used. You have to decide if block the spell or not
This will open the game to a real bluff mechanic between the secret keeper and the player in turn that will make a great difference from pro and casual player
Sorry for my english, this isn't my native language. | make the secret "interactive" with the possibility of click on their icon to decide if activate them. |
MysterySteve | Loving today so far! I think streaming some of the mismatches between Koreans and local Georgians on day 1 was a mistake (would rather see weaker players play against each other in a competitive match rather than Violet walk over some poor Atlantan when we're going to get to see him play the rest of the weekend) but so many of today's NA-heavy games have really shone.
The production making use of all the English language natives in interviews and hype vids is the first time I've seen this sort of thing done right. Again, when you've got Koreans playing in what they view as a lower division tournament you get the kind of bland or confused comments we got in the often cringeworthy WCS NA vids. Here though, they're really awesome.
TLDR: More investment in local talent pls, this feels really fresh and fun to watch. | Loving today so far! I think streaming some of the mismatches between Koreans and local Georgians on day 1 was a mistake (would rather see weaker players play against each other in a competitive match rather than Violet walk over some poor Atlantan when we're going to get to see him play the rest of the weekend) but so many of today's NA-heavy games have really shone.
The production making use of all the English language natives in interviews and hype vids is the first time I've seen this sort of thing done right. Again, when you've got Koreans playing in what they view as a lower division tournament you get the kind of bland or confused comments we got in the often cringeworthy WCS NA vids. Here though, they're really awesome.
TLDR: More investment in local talent pls, this feels really fresh and fun to watch.
| starcraft | t5_2qpp6 | civm5t7 | Loving today so far! I think streaming some of the mismatches between Koreans and local Georgians on day 1 was a mistake (would rather see weaker players play against each other in a competitive match rather than Violet walk over some poor Atlantan when we're going to get to see him play the rest of the weekend) but so many of today's NA-heavy games have really shone.
The production making use of all the English language natives in interviews and hype vids is the first time I've seen this sort of thing done right. Again, when you've got Koreans playing in what they view as a lower division tournament you get the kind of bland or confused comments we got in the often cringeworthy WCS NA vids. Here though, they're really awesome. | More investment in local talent pls, this feels really fresh and fun to watch. |
nkryik | >That's some first rate delusion.
Actually, most of those are provable, and most are true. Let's go by claim, shall we? I'll avoid using a third-party fact-checker such as Snopes or Politifact, and just go by freely available numbers.
**Deficit**
This one's relatively easy - comparing the most recent budget deficit (2013) to the one that was current when Pres. Obama took office (2009). I'm using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data that's publically available [here]( I'll also throw in the 2014 projected surplus/deficit figures, just to be thorough.
* 2009 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$1,412,688 million.
* 2013 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$679,502 million.
* 2014 Total Surplus/Deficit (projected): -$648,805 million.
Going by the 2013 numbers, the deficit has been reduced by $733,186 million, or 51.90% - more than half of the 2009 deficit.
*Correct*
**Taxation**
I'm only going to compare federal taxation rates - quite obviously, the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction over state rates, and thus can only affect the total taxation rate to a certain extent. To avoid complication, I'm also only going to focus on individual tax rates - feel free to compare the rest on your own time. From the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, I found [this summary]( that compares tax rates for a family of 4 from 1955 to 2011. Using the "Median Income" column:
* 1955 (earliest known): Income=$4,919; Tax rate=5.64%
* 1981 (highest rate): Income=$26,274; Tax rate=11.79%
* 2011 (latest known): Income=$74,964; Tax rate=5.32%.
This data includes, where applicable, the EITC and other benefits. And again, a tax rate of 5.32% is lower than any time in the past 56 years - not quite 60 years, but close.
*Correct*
**Smallest Government**
There really isn't any definitive and widely accepted way to measure this data, but one possible method is by using total budgeted federal spending as a percentage of GDP. I'm starting to get bored, so that's what I'll use. Going back to the OMB data I used for the "Deficit" analysis, table 1.2 conveniently gives receipts, outlays and surplus/deficit as a percentage of GDP. Eisenhower's tenure was from 1953 to 1960. Obama's, as I'm sure you know, was from 2009 to present. I'll compare all these points:
* 1953 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 19.3%
* 1960 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 15.2%
* 2009 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (highest since 1946): 20.8%
* 2013 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 17.0%
* 2014 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (projected): 17.0%
Turns out, this measurement of government size shows that the size of the government under Obama was higher than Eisenhower's for most comparisons. However, as an interesting fact, the size of government decreased more under Obama to date than it did under Eisenhower for the first 6 years of his term.
*Incorrect*
**Executive Orders**
This is actually the easiest to go over, and it's been done [several]( [times]( [already]( Still, let's rehash it one more time. There have been 17 presidents in office in the past 100 years. I'll list them all, for completeness - sources are the National Archives [Executive Order Disposition Tables]( and the [American Presidency Project]( at UC Santa Barbara.
* Wilson (1913-1920): 1,803 (1544-3347); 225.38/year
* Harding (1921-1923): 522 (3348-3870); 216.27/year
* Coolidge (1923-1928): 1203 (3871-5074); 215.14/year
* Hoover (1929-1932): 968 (5075-6070); 242.00/year
* Roosevelt (1933-1945): 3522 (6071-9537); 290.71/year
* Truman (1945-1952): 907 (9538-10431); 116.57/year
* Eisenhower (1953-1960): 484 (10432-10913); 60.50/year
* Kennedy (1961-1963): 214 (10914-11127); 75.40/year
* Johnson (1963-1968): 325 (11128-11451); 62.30/year
* Nixon (1969-1974): 346 (11452-11797); 62.30/year
* Ford (1974-1976): 169 (11798-11966); 68.92/year
* Carter (1977-1980): 320 (11967-12286); 80.00/year
* Reagan (1981-1988): 381 (12287-12667); 47.63/year
* Bush I (1989-1992): 166 (12668-12833); 41.50/year
* Clinton (1993-2000): 364 (12834-13197); 45.50/year
* Bush II (2001-2008): 291 (13198-13488); 36.38/year
* Obama (2009-present): 182 (13489-13670); 33.58/year
Ok, now that wall of text is over, it's fairly plain to see that Obama's signed, to date, the third-fewest number of executive orders in the past 100 years. The only ones who signed fewer are Ford (2-year tenure) and Bush 1 (4-year tenure). However, if you look at the *rate* that Obama's signed EOs per year, you have to go all the way back to *Grover Cleveland's first term* to find someone with a lower rate of EO signing. That's 1885-1888, if you were wondering, or 126 years ago.
*Partially true*
**TL;DR: 2 true claims, one false claim, and one partially true claim are very far from "first rate delusion"** | >That's some first rate delusion.
Actually, most of those are provable, and most are true. Let's go by claim, shall we? I'll avoid using a third-party fact-checker such as Snopes or Politifact, and just go by freely available numbers.
Deficit
This one's relatively easy - comparing the most recent budget deficit (2013) to the one that was current when Pres. Obama took office (2009). I'm using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data that's publically available [here]( I'll also throw in the 2014 projected surplus/deficit figures, just to be thorough.
2009 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$1,412,688 million.
2013 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$679,502 million.
2014 Total Surplus/Deficit (projected): -$648,805 million.
Going by the 2013 numbers, the deficit has been reduced by $733,186 million, or 51.90% - more than half of the 2009 deficit.
Correct
Taxation
I'm only going to compare federal taxation rates - quite obviously, the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction over state rates, and thus can only affect the total taxation rate to a certain extent. To avoid complication, I'm also only going to focus on individual tax rates - feel free to compare the rest on your own time. From the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, I found [this summary]( that compares tax rates for a family of 4 from 1955 to 2011. Using the "Median Income" column:
1955 (earliest known): Income=$4,919; Tax rate=5.64%
1981 (highest rate): Income=$26,274; Tax rate=11.79%
2011 (latest known): Income=$74,964; Tax rate=5.32%.
This data includes, where applicable, the EITC and other benefits. And again, a tax rate of 5.32% is lower than any time in the past 56 years - not quite 60 years, but close.
Correct
Smallest Government
There really isn't any definitive and widely accepted way to measure this data, but one possible method is by using total budgeted federal spending as a percentage of GDP. I'm starting to get bored, so that's what I'll use. Going back to the OMB data I used for the "Deficit" analysis, table 1.2 conveniently gives receipts, outlays and surplus/deficit as a percentage of GDP. Eisenhower's tenure was from 1953 to 1960. Obama's, as I'm sure you know, was from 2009 to present. I'll compare all these points:
1953 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 19.3%
1960 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 15.2%
2009 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (highest since 1946): 20.8%
2013 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 17.0%
2014 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (projected): 17.0%
Turns out, this measurement of government size shows that the size of the government under Obama was higher than Eisenhower's for most comparisons. However, as an interesting fact, the size of government decreased more under Obama to date than it did under Eisenhower for the first 6 years of his term.
Incorrect
Executive Orders
This is actually the easiest to go over, and it's been done [several]( [times]( [already]( Still, let's rehash it one more time. There have been 17 presidents in office in the past 100 years. I'll list them all, for completeness - sources are the National Archives [Executive Order Disposition Tables]( and the [American Presidency Project]( at UC Santa Barbara.
Wilson (1913-1920): 1,803 (1544-3347); 225.38/year
Harding (1921-1923): 522 (3348-3870); 216.27/year
Coolidge (1923-1928): 1203 (3871-5074); 215.14/year
Hoover (1929-1932): 968 (5075-6070); 242.00/year
Roosevelt (1933-1945): 3522 (6071-9537); 290.71/year
Truman (1945-1952): 907 (9538-10431); 116.57/year
Eisenhower (1953-1960): 484 (10432-10913); 60.50/year
Kennedy (1961-1963): 214 (10914-11127); 75.40/year
Johnson (1963-1968): 325 (11128-11451); 62.30/year
Nixon (1969-1974): 346 (11452-11797); 62.30/year
Ford (1974-1976): 169 (11798-11966); 68.92/year
Carter (1977-1980): 320 (11967-12286); 80.00/year
Reagan (1981-1988): 381 (12287-12667); 47.63/year
Bush I (1989-1992): 166 (12668-12833); 41.50/year
Clinton (1993-2000): 364 (12834-13197); 45.50/year
Bush II (2001-2008): 291 (13198-13488); 36.38/year
Obama (2009-present): 182 (13489-13670); 33.58/year
Ok, now that wall of text is over, it's fairly plain to see that Obama's signed, to date, the third-fewest number of executive orders in the past 100 years. The only ones who signed fewer are Ford (2-year tenure) and Bush 1 (4-year tenure). However, if you look at the rate that Obama's signed EOs per year, you have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland's first term to find someone with a lower rate of EO signing. That's 1885-1888, if you were wondering, or 126 years ago.
Partially true
TL;DR: 2 true claims, one false claim, and one partially true claim are very far from "first rate delusion"
| politics | t5_2cneq | civw6ni | That's some first rate delusion.
Actually, most of those are provable, and most are true. Let's go by claim, shall we? I'll avoid using a third-party fact-checker such as Snopes or Politifact, and just go by freely available numbers.
Deficit
This one's relatively easy - comparing the most recent budget deficit (2013) to the one that was current when Pres. Obama took office (2009). I'm using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data that's publically available [here]( I'll also throw in the 2014 projected surplus/deficit figures, just to be thorough.
2009 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$1,412,688 million.
2013 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$679,502 million.
2014 Total Surplus/Deficit (projected): -$648,805 million.
Going by the 2013 numbers, the deficit has been reduced by $733,186 million, or 51.90% - more than half of the 2009 deficit.
Correct
Taxation
I'm only going to compare federal taxation rates - quite obviously, the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction over state rates, and thus can only affect the total taxation rate to a certain extent. To avoid complication, I'm also only going to focus on individual tax rates - feel free to compare the rest on your own time. From the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, I found [this summary]( that compares tax rates for a family of 4 from 1955 to 2011. Using the "Median Income" column:
1955 (earliest known): Income=$4,919; Tax rate=5.64%
1981 (highest rate): Income=$26,274; Tax rate=11.79%
2011 (latest known): Income=$74,964; Tax rate=5.32%.
This data includes, where applicable, the EITC and other benefits. And again, a tax rate of 5.32% is lower than any time in the past 56 years - not quite 60 years, but close.
Correct
Smallest Government
There really isn't any definitive and widely accepted way to measure this data, but one possible method is by using total budgeted federal spending as a percentage of GDP. I'm starting to get bored, so that's what I'll use. Going back to the OMB data I used for the "Deficit" analysis, table 1.2 conveniently gives receipts, outlays and surplus/deficit as a percentage of GDP. Eisenhower's tenure was from 1953 to 1960. Obama's, as I'm sure you know, was from 2009 to present. I'll compare all these points:
1953 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 19.3%
1960 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 15.2%
2009 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (highest since 1946): 20.8%
2013 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 17.0%
2014 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (projected): 17.0%
Turns out, this measurement of government size shows that the size of the government under Obama was higher than Eisenhower's for most comparisons. However, as an interesting fact, the size of government decreased more under Obama to date than it did under Eisenhower for the first 6 years of his term.
Incorrect
Executive Orders
This is actually the easiest to go over, and it's been done [several]( [times]( [already]( Still, let's rehash it one more time. There have been 17 presidents in office in the past 100 years. I'll list them all, for completeness - sources are the National Archives [Executive Order Disposition Tables]( and the [American Presidency Project]( at UC Santa Barbara.
Wilson (1913-1920): 1,803 (1544-3347); 225.38/year
Harding (1921-1923): 522 (3348-3870); 216.27/year
Coolidge (1923-1928): 1203 (3871-5074); 215.14/year
Hoover (1929-1932): 968 (5075-6070); 242.00/year
Roosevelt (1933-1945): 3522 (6071-9537); 290.71/year
Truman (1945-1952): 907 (9538-10431); 116.57/year
Eisenhower (1953-1960): 484 (10432-10913); 60.50/year
Kennedy (1961-1963): 214 (10914-11127); 75.40/year
Johnson (1963-1968): 325 (11128-11451); 62.30/year
Nixon (1969-1974): 346 (11452-11797); 62.30/year
Ford (1974-1976): 169 (11798-11966); 68.92/year
Carter (1977-1980): 320 (11967-12286); 80.00/year
Reagan (1981-1988): 381 (12287-12667); 47.63/year
Bush I (1989-1992): 166 (12668-12833); 41.50/year
Clinton (1993-2000): 364 (12834-13197); 45.50/year
Bush II (2001-2008): 291 (13198-13488); 36.38/year
Obama (2009-present): 182 (13489-13670); 33.58/year
Ok, now that wall of text is over, it's fairly plain to see that Obama's signed, to date, the third-fewest number of executive orders in the past 100 years. The only ones who signed fewer are Ford (2-year tenure) and Bush 1 (4-year tenure). However, if you look at the rate that Obama's signed EOs per year, you have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland's first term to find someone with a lower rate of EO signing. That's 1885-1888, if you were wondering, or 126 years ago.
Partially true | 2 true claims, one false claim, and one partially true claim are very far from "first rate delusion" |
AdolfTheBenevolent | I disagree, I believe you should start with vodka. Beer is an 'acquired' taste meaning the first time you drink it, it'll taste like rotten bread and water. Vodka on the other hand you don't have to taste. It's a shot so you shoot it straight into your throat swallow and bang. Within one second you've taken a nice shot of alcohol. Next second you'll cough a little bit and after five seconds all is well (no lingering taste in mouth nor a 'burn'), and you can go for round two.
Also if you like cinnamon stuff, try fireball whiskey. It tastes like Big Red bubble gum so it's yummy to drink a lot of.
But yeah tl;dr if you want to get into alcohol don't try drinking a lot of beers (because it WILL taste bad), take shots of vodka. | I disagree, I believe you should start with vodka. Beer is an 'acquired' taste meaning the first time you drink it, it'll taste like rotten bread and water. Vodka on the other hand you don't have to taste. It's a shot so you shoot it straight into your throat swallow and bang. Within one second you've taken a nice shot of alcohol. Next second you'll cough a little bit and after five seconds all is well (no lingering taste in mouth nor a 'burn'), and you can go for round two.
Also if you like cinnamon stuff, try fireball whiskey. It tastes like Big Red bubble gum so it's yummy to drink a lot of.
But yeah tl;dr if you want to get into alcohol don't try drinking a lot of beers (because it WILL taste bad), take shots of vodka.
| exmuslim | t5_2s7k2 | ciw2bjl | I disagree, I believe you should start with vodka. Beer is an 'acquired' taste meaning the first time you drink it, it'll taste like rotten bread and water. Vodka on the other hand you don't have to taste. It's a shot so you shoot it straight into your throat swallow and bang. Within one second you've taken a nice shot of alcohol. Next second you'll cough a little bit and after five seconds all is well (no lingering taste in mouth nor a 'burn'), and you can go for round two.
Also if you like cinnamon stuff, try fireball whiskey. It tastes like Big Red bubble gum so it's yummy to drink a lot of.
But yeah | if you want to get into alcohol don't try drinking a lot of beers (because it WILL taste bad), take shots of vodka. |
javajam | > denigrate someone whose characteristics we all really want for ourselves.
I disagree
> Sluts are women who are sexually liberated
That depends on exactly how you define sexual liberation, or liberation in general.
> A slut will sleep with anyone
See, now we're talking about two different things here. Someone who has "lots of great sex" is not the same thing as someone who will sleep with anyone.
> issue of sharing, attachment, etc. are a problem especially when we are younger.
This is really important, not only because you mentioned sharing and attachment, but I find that slut shaming is more prevalent in younger circles because school-aged kids are more exposed to areas of sex that are closely related to regret, bad decisions, going through "phases", bad boy/bad girl mentality, peer-pressure, establishing reputation or popularity, etc. I can speak to these things because I am fairly young (21) and I have admittedly thought less of girls in the past, not because I knew they were having sex (or even a lot of it) but because of the circumstances surrounding their character and lack of thought that went into the decisions they made.
> After all, do we not want the women we are having sex with to embody the traits of what most of us consider sluts or slutty?
No
> Do you want a prude in the bedroom or an enthusiastic slut?
It's not a completely black/white topic.
I don't think slut shaming is cool. I don't think women should feel shameful for having and wanting sex. And I especially find it sad when a woman's desire for sex shames her to point that she doesn't feel that she can approach or be open with men. I mean, there's at least one thread a day where somebody mentions that the reason women don't approach us or initiate sex is because they don't want to appear desperate or slutty. That's sad man...things shouldn't be that way.
But people do have traits that others find undesirable. Likewise, people have traits that others might find somewhat attractive, but only in moderation. For example, I like my women a little crazy. I've dated women who when out in public with them, are calm, well-mannered, quiet, etc. But when behind closed doors, they can get a little freaky. And THEN, I've dated women on the other side of the spectrum. Women who seemed cool at first, before later discovering they had full-blown mental disorders and/or personal baggage that greatly impacted our relationship. So when I read this post, I'd think you're the kinda person that might read that second scenario and say, "Well javajam, you *said* you liked crazy chicks. Those were YOUR words! What's the deal bro!?" And to that I'd say, no! For each and every personality trait out there, there's someone who likes it, just only in moderation.
So when I think of the word slut, I don't think of a woman who has had a lot of sex. Because what does that really mean? Perhaps she's entered a lot of long term relationships and simply found that one after the other they weren't working out. Maybe they really were just brief hook-ups and she and these guys just clicked all of the sudden. Who am I to judge? I'm not dating her.
But here's the thing. When I think slut, I think records. Sexual milestones. Numbers that make you go, "Really?! She did w-what?" Back in high school it was the girl who plowed through the entire football team. In college, it was the girl who, once you walked up to her and said something as simple as "hi" you knew you were IN. Very few questions asked. Why'd she do it? You don't know. You just know it felt kinda....wrong. A slut's track record, so to speak, makes you raise an eyebrow, not because of her decision to have sex, but the circumstances around it. Remember the user who posted on reddit recently? I think it was this sub, and he asked for advice on how to calm his sister down a bit because it turned out she was bringing below average shmucks home from the bar almost EVERY night. No disrespect to that guy or his sister, but THAT'S the kind of behavior I'm talking about. The kind that makes you go, "Really...*him*??? You couldn't do *any* better than that?"
With these men and women who slut shame, is it really just a deflated ego thing rather than concern about a woman's own personal and private sex life? Sure! A lot of the time it is. Either that, or the person shaming just has really negative attitudes about sex. Just read the thread currently on this sub about the kid who had to break up with his girlfriend because her parents found condoms in his bag after believing their precious daughter was some sort of innocent little flower. Can you imagine how many people in the world think like this? Then just try to imagine the kind of households their children must grow up in. When you put that into perspective, it's not difficult to see why so many grow up without seeing any wrong in shaming a woman for her desire for sex.
Socialization and gender roles, especially when they are perpetuated by the media really play role in this as well. Dating and relationships are things that MEN pursue. Getting a lot of tail is something that MEN should be doing as they get older. It's why guys get shamed for being virgins. You hear things like, "what a pussy!" or "I want a man with some experience. Someone who can be dominant and teach me a few things."
**Sex on the other hand is something that many people today still believe women get DONE to them.**
I had to bold that, because in my opinion, that is one of the most destructive mentalities out there in the world of dating and relationships. Sex is not something that ultimately corrupts a woman after it's over. But that train of thought is a result of that whole "Shitty lock/Master key" analogy that gets brought up on reddit once in a while:
What's better? A key that opens up ANY lock or a lock that can be opened with any key? Many would argue the former. And that's because sex is often a conquest that men venture their way through and attain, while women either accept or deny. Once men overcome that first conquest. Score! The second? You da man dawg! Third? What a stud! For women, things aren't completely equal. The progression of the perceptions people have of her once she starts having more and more sex become exponentially negative. It goes from "cool, glad she's happy" to "are you fucking kidding me?" VERY quickly. And who am I to say that's right or wrong? If you want to date a woman with little to moderate sexual history then that's fine. If you want to date someone who you or others might consider promiscuous, then there's nothing wrong with that. That's all a matter of personal preference.
So back to that word slut. We can try to "take it back" all we want. We can try to prod people into wanting to date women who are sexually liberated. But at the end of the day, that word is still going to be used. In some circles it's going to be derogatory, and in others, it will be used as a positive term to indicate sexual liberation and comfort between couples who roleplay. What we need to teach people is not how to love sluts, but how to respect others and their individual beliefs.
TLDR: Sometimes women just have a little TOO much sex for a man's personal taste. Other times, it's not even about her "number" but more so the REASON she's deciding to have that much sex and the kinda guys she's having it with. To each his own.
| > denigrate someone whose characteristics we all really want for ourselves.
I disagree
> Sluts are women who are sexually liberated
That depends on exactly how you define sexual liberation, or liberation in general.
> A slut will sleep with anyone
See, now we're talking about two different things here. Someone who has "lots of great sex" is not the same thing as someone who will sleep with anyone.
> issue of sharing, attachment, etc. are a problem especially when we are younger.
This is really important, not only because you mentioned sharing and attachment, but I find that slut shaming is more prevalent in younger circles because school-aged kids are more exposed to areas of sex that are closely related to regret, bad decisions, going through "phases", bad boy/bad girl mentality, peer-pressure, establishing reputation or popularity, etc. I can speak to these things because I am fairly young (21) and I have admittedly thought less of girls in the past, not because I knew they were having sex (or even a lot of it) but because of the circumstances surrounding their character and lack of thought that went into the decisions they made.
> After all, do we not want the women we are having sex with to embody the traits of what most of us consider sluts or slutty?
No
> Do you want a prude in the bedroom or an enthusiastic slut?
It's not a completely black/white topic.
I don't think slut shaming is cool. I don't think women should feel shameful for having and wanting sex. And I especially find it sad when a woman's desire for sex shames her to point that she doesn't feel that she can approach or be open with men. I mean, there's at least one thread a day where somebody mentions that the reason women don't approach us or initiate sex is because they don't want to appear desperate or slutty. That's sad man...things shouldn't be that way.
But people do have traits that others find undesirable. Likewise, people have traits that others might find somewhat attractive, but only in moderation. For example, I like my women a little crazy. I've dated women who when out in public with them, are calm, well-mannered, quiet, etc. But when behind closed doors, they can get a little freaky. And THEN, I've dated women on the other side of the spectrum. Women who seemed cool at first, before later discovering they had full-blown mental disorders and/or personal baggage that greatly impacted our relationship. So when I read this post, I'd think you're the kinda person that might read that second scenario and say, "Well javajam, you said you liked crazy chicks. Those were YOUR words! What's the deal bro!?" And to that I'd say, no! For each and every personality trait out there, there's someone who likes it, just only in moderation.
So when I think of the word slut, I don't think of a woman who has had a lot of sex. Because what does that really mean? Perhaps she's entered a lot of long term relationships and simply found that one after the other they weren't working out. Maybe they really were just brief hook-ups and she and these guys just clicked all of the sudden. Who am I to judge? I'm not dating her.
But here's the thing. When I think slut, I think records. Sexual milestones. Numbers that make you go, "Really?! She did w-what?" Back in high school it was the girl who plowed through the entire football team. In college, it was the girl who, once you walked up to her and said something as simple as "hi" you knew you were IN. Very few questions asked. Why'd she do it? You don't know. You just know it felt kinda....wrong. A slut's track record, so to speak, makes you raise an eyebrow, not because of her decision to have sex, but the circumstances around it. Remember the user who posted on reddit recently? I think it was this sub, and he asked for advice on how to calm his sister down a bit because it turned out she was bringing below average shmucks home from the bar almost EVERY night. No disrespect to that guy or his sister, but THAT'S the kind of behavior I'm talking about. The kind that makes you go, "Really... him ??? You couldn't do any better than that?"
With these men and women who slut shame, is it really just a deflated ego thing rather than concern about a woman's own personal and private sex life? Sure! A lot of the time it is. Either that, or the person shaming just has really negative attitudes about sex. Just read the thread currently on this sub about the kid who had to break up with his girlfriend because her parents found condoms in his bag after believing their precious daughter was some sort of innocent little flower. Can you imagine how many people in the world think like this? Then just try to imagine the kind of households their children must grow up in. When you put that into perspective, it's not difficult to see why so many grow up without seeing any wrong in shaming a woman for her desire for sex.
Socialization and gender roles, especially when they are perpetuated by the media really play role in this as well. Dating and relationships are things that MEN pursue. Getting a lot of tail is something that MEN should be doing as they get older. It's why guys get shamed for being virgins. You hear things like, "what a pussy!" or "I want a man with some experience. Someone who can be dominant and teach me a few things."
Sex on the other hand is something that many people today still believe women get DONE to them.
I had to bold that, because in my opinion, that is one of the most destructive mentalities out there in the world of dating and relationships. Sex is not something that ultimately corrupts a woman after it's over. But that train of thought is a result of that whole "Shitty lock/Master key" analogy that gets brought up on reddit once in a while:
What's better? A key that opens up ANY lock or a lock that can be opened with any key? Many would argue the former. And that's because sex is often a conquest that men venture their way through and attain, while women either accept or deny. Once men overcome that first conquest. Score! The second? You da man dawg! Third? What a stud! For women, things aren't completely equal. The progression of the perceptions people have of her once she starts having more and more sex become exponentially negative. It goes from "cool, glad she's happy" to "are you fucking kidding me?" VERY quickly. And who am I to say that's right or wrong? If you want to date a woman with little to moderate sexual history then that's fine. If you want to date someone who you or others might consider promiscuous, then there's nothing wrong with that. That's all a matter of personal preference.
So back to that word slut. We can try to "take it back" all we want. We can try to prod people into wanting to date women who are sexually liberated. But at the end of the day, that word is still going to be used. In some circles it's going to be derogatory, and in others, it will be used as a positive term to indicate sexual liberation and comfort between couples who roleplay. What we need to teach people is not how to love sluts, but how to respect others and their individual beliefs.
TLDR: Sometimes women just have a little TOO much sex for a man's personal taste. Other times, it's not even about her "number" but more so the REASON she's deciding to have that much sex and the kinda guys she's having it with. To each his own.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | civsndd | denigrate someone whose characteristics we all really want for ourselves.
I disagree
> Sluts are women who are sexually liberated
That depends on exactly how you define sexual liberation, or liberation in general.
> A slut will sleep with anyone
See, now we're talking about two different things here. Someone who has "lots of great sex" is not the same thing as someone who will sleep with anyone.
> issue of sharing, attachment, etc. are a problem especially when we are younger.
This is really important, not only because you mentioned sharing and attachment, but I find that slut shaming is more prevalent in younger circles because school-aged kids are more exposed to areas of sex that are closely related to regret, bad decisions, going through "phases", bad boy/bad girl mentality, peer-pressure, establishing reputation or popularity, etc. I can speak to these things because I am fairly young (21) and I have admittedly thought less of girls in the past, not because I knew they were having sex (or even a lot of it) but because of the circumstances surrounding their character and lack of thought that went into the decisions they made.
> After all, do we not want the women we are having sex with to embody the traits of what most of us consider sluts or slutty?
No
> Do you want a prude in the bedroom or an enthusiastic slut?
It's not a completely black/white topic.
I don't think slut shaming is cool. I don't think women should feel shameful for having and wanting sex. And I especially find it sad when a woman's desire for sex shames her to point that she doesn't feel that she can approach or be open with men. I mean, there's at least one thread a day where somebody mentions that the reason women don't approach us or initiate sex is because they don't want to appear desperate or slutty. That's sad man...things shouldn't be that way.
But people do have traits that others find undesirable. Likewise, people have traits that others might find somewhat attractive, but only in moderation. For example, I like my women a little crazy. I've dated women who when out in public with them, are calm, well-mannered, quiet, etc. But when behind closed doors, they can get a little freaky. And THEN, I've dated women on the other side of the spectrum. Women who seemed cool at first, before later discovering they had full-blown mental disorders and/or personal baggage that greatly impacted our relationship. So when I read this post, I'd think you're the kinda person that might read that second scenario and say, "Well javajam, you said you liked crazy chicks. Those were YOUR words! What's the deal bro!?" And to that I'd say, no! For each and every personality trait out there, there's someone who likes it, just only in moderation.
So when I think of the word slut, I don't think of a woman who has had a lot of sex. Because what does that really mean? Perhaps she's entered a lot of long term relationships and simply found that one after the other they weren't working out. Maybe they really were just brief hook-ups and she and these guys just clicked all of the sudden. Who am I to judge? I'm not dating her.
But here's the thing. When I think slut, I think records. Sexual milestones. Numbers that make you go, "Really?! She did w-what?" Back in high school it was the girl who plowed through the entire football team. In college, it was the girl who, once you walked up to her and said something as simple as "hi" you knew you were IN. Very few questions asked. Why'd she do it? You don't know. You just know it felt kinda....wrong. A slut's track record, so to speak, makes you raise an eyebrow, not because of her decision to have sex, but the circumstances around it. Remember the user who posted on reddit recently? I think it was this sub, and he asked for advice on how to calm his sister down a bit because it turned out she was bringing below average shmucks home from the bar almost EVERY night. No disrespect to that guy or his sister, but THAT'S the kind of behavior I'm talking about. The kind that makes you go, "Really... him ??? You couldn't do any better than that?"
With these men and women who slut shame, is it really just a deflated ego thing rather than concern about a woman's own personal and private sex life? Sure! A lot of the time it is. Either that, or the person shaming just has really negative attitudes about sex. Just read the thread currently on this sub about the kid who had to break up with his girlfriend because her parents found condoms in his bag after believing their precious daughter was some sort of innocent little flower. Can you imagine how many people in the world think like this? Then just try to imagine the kind of households their children must grow up in. When you put that into perspective, it's not difficult to see why so many grow up without seeing any wrong in shaming a woman for her desire for sex.
Socialization and gender roles, especially when they are perpetuated by the media really play role in this as well. Dating and relationships are things that MEN pursue. Getting a lot of tail is something that MEN should be doing as they get older. It's why guys get shamed for being virgins. You hear things like, "what a pussy!" or "I want a man with some experience. Someone who can be dominant and teach me a few things."
Sex on the other hand is something that many people today still believe women get DONE to them.
I had to bold that, because in my opinion, that is one of the most destructive mentalities out there in the world of dating and relationships. Sex is not something that ultimately corrupts a woman after it's over. But that train of thought is a result of that whole "Shitty lock/Master key" analogy that gets brought up on reddit once in a while:
What's better? A key that opens up ANY lock or a lock that can be opened with any key? Many would argue the former. And that's because sex is often a conquest that men venture their way through and attain, while women either accept or deny. Once men overcome that first conquest. Score! The second? You da man dawg! Third? What a stud! For women, things aren't completely equal. The progression of the perceptions people have of her once she starts having more and more sex become exponentially negative. It goes from "cool, glad she's happy" to "are you fucking kidding me?" VERY quickly. And who am I to say that's right or wrong? If you want to date a woman with little to moderate sexual history then that's fine. If you want to date someone who you or others might consider promiscuous, then there's nothing wrong with that. That's all a matter of personal preference.
So back to that word slut. We can try to "take it back" all we want. We can try to prod people into wanting to date women who are sexually liberated. But at the end of the day, that word is still going to be used. In some circles it's going to be derogatory, and in others, it will be used as a positive term to indicate sexual liberation and comfort between couples who roleplay. What we need to teach people is not how to love sluts, but how to respect others and their individual beliefs. | Sometimes women just have a little TOO much sex for a man's personal taste. Other times, it's not even about her "number" but more so the REASON she's deciding to have that much sex and the kinda guys she's having it with. To each his own. |
WannabeAHobo | I think the word slut means a girl who has a large number of sexual partners in succession and may not be particularly discriminating in choosing them. Not a woman who is sexually adventurous with her partner.
I don't think there's anything inherently good or bad about being a slut - it's simply a choice and as long nobody gets hurt, it's all good. However, I have noticed that possibly a majority of men don't want to date or settle down with a "slut" because they like to feel that they have been chosen specifically as an individual, rather than simply being the latest in a long and varied line. Being with a woman who is choosy can make you feel more secure as you know that she wouldn't be with you in the first place if she didn't consider you up to scratch.
The problem with the current reformation of the word "slut" is not that it tries to detoxify women's sexuality and liberate their choices, but that it tries to also tell men that they cannot dislike this characteristic in a partner. But who is anybody to tell a man what they are and are not allowed to like and dislike in a potential partner?
If any man chooses to prefer relationships with women who are faithful and relationship-focused, this seems a very reasonable preference.
tl;dr - women are completely free to be "sluts" but they must accept that men in their dating pool may have a preference for women who are not "sluts" and this is a valid preference. | I think the word slut means a girl who has a large number of sexual partners in succession and may not be particularly discriminating in choosing them. Not a woman who is sexually adventurous with her partner.
I don't think there's anything inherently good or bad about being a slut - it's simply a choice and as long nobody gets hurt, it's all good. However, I have noticed that possibly a majority of men don't want to date or settle down with a "slut" because they like to feel that they have been chosen specifically as an individual, rather than simply being the latest in a long and varied line. Being with a woman who is choosy can make you feel more secure as you know that she wouldn't be with you in the first place if she didn't consider you up to scratch.
The problem with the current reformation of the word "slut" is not that it tries to detoxify women's sexuality and liberate their choices, but that it tries to also tell men that they cannot dislike this characteristic in a partner. But who is anybody to tell a man what they are and are not allowed to like and dislike in a potential partner?
If any man chooses to prefer relationships with women who are faithful and relationship-focused, this seems a very reasonable preference.
tl;dr - women are completely free to be "sluts" but they must accept that men in their dating pool may have a preference for women who are not "sluts" and this is a valid preference.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | civtxgc | I think the word slut means a girl who has a large number of sexual partners in succession and may not be particularly discriminating in choosing them. Not a woman who is sexually adventurous with her partner.
I don't think there's anything inherently good or bad about being a slut - it's simply a choice and as long nobody gets hurt, it's all good. However, I have noticed that possibly a majority of men don't want to date or settle down with a "slut" because they like to feel that they have been chosen specifically as an individual, rather than simply being the latest in a long and varied line. Being with a woman who is choosy can make you feel more secure as you know that she wouldn't be with you in the first place if she didn't consider you up to scratch.
The problem with the current reformation of the word "slut" is not that it tries to detoxify women's sexuality and liberate their choices, but that it tries to also tell men that they cannot dislike this characteristic in a partner. But who is anybody to tell a man what they are and are not allowed to like and dislike in a potential partner?
If any man chooses to prefer relationships with women who are faithful and relationship-focused, this seems a very reasonable preference. | women are completely free to be "sluts" but they must accept that men in their dating pool may have a preference for women who are not "sluts" and this is a valid preference. |
seedarf | **Because I'm bored:**
*Small Markets: I'm going to rank all the teams in descending order in terms of market size according to station index.*
Knicks, Nets
Lakers, Clippers
Raptors (not on station index, US only, I'm making an educated guess)
Bulls
76ers
Mavericks
Warriors
Celtics
Hawks
Wizards
Rockets
Pistons
Suns
____
~~Supersonics~~
Timberwolves
Heat
Cavaliers
Nuggets
Magic
Kings
Trailblazers
Hornets
Pacers
Jazz
Bucks
Spurs
Thunder
Grizzlies
Pelicans
Based on this list, 9 of 15 biggest media markets with NBA teams are in the eastern conference. 7 of the 10 smallest markets with NBA teams are in the western conference. It seems like, in general, the east has larger media markets.
*Weather: ok so I tried and it was too much work so I'm going to guess*
New York - I live here, it's nice. Winter can get miserable for a few stretches but January/February are the only truly brutal months.
Los Angeles - Probably pretty dope during the NBA season.
Toronto - I've been there a lot and there are two seasons, winter and construction.
Chicago - Ha.
Philadelpia - I've never been in the winter, but I'd assume it's similar to New York (maybe a little warmer, but not significantly).
Dallas - Texas is probably hot.
San Francisco - Pretty nice right, I'm not sure.
Celtics - Probably a little colder than New York in the winter, but not drastically.
Atlanta - ok I'm stopping.
The point is weather doesn't really matter because it's an opinion. But I'd imagine the most universally attractive destinations, in terms of weather, are Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Portland, while the least would be Minnesota, Toronto, the entire midwest division, and maybe Boston and New York.
tl;dr the east has larger markets, but the west has better weather (IMO), so it's probably cheap owners since I don't feel like doing research on that. | Because I'm bored:
Small Markets: I'm going to rank all the teams in descending order in terms of market size according to station index.
Knicks, Nets
Lakers, Clippers
Raptors (not on station index, US only, I'm making an educated guess)
Bulls
76ers
Mavericks
Warriors
Celtics
Hawks
Wizards
Rockets
Pistons
Suns
Supersonics
Timberwolves
Heat
Cavaliers
Nuggets
Magic
Kings
Trailblazers
Hornets
Pacers
Jazz
Bucks
Spurs
Thunder
Grizzlies
Pelicans
Based on this list, 9 of 15 biggest media markets with NBA teams are in the eastern conference. 7 of the 10 smallest markets with NBA teams are in the western conference. It seems like, in general, the east has larger media markets.
Weather: ok so I tried and it was too much work so I'm going to guess
New York - I live here, it's nice. Winter can get miserable for a few stretches but January/February are the only truly brutal months.
Los Angeles - Probably pretty dope during the NBA season.
Toronto - I've been there a lot and there are two seasons, winter and construction.
Chicago - Ha.
Philadelpia - I've never been in the winter, but I'd assume it's similar to New York (maybe a little warmer, but not significantly).
Dallas - Texas is probably hot.
San Francisco - Pretty nice right, I'm not sure.
Celtics - Probably a little colder than New York in the winter, but not drastically.
Atlanta - ok I'm stopping.
The point is weather doesn't really matter because it's an opinion. But I'd imagine the most universally attractive destinations, in terms of weather, are Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Portland, while the least would be Minnesota, Toronto, the entire midwest division, and maybe Boston and New York.
tl;dr the east has larger markets, but the west has better weather (IMO), so it's probably cheap owners since I don't feel like doing research on that.
| nba | t5_2qo4s | civy4s7 | Because I'm bored:
Small Markets: I'm going to rank all the teams in descending order in terms of market size according to station index.
Knicks, Nets
Lakers, Clippers
Raptors (not on station index, US only, I'm making an educated guess)
Bulls
76ers
Mavericks
Warriors
Celtics
Hawks
Wizards
Rockets
Pistons
Suns
Supersonics
Timberwolves
Heat
Cavaliers
Nuggets
Magic
Kings
Trailblazers
Hornets
Pacers
Jazz
Bucks
Spurs
Thunder
Grizzlies
Pelicans
Based on this list, 9 of 15 biggest media markets with NBA teams are in the eastern conference. 7 of the 10 smallest markets with NBA teams are in the western conference. It seems like, in general, the east has larger media markets.
Weather: ok so I tried and it was too much work so I'm going to guess
New York - I live here, it's nice. Winter can get miserable for a few stretches but January/February are the only truly brutal months.
Los Angeles - Probably pretty dope during the NBA season.
Toronto - I've been there a lot and there are two seasons, winter and construction.
Chicago - Ha.
Philadelpia - I've never been in the winter, but I'd assume it's similar to New York (maybe a little warmer, but not significantly).
Dallas - Texas is probably hot.
San Francisco - Pretty nice right, I'm not sure.
Celtics - Probably a little colder than New York in the winter, but not drastically.
Atlanta - ok I'm stopping.
The point is weather doesn't really matter because it's an opinion. But I'd imagine the most universally attractive destinations, in terms of weather, are Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Portland, while the least would be Minnesota, Toronto, the entire midwest division, and maybe Boston and New York. | the east has larger markets, but the west has better weather (IMO), so it's probably cheap owners since I don't feel like doing research on that. |
patkasper | Fuck Ave Maria. I did some plumbing work there years back, and live slightly north of there. Weird, weird, weird fucking place.
For the slightly curious who need a tl;dr:
Catholic zealots, Florida swamp, Dominoes owner, weird. | Fuck Ave Maria. I did some plumbing work there years back, and live slightly north of there. Weird, weird, weird fucking place.
For the slightly curious who need a tl;dr:
Catholic zealots, Florida swamp, Dominoes owner, weird.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw9rfs | Fuck Ave Maria. I did some plumbing work there years back, and live slightly north of there. Weird, weird, weird fucking place.
For the slightly curious who need a | Catholic zealots, Florida swamp, Dominoes owner, weird. |
Sacred_bear | Oh for the love of god don't try to rationalise our bullshit. Here I'll do you a tl;dr. Snake oil bollocks | Oh for the love of god don't try to rationalise our bullshit. Here I'll do you a tl;dr. Snake oil bollocks
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwaip5 | Oh for the love of god don't try to rationalise our bullshit. Here I'll do you a | Snake oil bollocks |
kinkydiver | We've bred an entire generation of entitled elderly in New York City. Rent-control programs allow people who started renting 30 or so years ago to pay a laughable amount of money - often a couple $100 in an neighborhood where rent is now 3000+. They can easily pay this from pension or savings, so many have retired early as well.
Now, I'm a liberal at heart, but the problem is, in my 16 years in the city I have only *once* met a nice rent- stabilized lady, an early retired journalist. Every single other one has been a complete cunt. Despite the fact that everyone else is basically paying for them, they are an ungrateful bunch. Examples:
- The hot water goes out one morning (heat system is literally 100 years old), they post a notice how "abominable" it is of the landlord to not fix it within the hour. Mind you, these people don't have to go to work.
- One couple made insane ruckuses throuhout the night. Just things like reorganizing the closet at 3am, and tossing heavy items on the floor, to the point that my ceiling light broke every couple months.
- If I so much as drop a fork on my floor (not a voluntary event), I get immediate yelling and banging on the wall as a response. Ceilings are over 11', so they must have a broom or something handy at all times for that.
- General passive-aggressive behaviour like not returning greeting after you politely say hello, or making comments about your social life ("oh, miss heels visited last night didn't she. You should get more carpets in your apartment").
- With a comical amount of spite, many rent- stabilized people have used their benefits to build equity elsewhere. I have multiple apartments empty in my building, as the owners show up every couple of weeks, since they also own a place in Long Island.Meanwhile, space is tight in the city and many professionals need to take on a roommate.
TL;DR: rent- stabilized elderly people in New York City have a >90% chance of being complete sociopaths. | We've bred an entire generation of entitled elderly in New York City. Rent-control programs allow people who started renting 30 or so years ago to pay a laughable amount of money - often a couple $100 in an neighborhood where rent is now 3000+. They can easily pay this from pension or savings, so many have retired early as well.
Now, I'm a liberal at heart, but the problem is, in my 16 years in the city I have only once met a nice rent- stabilized lady, an early retired journalist. Every single other one has been a complete cunt. Despite the fact that everyone else is basically paying for them, they are an ungrateful bunch. Examples:
The hot water goes out one morning (heat system is literally 100 years old), they post a notice how "abominable" it is of the landlord to not fix it within the hour. Mind you, these people don't have to go to work.
One couple made insane ruckuses throuhout the night. Just things like reorganizing the closet at 3am, and tossing heavy items on the floor, to the point that my ceiling light broke every couple months.
If I so much as drop a fork on my floor (not a voluntary event), I get immediate yelling and banging on the wall as a response. Ceilings are over 11', so they must have a broom or something handy at all times for that.
General passive-aggressive behaviour like not returning greeting after you politely say hello, or making comments about your social life ("oh, miss heels visited last night didn't she. You should get more carpets in your apartment").
With a comical amount of spite, many rent- stabilized people have used their benefits to build equity elsewhere. I have multiple apartments empty in my building, as the owners show up every couple of weeks, since they also own a place in Long Island.Meanwhile, space is tight in the city and many professionals need to take on a roommate.
TL;DR: rent- stabilized elderly people in New York City have a >90% chance of being complete sociopaths.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw8azj | We've bred an entire generation of entitled elderly in New York City. Rent-control programs allow people who started renting 30 or so years ago to pay a laughable amount of money - often a couple $100 in an neighborhood where rent is now 3000+. They can easily pay this from pension or savings, so many have retired early as well.
Now, I'm a liberal at heart, but the problem is, in my 16 years in the city I have only once met a nice rent- stabilized lady, an early retired journalist. Every single other one has been a complete cunt. Despite the fact that everyone else is basically paying for them, they are an ungrateful bunch. Examples:
The hot water goes out one morning (heat system is literally 100 years old), they post a notice how "abominable" it is of the landlord to not fix it within the hour. Mind you, these people don't have to go to work.
One couple made insane ruckuses throuhout the night. Just things like reorganizing the closet at 3am, and tossing heavy items on the floor, to the point that my ceiling light broke every couple months.
If I so much as drop a fork on my floor (not a voluntary event), I get immediate yelling and banging on the wall as a response. Ceilings are over 11', so they must have a broom or something handy at all times for that.
General passive-aggressive behaviour like not returning greeting after you politely say hello, or making comments about your social life ("oh, miss heels visited last night didn't she. You should get more carpets in your apartment").
With a comical amount of spite, many rent- stabilized people have used their benefits to build equity elsewhere. I have multiple apartments empty in my building, as the owners show up every couple of weeks, since they also own a place in Long Island.Meanwhile, space is tight in the city and many professionals need to take on a roommate. | rent- stabilized elderly people in New York City have a >90% chance of being complete sociopaths. |
SnowGrove | I work as a pool boy over the summer. Basically I do service work and chemical balances in pools and help the customers get down to business. We recently installed a pool into a wealthier neighborhood and I was called out with my cousin Scott (family business) to work on the pool. We get there and the customers wife is instantly complaining about how murky the water is. I tell her how it may take a couple of days for it to clear up but she's having none of it. Fast forward a week and the water is still murky and the wife is still complaining. She's telling us on the phone that it's our obligation to get their pool clear and they don't owe us for the extra work. I'm trying to keep things short so I'll be quick. We got their water clear through some tedious work but on what was our final trip to the house we realized what was wrong. It started to pour rain and we watched as the dirt off a mound beside their pool deck trickled across the pool deck and into the water. Water instantly turned murky again. I died right then and there. The wife instantly was at our necks and was yelling at me over the phone when we returned to the shop. She hung up and was claiming that the chemicals I put in the pool made her water murky and there was no way that dirt had seeped into her pool off this mound. A week later turns out it was the dirt and they switched to another pool business because we weren't doing our jobs right.
TL;DR helped a wealthy couple with their new pool, wife wouldn't listen to anything we told her and claimed I made their pool water murky by putting chemicals in it so they switched to another pool business. | I work as a pool boy over the summer. Basically I do service work and chemical balances in pools and help the customers get down to business. We recently installed a pool into a wealthier neighborhood and I was called out with my cousin Scott (family business) to work on the pool. We get there and the customers wife is instantly complaining about how murky the water is. I tell her how it may take a couple of days for it to clear up but she's having none of it. Fast forward a week and the water is still murky and the wife is still complaining. She's telling us on the phone that it's our obligation to get their pool clear and they don't owe us for the extra work. I'm trying to keep things short so I'll be quick. We got their water clear through some tedious work but on what was our final trip to the house we realized what was wrong. It started to pour rain and we watched as the dirt off a mound beside their pool deck trickled across the pool deck and into the water. Water instantly turned murky again. I died right then and there. The wife instantly was at our necks and was yelling at me over the phone when we returned to the shop. She hung up and was claiming that the chemicals I put in the pool made her water murky and there was no way that dirt had seeped into her pool off this mound. A week later turns out it was the dirt and they switched to another pool business because we weren't doing our jobs right.
TL;DR helped a wealthy couple with their new pool, wife wouldn't listen to anything we told her and claimed I made their pool water murky by putting chemicals in it so they switched to another pool business.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw8zkv | I work as a pool boy over the summer. Basically I do service work and chemical balances in pools and help the customers get down to business. We recently installed a pool into a wealthier neighborhood and I was called out with my cousin Scott (family business) to work on the pool. We get there and the customers wife is instantly complaining about how murky the water is. I tell her how it may take a couple of days for it to clear up but she's having none of it. Fast forward a week and the water is still murky and the wife is still complaining. She's telling us on the phone that it's our obligation to get their pool clear and they don't owe us for the extra work. I'm trying to keep things short so I'll be quick. We got their water clear through some tedious work but on what was our final trip to the house we realized what was wrong. It started to pour rain and we watched as the dirt off a mound beside their pool deck trickled across the pool deck and into the water. Water instantly turned murky again. I died right then and there. The wife instantly was at our necks and was yelling at me over the phone when we returned to the shop. She hung up and was claiming that the chemicals I put in the pool made her water murky and there was no way that dirt had seeped into her pool off this mound. A week later turns out it was the dirt and they switched to another pool business because we weren't doing our jobs right. | helped a wealthy couple with their new pool, wife wouldn't listen to anything we told her and claimed I made their pool water murky by putting chemicals in it so they switched to another pool business. |
OoLaLana | Reading these posts I'm thinking it's not totally about being 'entitled'.
Whether the person is young or old... they can be a dick at any age.
These seniors were probably full of themselves and living with the same attitude at each stage of their life.
*TLDR*; there are dicks in this world, of all ages. | Reading these posts I'm thinking it's not totally about being 'entitled'.
Whether the person is young or old... they can be a dick at any age.
These seniors were probably full of themselves and living with the same attitude at each stage of their life.
TLDR ; there are dicks in this world, of all ages.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw9213 | Reading these posts I'm thinking it's not totally about being 'entitled'.
Whether the person is young or old... they can be a dick at any age.
These seniors were probably full of themselves and living with the same attitude at each stage of their life. | there are dicks in this world, of all ages. |
ReverendSaintJay | Whenever my father and his new wife come to town they insist that we all go out to dinner. On every occasion I excuse myself to use the restroom, track down our server, and pre-apologize for any abuse they may be subjected to. I try to explain that the deck is stacked against them from the start, that there is nothing they will be able to do to prevent the manager from getting involved, and that regardless of what the check/bill says to check under my wife's plate for their actual tip.
tl;dr My father married a cunt that eats a lot of spat-in food. | Whenever my father and his new wife come to town they insist that we all go out to dinner. On every occasion I excuse myself to use the restroom, track down our server, and pre-apologize for any abuse they may be subjected to. I try to explain that the deck is stacked against them from the start, that there is nothing they will be able to do to prevent the manager from getting involved, and that regardless of what the check/bill says to check under my wife's plate for their actual tip.
tl;dr My father married a cunt that eats a lot of spat-in food.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw96wq | Whenever my father and his new wife come to town they insist that we all go out to dinner. On every occasion I excuse myself to use the restroom, track down our server, and pre-apologize for any abuse they may be subjected to. I try to explain that the deck is stacked against them from the start, that there is nothing they will be able to do to prevent the manager from getting involved, and that regardless of what the check/bill says to check under my wife's plate for their actual tip. | My father married a cunt that eats a lot of spat-in food. |
fububutsy | I work at a store where we unfortunately still accept checks. There used to be a system in place that kept the drivers license info in the system and would print it all on the check instead of having to write it down.
After a data breach, the company purged the system of all license numbers so, if something happened again, they wouldn't be able to get that information. This info wasn't compromised in the initial breach.
So this old lady is taking about a year to write a check, but I'm patiently waiting as I always do. We have an option where they just have to sign and the computer will print it, but these old people don't trust these computers to simply print something out.
I ask for her license after getting the check, and she launches into a tirade about she shouldn't have to, and what is the discount card for anymore if it doesn't have her license number on it.
I calmly tell her why, and she knows about what happened, but she says "that's your problem, y'all need to fix it or do something."
I hate these old fucks and their checks. I already hate my life because I work in a retail environment after I gave up my office job for a family move, and I have to deal with shitty people all day.
I was thinking to myself "why don't you get a fucking debit card, you stupid cunt," but I obviously didn't say that. The store is fucking moronic anyway, because the only real source of fraud we have in the company is from checks, but they insist on keeping them.
That's the extent of my entitled elderly rant.
TL;DR: Fuck the elderly and their checks! | I work at a store where we unfortunately still accept checks. There used to be a system in place that kept the drivers license info in the system and would print it all on the check instead of having to write it down.
After a data breach, the company purged the system of all license numbers so, if something happened again, they wouldn't be able to get that information. This info wasn't compromised in the initial breach.
So this old lady is taking about a year to write a check, but I'm patiently waiting as I always do. We have an option where they just have to sign and the computer will print it, but these old people don't trust these computers to simply print something out.
I ask for her license after getting the check, and she launches into a tirade about she shouldn't have to, and what is the discount card for anymore if it doesn't have her license number on it.
I calmly tell her why, and she knows about what happened, but she says "that's your problem, y'all need to fix it or do something."
I hate these old fucks and their checks. I already hate my life because I work in a retail environment after I gave up my office job for a family move, and I have to deal with shitty people all day.
I was thinking to myself "why don't you get a fucking debit card, you stupid cunt," but I obviously didn't say that. The store is fucking moronic anyway, because the only real source of fraud we have in the company is from checks, but they insist on keeping them.
That's the extent of my entitled elderly rant.
TL;DR: Fuck the elderly and their checks!
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw98sg | I work at a store where we unfortunately still accept checks. There used to be a system in place that kept the drivers license info in the system and would print it all on the check instead of having to write it down.
After a data breach, the company purged the system of all license numbers so, if something happened again, they wouldn't be able to get that information. This info wasn't compromised in the initial breach.
So this old lady is taking about a year to write a check, but I'm patiently waiting as I always do. We have an option where they just have to sign and the computer will print it, but these old people don't trust these computers to simply print something out.
I ask for her license after getting the check, and she launches into a tirade about she shouldn't have to, and what is the discount card for anymore if it doesn't have her license number on it.
I calmly tell her why, and she knows about what happened, but she says "that's your problem, y'all need to fix it or do something."
I hate these old fucks and their checks. I already hate my life because I work in a retail environment after I gave up my office job for a family move, and I have to deal with shitty people all day.
I was thinking to myself "why don't you get a fucking debit card, you stupid cunt," but I obviously didn't say that. The store is fucking moronic anyway, because the only real source of fraud we have in the company is from checks, but they insist on keeping them.
That's the extent of my entitled elderly rant. | Fuck the elderly and their checks! |
LibraryDiva | I once worked at a library that was located inside a very, very affluent neighborhood filled with retirees ($1.5 million homes were on the "poor side" of the 'hood). These people would squabble about $0.50 fines until they were blue in the face. Then yell at me, a lowly circulation clerk who made less than $20K/year, like I was the one who made the rules. I did enjoy telling them that I refused to get fired for breaking the rules for them, the looks on their faces was priceless. Oh! And once, this horrible old man called me a bitch and I snatched his library card out of his hand, cut it up with scissors, and pertly informed him that he was not allowed to speak to me like that, and he was to leave the library immediately. I had never been so swift on the uptake in my life, so I was quite proud of myself. I'm now older and more jaded and don't put up with any disrespect toward myself or my employees.
**TL;DR** I saw Jesus in my toast. | I once worked at a library that was located inside a very, very affluent neighborhood filled with retirees ($1.5 million homes were on the "poor side" of the 'hood). These people would squabble about $0.50 fines until they were blue in the face. Then yell at me, a lowly circulation clerk who made less than $20K/year, like I was the one who made the rules. I did enjoy telling them that I refused to get fired for breaking the rules for them, the looks on their faces was priceless. Oh! And once, this horrible old man called me a bitch and I snatched his library card out of his hand, cut it up with scissors, and pertly informed him that he was not allowed to speak to me like that, and he was to leave the library immediately. I had never been so swift on the uptake in my life, so I was quite proud of myself. I'm now older and more jaded and don't put up with any disrespect toward myself or my employees.
TL;DR I saw Jesus in my toast.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw9pu4 | I once worked at a library that was located inside a very, very affluent neighborhood filled with retirees ($1.5 million homes were on the "poor side" of the 'hood). These people would squabble about $0.50 fines until they were blue in the face. Then yell at me, a lowly circulation clerk who made less than $20K/year, like I was the one who made the rules. I did enjoy telling them that I refused to get fired for breaking the rules for them, the looks on their faces was priceless. Oh! And once, this horrible old man called me a bitch and I snatched his library card out of his hand, cut it up with scissors, and pertly informed him that he was not allowed to speak to me like that, and he was to leave the library immediately. I had never been so swift on the uptake in my life, so I was quite proud of myself. I'm now older and more jaded and don't put up with any disrespect toward myself or my employees. | I saw Jesus in my toast. |
DomLite | I used to work in a copy center at Staples and was constantly being put upon by old people who were screaming expletives at our self-serve machines, being waved over/whistled up like a dog, being told "I don't know how to use this fax machine!" when there was a huge bold-lettered sign describing the process step by step, and all manner of lovely outdated behavior.
My favorite story was one where I got to live the dream and send one packing. I'd been at the store for six years at this point, working five shifts a week, always closing, so essentially I was always in that store during peak hours. One night I was plugging away at my workload, had all of my three full-service machines going and was trying to submit a fourth order to our production center via the computer. I had 12 more jobs in our queue, which were all pretty sizable and were scheduled for all through the next day, and some for the morning after that. Basically, we were booked solid for the next 24 hours and some change, and I had about an hour left before close to finish the ones I was working on.
It was at this moment that some 60-70 year old woman with a sour look on her face walked up to my counter. I gave her my typical greeting of "Hi there. Were you picking up an order or dropping one off?" which is my own subtle creation meant to imply that you have only those two options. Of course, she gives me the typical old person response choosing option C, which is not available. "I need you to run these copies for me." She has a huge stack of stuff that is variously stapled (sometimes multiple stapled documents stapled together), paper clipped, rubber banded and bound. This would take a monumental amount of work to simply take apart, not to mention getting the copies made while keeping them organized. I simply pointed to our counter which was overflowing with piles of originals with order forms on them and told her "I'm sorry ma'am, but we have a little over a 24 hour wait time at this point, we're booked solid. I'd be happy to take an order for you and contact you as soon as we can complete it, or you're welcome to use the self-serve machines."
She gave me a scowl that could peel lead paint. "That's unacceptable! I need these for a meeting first thing in the morning!" Yeah, like I haven't heard that one before. Guess what, lady? Not my problem. I simply shook my head and told her "I'm very sorry, but there really is nothing I can do for you at this point. My machines are all taken printing jobs that are due first thing in the morning and were dropped off early today. If it's a real emergency, then I can show you how to operate the self-serve machine, or one of our competitors is about five minutes up the road and is usually able to run things while you wait as they don't get near as much business."
This is where she started dropping all of the tell-tale signs of being a pompous old bitch. She pulled herself up straight and smacked her hand down on the counter as if this was supposed to intimidate me. "Young man, I have been coming to this store for years, and I've never been told that a job couldn't be done for me!" I'll interject here that I did not, in fact, tell her it couldn't be done, just that it would be a while to get to it. It's also physically impossible for her to have come there for years and never been told she'd have to come back later. We were ALWAYS busy. "Every time I've come here they are always able to do my job while I wait." Again, no, no we don't. We NEVER take while you wait orders unless they take literally five seconds, 10 copies or under. "I've been shopping at this store for years, and if I have to turn around and go somewhere else to get this done, I will never shop here again!"
And that was the final piece of the puzzle. I'm going to throw my weight around and act like I'm someone important so you'll buckle and do what I say. Nope. I clicked send on my order I was forwarding to production center and approached the counter. "Ma'am, I've worked here for six years, five days a week, in this department and I've never seen you in my life. As I've already explained, we are booked solid. We work on a first come, first served basis and always have. In this particular instance, we had to take several large orders because they showed up early today, and we simply do not have the time to interrupt production on any of them. If this was such a pressing emergency then you should have brought it in earlier in the day, or had someone bring it for you if you were unable. Now, if you'd like to fill out an order form, I can put it in our production queue and call you when it's completed, which may be sooner than the day after tomorrow if all goes well, but I can't guarantee anything before then. I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do."
She just blinked a few times in stunned silence that I hadn't buckled, then picked up her papers and turned to storm out the door while commenting very loudly "Fine then! You just lost my business forever!" I simply smiled and called after her "We don't want customers like you anyway!" She never came back, and when I asked about her to all of my co-workers, none of them had ever seen her before either. I probably could have lost my job for speaking to a customer that way, but I hated that job anyway and it was worth it.
TL;DR: Some old bitch came in demanding that I bend over backwards for her and lied saying that she shopped there all the time for years when she had never been to our store before. | I used to work in a copy center at Staples and was constantly being put upon by old people who were screaming expletives at our self-serve machines, being waved over/whistled up like a dog, being told "I don't know how to use this fax machine!" when there was a huge bold-lettered sign describing the process step by step, and all manner of lovely outdated behavior.
My favorite story was one where I got to live the dream and send one packing. I'd been at the store for six years at this point, working five shifts a week, always closing, so essentially I was always in that store during peak hours. One night I was plugging away at my workload, had all of my three full-service machines going and was trying to submit a fourth order to our production center via the computer. I had 12 more jobs in our queue, which were all pretty sizable and were scheduled for all through the next day, and some for the morning after that. Basically, we were booked solid for the next 24 hours and some change, and I had about an hour left before close to finish the ones I was working on.
It was at this moment that some 60-70 year old woman with a sour look on her face walked up to my counter. I gave her my typical greeting of "Hi there. Were you picking up an order or dropping one off?" which is my own subtle creation meant to imply that you have only those two options. Of course, she gives me the typical old person response choosing option C, which is not available. "I need you to run these copies for me." She has a huge stack of stuff that is variously stapled (sometimes multiple stapled documents stapled together), paper clipped, rubber banded and bound. This would take a monumental amount of work to simply take apart, not to mention getting the copies made while keeping them organized. I simply pointed to our counter which was overflowing with piles of originals with order forms on them and told her "I'm sorry ma'am, but we have a little over a 24 hour wait time at this point, we're booked solid. I'd be happy to take an order for you and contact you as soon as we can complete it, or you're welcome to use the self-serve machines."
She gave me a scowl that could peel lead paint. "That's unacceptable! I need these for a meeting first thing in the morning!" Yeah, like I haven't heard that one before. Guess what, lady? Not my problem. I simply shook my head and told her "I'm very sorry, but there really is nothing I can do for you at this point. My machines are all taken printing jobs that are due first thing in the morning and were dropped off early today. If it's a real emergency, then I can show you how to operate the self-serve machine, or one of our competitors is about five minutes up the road and is usually able to run things while you wait as they don't get near as much business."
This is where she started dropping all of the tell-tale signs of being a pompous old bitch. She pulled herself up straight and smacked her hand down on the counter as if this was supposed to intimidate me. "Young man, I have been coming to this store for years, and I've never been told that a job couldn't be done for me!" I'll interject here that I did not, in fact, tell her it couldn't be done, just that it would be a while to get to it. It's also physically impossible for her to have come there for years and never been told she'd have to come back later. We were ALWAYS busy. "Every time I've come here they are always able to do my job while I wait." Again, no, no we don't. We NEVER take while you wait orders unless they take literally five seconds, 10 copies or under. "I've been shopping at this store for years, and if I have to turn around and go somewhere else to get this done, I will never shop here again!"
And that was the final piece of the puzzle. I'm going to throw my weight around and act like I'm someone important so you'll buckle and do what I say. Nope. I clicked send on my order I was forwarding to production center and approached the counter. "Ma'am, I've worked here for six years, five days a week, in this department and I've never seen you in my life. As I've already explained, we are booked solid. We work on a first come, first served basis and always have. In this particular instance, we had to take several large orders because they showed up early today, and we simply do not have the time to interrupt production on any of them. If this was such a pressing emergency then you should have brought it in earlier in the day, or had someone bring it for you if you were unable. Now, if you'd like to fill out an order form, I can put it in our production queue and call you when it's completed, which may be sooner than the day after tomorrow if all goes well, but I can't guarantee anything before then. I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do."
She just blinked a few times in stunned silence that I hadn't buckled, then picked up her papers and turned to storm out the door while commenting very loudly "Fine then! You just lost my business forever!" I simply smiled and called after her "We don't want customers like you anyway!" She never came back, and when I asked about her to all of my co-workers, none of them had ever seen her before either. I probably could have lost my job for speaking to a customer that way, but I hated that job anyway and it was worth it.
TL;DR: Some old bitch came in demanding that I bend over backwards for her and lied saying that she shopped there all the time for years when she had never been to our store before.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw9s1q | I used to work in a copy center at Staples and was constantly being put upon by old people who were screaming expletives at our self-serve machines, being waved over/whistled up like a dog, being told "I don't know how to use this fax machine!" when there was a huge bold-lettered sign describing the process step by step, and all manner of lovely outdated behavior.
My favorite story was one where I got to live the dream and send one packing. I'd been at the store for six years at this point, working five shifts a week, always closing, so essentially I was always in that store during peak hours. One night I was plugging away at my workload, had all of my three full-service machines going and was trying to submit a fourth order to our production center via the computer. I had 12 more jobs in our queue, which were all pretty sizable and were scheduled for all through the next day, and some for the morning after that. Basically, we were booked solid for the next 24 hours and some change, and I had about an hour left before close to finish the ones I was working on.
It was at this moment that some 60-70 year old woman with a sour look on her face walked up to my counter. I gave her my typical greeting of "Hi there. Were you picking up an order or dropping one off?" which is my own subtle creation meant to imply that you have only those two options. Of course, she gives me the typical old person response choosing option C, which is not available. "I need you to run these copies for me." She has a huge stack of stuff that is variously stapled (sometimes multiple stapled documents stapled together), paper clipped, rubber banded and bound. This would take a monumental amount of work to simply take apart, not to mention getting the copies made while keeping them organized. I simply pointed to our counter which was overflowing with piles of originals with order forms on them and told her "I'm sorry ma'am, but we have a little over a 24 hour wait time at this point, we're booked solid. I'd be happy to take an order for you and contact you as soon as we can complete it, or you're welcome to use the self-serve machines."
She gave me a scowl that could peel lead paint. "That's unacceptable! I need these for a meeting first thing in the morning!" Yeah, like I haven't heard that one before. Guess what, lady? Not my problem. I simply shook my head and told her "I'm very sorry, but there really is nothing I can do for you at this point. My machines are all taken printing jobs that are due first thing in the morning and were dropped off early today. If it's a real emergency, then I can show you how to operate the self-serve machine, or one of our competitors is about five minutes up the road and is usually able to run things while you wait as they don't get near as much business."
This is where she started dropping all of the tell-tale signs of being a pompous old bitch. She pulled herself up straight and smacked her hand down on the counter as if this was supposed to intimidate me. "Young man, I have been coming to this store for years, and I've never been told that a job couldn't be done for me!" I'll interject here that I did not, in fact, tell her it couldn't be done, just that it would be a while to get to it. It's also physically impossible for her to have come there for years and never been told she'd have to come back later. We were ALWAYS busy. "Every time I've come here they are always able to do my job while I wait." Again, no, no we don't. We NEVER take while you wait orders unless they take literally five seconds, 10 copies or under. "I've been shopping at this store for years, and if I have to turn around and go somewhere else to get this done, I will never shop here again!"
And that was the final piece of the puzzle. I'm going to throw my weight around and act like I'm someone important so you'll buckle and do what I say. Nope. I clicked send on my order I was forwarding to production center and approached the counter. "Ma'am, I've worked here for six years, five days a week, in this department and I've never seen you in my life. As I've already explained, we are booked solid. We work on a first come, first served basis and always have. In this particular instance, we had to take several large orders because they showed up early today, and we simply do not have the time to interrupt production on any of them. If this was such a pressing emergency then you should have brought it in earlier in the day, or had someone bring it for you if you were unable. Now, if you'd like to fill out an order form, I can put it in our production queue and call you when it's completed, which may be sooner than the day after tomorrow if all goes well, but I can't guarantee anything before then. I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do."
She just blinked a few times in stunned silence that I hadn't buckled, then picked up her papers and turned to storm out the door while commenting very loudly "Fine then! You just lost my business forever!" I simply smiled and called after her "We don't want customers like you anyway!" She never came back, and when I asked about her to all of my co-workers, none of them had ever seen her before either. I probably could have lost my job for speaking to a customer that way, but I hated that job anyway and it was worth it. | Some old bitch came in demanding that I bend over backwards for her and lied saying that she shopped there all the time for years when she had never been to our store before. |
cmmgreene | They had to bust their ass but they also took more time off. Take a Catholic feast day calender, ever two weeks there is some kind of festival or day of rest. Not to mention limitations of weather, you can't work if its too hot, cold, or wet. We literally work all round, practically seven days a week. Our ancestors would balk at that, when would you take a break to worship or how about the holy days of rest?
In the USA we pay lip service to religion, but check out other "religious" countries and you will find more days where the whole country literally shuts down.
TLDR: We are more efficient, work longer hours than previous generations/ | They had to bust their ass but they also took more time off. Take a Catholic feast day calender, ever two weeks there is some kind of festival or day of rest. Not to mention limitations of weather, you can't work if its too hot, cold, or wet. We literally work all round, practically seven days a week. Our ancestors would balk at that, when would you take a break to worship or how about the holy days of rest?
In the USA we pay lip service to religion, but check out other "religious" countries and you will find more days where the whole country literally shuts down.
TLDR: We are more efficient, work longer hours than previous generations/
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw9whc | They had to bust their ass but they also took more time off. Take a Catholic feast day calender, ever two weeks there is some kind of festival or day of rest. Not to mention limitations of weather, you can't work if its too hot, cold, or wet. We literally work all round, practically seven days a week. Our ancestors would balk at that, when would you take a break to worship or how about the holy days of rest?
In the USA we pay lip service to religion, but check out other "religious" countries and you will find more days where the whole country literally shuts down. | We are more efficient, work longer hours than previous generations/ |
lazy_blazey | I work in grocery in a fairly well-off area. We get a good mix of customers, including young families, college students, middle-aged professionals, and retired elderly people. The elderly people are by far the most likely to be entitled asshats.
Some people come through my line talking on cell phones. Younger generations will try to end their conversation or will whisper "I'm sorry" if they can't, 99% of the time. Older generations will continue to talk loudly, won't acknowledge I'm there, and will only address me if they notice a problem with the transaction they themselves created by not paying any damn attention.
Younger people, even those who are older than me and who likely have a better job than me, are more likely to call me "sir." I like that, it's polite. Older folks *snap their fingers* to get my attention, like I'm a trained dog. Absolutely no respect, the hall mark of self-centered entitled jerks.
Older folks are always the ones who complain about something trivial, and demand a discount for their "inconvenience." Oh, you want a discount because you forgot the milk and had to walk *all the way* to the back of the store to get it? Well, let me give you special attention! That's the way business works, right? Complain and you never have to pay full price. This *never, ever* happens with younger people.
Older folks are more likely to interrupt me while I'm assisting another customer so I can assist them *right now.* Younger folks will wait patiently and will try to get my attention when they sense the conversation with the other customer is wrapping up.
We get a wide range of people who come in right before we close, but the younger folks are more likely to shop quickly and apologize for keeping us. It's not necessary to apologize, but it shows that people understand that we have a closing time for a reason. Elderly people are more likely to wander and take their time, then at 45 minutes past tell me how wonderful it is to shop at the end of the night because the crowd is gone, and will laugh at their own brilliance.
Elderly people are also far, far more likely to complain if we're sold out of a particular item, will not trust the *six* employees they pestered about it when every one of them went to the back room for them and found nothing, and will usually follow it up by whining about how far they drove. Paradoxially, the shorter the drive, the more loud and obnoxious they are about it. No one from any other age group behaves this way.
It goes on and on. It's important that I use the phrase "more likely," because I have met a lot of really nice, polite, respectful elderly folks. On that note, every now and then I'll meet an especially spoiled twenty-something, but those are a rare breed. If I run into a self-centered, entitled asshole, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a Baby Boomer.
**TL;DR: When the Baby Boomers eventually go extinct, the world will be a much more polite and respectful place, apparently.** | I work in grocery in a fairly well-off area. We get a good mix of customers, including young families, college students, middle-aged professionals, and retired elderly people. The elderly people are by far the most likely to be entitled asshats.
Some people come through my line talking on cell phones. Younger generations will try to end their conversation or will whisper "I'm sorry" if they can't, 99% of the time. Older generations will continue to talk loudly, won't acknowledge I'm there, and will only address me if they notice a problem with the transaction they themselves created by not paying any damn attention.
Younger people, even those who are older than me and who likely have a better job than me, are more likely to call me "sir." I like that, it's polite. Older folks snap their fingers to get my attention, like I'm a trained dog. Absolutely no respect, the hall mark of self-centered entitled jerks.
Older folks are always the ones who complain about something trivial, and demand a discount for their "inconvenience." Oh, you want a discount because you forgot the milk and had to walk all the way to the back of the store to get it? Well, let me give you special attention! That's the way business works, right? Complain and you never have to pay full price. This never, ever happens with younger people.
Older folks are more likely to interrupt me while I'm assisting another customer so I can assist them right now. Younger folks will wait patiently and will try to get my attention when they sense the conversation with the other customer is wrapping up.
We get a wide range of people who come in right before we close, but the younger folks are more likely to shop quickly and apologize for keeping us. It's not necessary to apologize, but it shows that people understand that we have a closing time for a reason. Elderly people are more likely to wander and take their time, then at 45 minutes past tell me how wonderful it is to shop at the end of the night because the crowd is gone, and will laugh at their own brilliance.
Elderly people are also far, far more likely to complain if we're sold out of a particular item, will not trust the six employees they pestered about it when every one of them went to the back room for them and found nothing, and will usually follow it up by whining about how far they drove. Paradoxially, the shorter the drive, the more loud and obnoxious they are about it. No one from any other age group behaves this way.
It goes on and on. It's important that I use the phrase "more likely," because I have met a lot of really nice, polite, respectful elderly folks. On that note, every now and then I'll meet an especially spoiled twenty-something, but those are a rare breed. If I run into a self-centered, entitled asshole, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a Baby Boomer.
TL;DR: When the Baby Boomers eventually go extinct, the world will be a much more polite and respectful place, apparently.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwaayb | I work in grocery in a fairly well-off area. We get a good mix of customers, including young families, college students, middle-aged professionals, and retired elderly people. The elderly people are by far the most likely to be entitled asshats.
Some people come through my line talking on cell phones. Younger generations will try to end their conversation or will whisper "I'm sorry" if they can't, 99% of the time. Older generations will continue to talk loudly, won't acknowledge I'm there, and will only address me if they notice a problem with the transaction they themselves created by not paying any damn attention.
Younger people, even those who are older than me and who likely have a better job than me, are more likely to call me "sir." I like that, it's polite. Older folks snap their fingers to get my attention, like I'm a trained dog. Absolutely no respect, the hall mark of self-centered entitled jerks.
Older folks are always the ones who complain about something trivial, and demand a discount for their "inconvenience." Oh, you want a discount because you forgot the milk and had to walk all the way to the back of the store to get it? Well, let me give you special attention! That's the way business works, right? Complain and you never have to pay full price. This never, ever happens with younger people.
Older folks are more likely to interrupt me while I'm assisting another customer so I can assist them right now. Younger folks will wait patiently and will try to get my attention when they sense the conversation with the other customer is wrapping up.
We get a wide range of people who come in right before we close, but the younger folks are more likely to shop quickly and apologize for keeping us. It's not necessary to apologize, but it shows that people understand that we have a closing time for a reason. Elderly people are more likely to wander and take their time, then at 45 minutes past tell me how wonderful it is to shop at the end of the night because the crowd is gone, and will laugh at their own brilliance.
Elderly people are also far, far more likely to complain if we're sold out of a particular item, will not trust the six employees they pestered about it when every one of them went to the back room for them and found nothing, and will usually follow it up by whining about how far they drove. Paradoxially, the shorter the drive, the more loud and obnoxious they are about it. No one from any other age group behaves this way.
It goes on and on. It's important that I use the phrase "more likely," because I have met a lot of really nice, polite, respectful elderly folks. On that note, every now and then I'll meet an especially spoiled twenty-something, but those are a rare breed. If I run into a self-centered, entitled asshole, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a Baby Boomer. | When the Baby Boomers eventually go extinct, the world will be a much more polite and respectful place, apparently. |
SexyMitchell | Worked retail for two years. OLD WHITE LADIES are the most entitled demographic! You might have to tell teenagers to climb out of the ball rack or quit jousting in buggies, but they'll never ruin your night. If a middle aged to elderly white lady approached you, you had about a 15% chance that it was going to be a pleasant encounter.
I've been yelled at for not carrying a very specific variety of sour cream. I'd get "Well X store has it, why don't you?!" at least three times a shift. I'd try to explain to them that "X" store is the same size as ours and only has groceries, while our store is half clothes and TV's and crap. But no, they would take it as a personal insult that I couldn't just wonder in the back and make their "insert non-standard product here" appear.
There was the lady who harassed me and a coworker for about 45 minutes because we didn't carry "caffeine-free sherbet." We tried to tell her calmly that that isn't a thing, and that all sherbet is caffeine-free. But nope, she got angry and tried the "I bought it here last week" line (also heard multiple time a night) and started yelling at us about how we weren't doing our jobs, and no one wants to work anymore.
Then there was the lady in the electric buggy who needed a replacement, because she had spent the last five hours driving around bothering everyone and ran the battery down. After my buddy went to the front of the store and brought her a new one, moved her groceries to the basket on the new one, and pushed the dead buggy back so it could charge, she accused him of stealing her wallet. She got management involved; luckily she had a bit of a reputation and they sided with him immediately. Come to find out, she had dropped it on her late night excursion somewhere else in the store, and management got her to apologies.
tl;dr Would rather deal with gauged eared, saggy jean-ed, always on his/her cellphone "kids these days" than the nice old lady down the street. | Worked retail for two years. OLD WHITE LADIES are the most entitled demographic! You might have to tell teenagers to climb out of the ball rack or quit jousting in buggies, but they'll never ruin your night. If a middle aged to elderly white lady approached you, you had about a 15% chance that it was going to be a pleasant encounter.
I've been yelled at for not carrying a very specific variety of sour cream. I'd get "Well X store has it, why don't you?!" at least three times a shift. I'd try to explain to them that "X" store is the same size as ours and only has groceries, while our store is half clothes and TV's and crap. But no, they would take it as a personal insult that I couldn't just wonder in the back and make their "insert non-standard product here" appear.
There was the lady who harassed me and a coworker for about 45 minutes because we didn't carry "caffeine-free sherbet." We tried to tell her calmly that that isn't a thing, and that all sherbet is caffeine-free. But nope, she got angry and tried the "I bought it here last week" line (also heard multiple time a night) and started yelling at us about how we weren't doing our jobs, and no one wants to work anymore.
Then there was the lady in the electric buggy who needed a replacement, because she had spent the last five hours driving around bothering everyone and ran the battery down. After my buddy went to the front of the store and brought her a new one, moved her groceries to the basket on the new one, and pushed the dead buggy back so it could charge, she accused him of stealing her wallet. She got management involved; luckily she had a bit of a reputation and they sided with him immediately. Come to find out, she had dropped it on her late night excursion somewhere else in the store, and management got her to apologies.
tl;dr Would rather deal with gauged eared, saggy jean-ed, always on his/her cellphone "kids these days" than the nice old lady down the street.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwajjg | Worked retail for two years. OLD WHITE LADIES are the most entitled demographic! You might have to tell teenagers to climb out of the ball rack or quit jousting in buggies, but they'll never ruin your night. If a middle aged to elderly white lady approached you, you had about a 15% chance that it was going to be a pleasant encounter.
I've been yelled at for not carrying a very specific variety of sour cream. I'd get "Well X store has it, why don't you?!" at least three times a shift. I'd try to explain to them that "X" store is the same size as ours and only has groceries, while our store is half clothes and TV's and crap. But no, they would take it as a personal insult that I couldn't just wonder in the back and make their "insert non-standard product here" appear.
There was the lady who harassed me and a coworker for about 45 minutes because we didn't carry "caffeine-free sherbet." We tried to tell her calmly that that isn't a thing, and that all sherbet is caffeine-free. But nope, she got angry and tried the "I bought it here last week" line (also heard multiple time a night) and started yelling at us about how we weren't doing our jobs, and no one wants to work anymore.
Then there was the lady in the electric buggy who needed a replacement, because she had spent the last five hours driving around bothering everyone and ran the battery down. After my buddy went to the front of the store and brought her a new one, moved her groceries to the basket on the new one, and pushed the dead buggy back so it could charge, she accused him of stealing her wallet. She got management involved; luckily she had a bit of a reputation and they sided with him immediately. Come to find out, she had dropped it on her late night excursion somewhere else in the store, and management got her to apologies. | Would rather deal with gauged eared, saggy jean-ed, always on his/her cellphone "kids these days" than the nice old lady down the street. |
thinkforgetfull | Oh, here is a fun one.
I used to have a problem with my feet that caused me to have to walk with a cane until I was 17. I could not stand on my feet for more than 20 minutes at a time.
Getting on the bus, I got some funny looks, but i generally was offered the "seats for those less able to stand seats".
then there is this asshole.
guy must have been about 70, wearing skimpy shorts and a running vest. there are plenty of free seats about, but no he HAS to have the one i am in. when I refuse to get up, he takes my cane and throws it to the other end of the bus. he tries to haul me out of the seat, which I am having none of. eventually the bus driver frog-marched him off the bus, and I had a gaggle of quite nice older women asking me if I was alright etc.
tl;dr
I used a cane until the age of 17 to walk around, some old guy tried to throw me off a seat. | Oh, here is a fun one.
I used to have a problem with my feet that caused me to have to walk with a cane until I was 17. I could not stand on my feet for more than 20 minutes at a time.
Getting on the bus, I got some funny looks, but i generally was offered the "seats for those less able to stand seats".
then there is this asshole.
guy must have been about 70, wearing skimpy shorts and a running vest. there are plenty of free seats about, but no he HAS to have the one i am in. when I refuse to get up, he takes my cane and throws it to the other end of the bus. he tries to haul me out of the seat, which I am having none of. eventually the bus driver frog-marched him off the bus, and I had a gaggle of quite nice older women asking me if I was alright etc.
tl;dr
I used a cane until the age of 17 to walk around, some old guy tried to throw me off a seat.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwakzz | Oh, here is a fun one.
I used to have a problem with my feet that caused me to have to walk with a cane until I was 17. I could not stand on my feet for more than 20 minutes at a time.
Getting on the bus, I got some funny looks, but i generally was offered the "seats for those less able to stand seats".
then there is this asshole.
guy must have been about 70, wearing skimpy shorts and a running vest. there are plenty of free seats about, but no he HAS to have the one i am in. when I refuse to get up, he takes my cane and throws it to the other end of the bus. he tries to haul me out of the seat, which I am having none of. eventually the bus driver frog-marched him off the bus, and I had a gaggle of quite nice older women asking me if I was alright etc. | I used a cane until the age of 17 to walk around, some old guy tried to throw me off a seat. |
Foot_of_fleet | The student strike situation we had in Québec a few years ago caused a lot of Baby Boomers to act in a "retroactively entitled" fashion, if I can put it that way.
Essentially, back when the Baby Boomers were in their late teens/early twenties, the province of Québec was in the midst of important social changes that saw the province become more of a true social democracy. Part of that was the reform of healthcare and education systems. Public colleges (Cégeps) were created and higher education became more accessible.
Short story, the young Baby Boomers got everything a young generation might want: public programs that mainly benefit the young and less wealthy (like students) paid for by taxes (thus mainly paid by their parents' generation.)
A few years ago, the government said it was going to have to increase tuition fees significantly. Tuition had been so cheap for so long that everyone sort of took it for granted that tuition here was cheap. But since this was now threatened, a lot of students were willing to take to the streets to fight for what they thought was an important part of our society. They wanted to make sure higher education would be as easy to access for them and their children than it was for previous generations.
A lot of people from the generation in power (the Baby Boomers) were sympathetic, but some viewed the student strikes as one more example of "young people being entitled, wanting everything handed to them." However, when you think about it, all that the students wanted was to keep the same right to education that the Baby Boomers had. They weren't fighting to get more, they were fighting to keep the rights that students have had for a few generations now.
So the Baby Boomers that were complaining about students wanting cheap tuition were really saying "It was ok for our parents' generation to pay for our education, but today's young people don't deserve us doing that for them." Claiming that you deserve more than others in your situation is pretty much the definition of entitlement IMO.
So that's why I consider some Baby Boomers to be "retroactively entitled".
Tl;dr: Baby Boomers benefited from public programs paid by older generations when they were students. Today's students demand that the government maintain the policies that benefit young people. Some BBs realize that they would be paying for most of this, so they claim that today's youth don't deserve the same treatment they got 40 years or so ago. | The student strike situation we had in Québec a few years ago caused a lot of Baby Boomers to act in a "retroactively entitled" fashion, if I can put it that way.
Essentially, back when the Baby Boomers were in their late teens/early twenties, the province of Québec was in the midst of important social changes that saw the province become more of a true social democracy. Part of that was the reform of healthcare and education systems. Public colleges (Cégeps) were created and higher education became more accessible.
Short story, the young Baby Boomers got everything a young generation might want: public programs that mainly benefit the young and less wealthy (like students) paid for by taxes (thus mainly paid by their parents' generation.)
A few years ago, the government said it was going to have to increase tuition fees significantly. Tuition had been so cheap for so long that everyone sort of took it for granted that tuition here was cheap. But since this was now threatened, a lot of students were willing to take to the streets to fight for what they thought was an important part of our society. They wanted to make sure higher education would be as easy to access for them and their children than it was for previous generations.
A lot of people from the generation in power (the Baby Boomers) were sympathetic, but some viewed the student strikes as one more example of "young people being entitled, wanting everything handed to them." However, when you think about it, all that the students wanted was to keep the same right to education that the Baby Boomers had. They weren't fighting to get more, they were fighting to keep the rights that students have had for a few generations now.
So the Baby Boomers that were complaining about students wanting cheap tuition were really saying "It was ok for our parents' generation to pay for our education, but today's young people don't deserve us doing that for them." Claiming that you deserve more than others in your situation is pretty much the definition of entitlement IMO.
So that's why I consider some Baby Boomers to be "retroactively entitled".
Tl;dr: Baby Boomers benefited from public programs paid by older generations when they were students. Today's students demand that the government maintain the policies that benefit young people. Some BBs realize that they would be paying for most of this, so they claim that today's youth don't deserve the same treatment they got 40 years or so ago.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwaw5s | The student strike situation we had in Québec a few years ago caused a lot of Baby Boomers to act in a "retroactively entitled" fashion, if I can put it that way.
Essentially, back when the Baby Boomers were in their late teens/early twenties, the province of Québec was in the midst of important social changes that saw the province become more of a true social democracy. Part of that was the reform of healthcare and education systems. Public colleges (Cégeps) were created and higher education became more accessible.
Short story, the young Baby Boomers got everything a young generation might want: public programs that mainly benefit the young and less wealthy (like students) paid for by taxes (thus mainly paid by their parents' generation.)
A few years ago, the government said it was going to have to increase tuition fees significantly. Tuition had been so cheap for so long that everyone sort of took it for granted that tuition here was cheap. But since this was now threatened, a lot of students were willing to take to the streets to fight for what they thought was an important part of our society. They wanted to make sure higher education would be as easy to access for them and their children than it was for previous generations.
A lot of people from the generation in power (the Baby Boomers) were sympathetic, but some viewed the student strikes as one more example of "young people being entitled, wanting everything handed to them." However, when you think about it, all that the students wanted was to keep the same right to education that the Baby Boomers had. They weren't fighting to get more, they were fighting to keep the rights that students have had for a few generations now.
So the Baby Boomers that were complaining about students wanting cheap tuition were really saying "It was ok for our parents' generation to pay for our education, but today's young people don't deserve us doing that for them." Claiming that you deserve more than others in your situation is pretty much the definition of entitlement IMO.
So that's why I consider some Baby Boomers to be "retroactively entitled". | Baby Boomers benefited from public programs paid by older generations when they were students. Today's students demand that the government maintain the policies that benefit young people. Some BBs realize that they would be paying for most of this, so they claim that today's youth don't deserve the same treatment they got 40 years or so ago. |
laterdude | First, thanks for delivering OP.
Your ex-gf reminds me of the girls I saw at Roche Harbor Fourth Of July weekend. It's the Washington state equivalent of Monaco and all the spray-tanned, bottle-blonde rich bitches were carrying around their lap dogs and had their ass cheeks hanging out of their booty shorts. I felt like I had gotten caught in a time warp and magically transported back to 2003.
**tl dr** Paris Hilton is the Black Knight of fashion; her look is not quite dead yet. | First, thanks for delivering OP.
Your ex-gf reminds me of the girls I saw at Roche Harbor Fourth Of July weekend. It's the Washington state equivalent of Monaco and all the spray-tanned, bottle-blonde rich bitches were carrying around their lap dogs and had their ass cheeks hanging out of their booty shorts. I felt like I had gotten caught in a time warp and magically transported back to 2003.
tl dr Paris Hilton is the Black Knight of fashion; her look is not quite dead yet.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwb5mt | First, thanks for delivering OP.
Your ex-gf reminds me of the girls I saw at Roche Harbor Fourth Of July weekend. It's the Washington state equivalent of Monaco and all the spray-tanned, bottle-blonde rich bitches were carrying around their lap dogs and had their ass cheeks hanging out of their booty shorts. I felt like I had gotten caught in a time warp and magically transported back to 2003. | Paris Hilton is the Black Knight of fashion; her look is not quite dead yet. |
Sacred_bear | I'll answer your first point. They are politically loaded around what is in reality a dead debate. But they are used with extremely negative connotations. It's just fact. Capitalism you describe is simply what many people do and some are good at and is at the heart of civilisation - specialised investment in producing shit other people want and accumulating more wealth. This drives all sorts of innovation in technology through to management and accounting for assets debts and liabilities (the reason writing was invented). It's positioned as somehow in opposition to socialism which is all lazy and shit. I know you aren't saying this per se but a vibrant society cannot exist with only one or the other. The wealth builders need a coherent organised utilitarian base, society needs the innovators and risk takers to provide the means by which it can be paid, and the environment where opportunity exists.
But capital builders is on their own are rapacious. Also companies are small and large and more or less autocratic systems of social organisation with the purpose of investment and return as a group. Mini states within a state - probably hence the whole patent to operate extended to companies expressly by the crown in earlier days, and still today a company exists by grant of the Country it operates in. It's job is essential though.
You can say what you like but it is a simple evident fact that debate about private vs public and socialism vs capitalism is all just retarded and allows a bunch of ideologically driven morons with the creative potential of a dirty toilet brush on a sepia carpet to talking head about freedom and prejudice or whatever steaming pile of political turd they are currently paid to nod to.
It's just dumb. Change it. The question is really one between the extent width as depth of direct government control; none to lassaiz faire to heavily regulated to direct control. (Personally I prefer lassaiz faire, that in turn begets individual action and association to identify investment accumulate necessary capital and hope to make money like bandits.)
Wait what else did you say? Oh yes assumtpions about my view on tax. I hadn't made any statement in regard to it. But this is just an notion for you. The UltimAte corporation is the entirety of society. Companies sole traders are subsets thereof. SocietyCorp also expects a fair return on its investment in making it possible to get rich, a fair reciprocity for a corporation or wealthy person is to return a proportion of their wealth, which was first allowed and then enabled by society as an obligatory return. Now no investor is going to ask for a flat rate of return that would be illogical.
Tax is not tax. Tax is on fact societies rate of return expected of its subordinate corporations whom it gives right to exist.
Tl;dr you made a lot of statements about why I have said which I in fact hadn't. Positions you ascribe to me are fictions you seem to have taken from someone else's debate - and it's bollocks - you're missing the grandeur of human culture embodied in civilisation it's like a fucking grand masters painting man | I'll answer your first point. They are politically loaded around what is in reality a dead debate. But they are used with extremely negative connotations. It's just fact. Capitalism you describe is simply what many people do and some are good at and is at the heart of civilisation - specialised investment in producing shit other people want and accumulating more wealth. This drives all sorts of innovation in technology through to management and accounting for assets debts and liabilities (the reason writing was invented). It's positioned as somehow in opposition to socialism which is all lazy and shit. I know you aren't saying this per se but a vibrant society cannot exist with only one or the other. The wealth builders need a coherent organised utilitarian base, society needs the innovators and risk takers to provide the means by which it can be paid, and the environment where opportunity exists.
But capital builders is on their own are rapacious. Also companies are small and large and more or less autocratic systems of social organisation with the purpose of investment and return as a group. Mini states within a state - probably hence the whole patent to operate extended to companies expressly by the crown in earlier days, and still today a company exists by grant of the Country it operates in. It's job is essential though.
You can say what you like but it is a simple evident fact that debate about private vs public and socialism vs capitalism is all just retarded and allows a bunch of ideologically driven morons with the creative potential of a dirty toilet brush on a sepia carpet to talking head about freedom and prejudice or whatever steaming pile of political turd they are currently paid to nod to.
It's just dumb. Change it. The question is really one between the extent width as depth of direct government control; none to lassaiz faire to heavily regulated to direct control. (Personally I prefer lassaiz faire, that in turn begets individual action and association to identify investment accumulate necessary capital and hope to make money like bandits.)
Wait what else did you say? Oh yes assumtpions about my view on tax. I hadn't made any statement in regard to it. But this is just an notion for you. The UltimAte corporation is the entirety of society. Companies sole traders are subsets thereof. SocietyCorp also expects a fair return on its investment in making it possible to get rich, a fair reciprocity for a corporation or wealthy person is to return a proportion of their wealth, which was first allowed and then enabled by society as an obligatory return. Now no investor is going to ask for a flat rate of return that would be illogical.
Tax is not tax. Tax is on fact societies rate of return expected of its subordinate corporations whom it gives right to exist.
Tl;dr you made a lot of statements about why I have said which I in fact hadn't. Positions you ascribe to me are fictions you seem to have taken from someone else's debate - and it's bollocks - you're missing the grandeur of human culture embodied in civilisation it's like a fucking grand masters painting man
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwfout | I'll answer your first point. They are politically loaded around what is in reality a dead debate. But they are used with extremely negative connotations. It's just fact. Capitalism you describe is simply what many people do and some are good at and is at the heart of civilisation - specialised investment in producing shit other people want and accumulating more wealth. This drives all sorts of innovation in technology through to management and accounting for assets debts and liabilities (the reason writing was invented). It's positioned as somehow in opposition to socialism which is all lazy and shit. I know you aren't saying this per se but a vibrant society cannot exist with only one or the other. The wealth builders need a coherent organised utilitarian base, society needs the innovators and risk takers to provide the means by which it can be paid, and the environment where opportunity exists.
But capital builders is on their own are rapacious. Also companies are small and large and more or less autocratic systems of social organisation with the purpose of investment and return as a group. Mini states within a state - probably hence the whole patent to operate extended to companies expressly by the crown in earlier days, and still today a company exists by grant of the Country it operates in. It's job is essential though.
You can say what you like but it is a simple evident fact that debate about private vs public and socialism vs capitalism is all just retarded and allows a bunch of ideologically driven morons with the creative potential of a dirty toilet brush on a sepia carpet to talking head about freedom and prejudice or whatever steaming pile of political turd they are currently paid to nod to.
It's just dumb. Change it. The question is really one between the extent width as depth of direct government control; none to lassaiz faire to heavily regulated to direct control. (Personally I prefer lassaiz faire, that in turn begets individual action and association to identify investment accumulate necessary capital and hope to make money like bandits.)
Wait what else did you say? Oh yes assumtpions about my view on tax. I hadn't made any statement in regard to it. But this is just an notion for you. The UltimAte corporation is the entirety of society. Companies sole traders are subsets thereof. SocietyCorp also expects a fair return on its investment in making it possible to get rich, a fair reciprocity for a corporation or wealthy person is to return a proportion of their wealth, which was first allowed and then enabled by society as an obligatory return. Now no investor is going to ask for a flat rate of return that would be illogical.
Tax is not tax. Tax is on fact societies rate of return expected of its subordinate corporations whom it gives right to exist. | you made a lot of statements about why I have said which I in fact hadn't. Positions you ascribe to me are fictions you seem to have taken from someone else's debate - and it's bollocks - you're missing the grandeur of human culture embodied in civilisation it's like a fucking grand masters painting man |
whoatethekidsthen | Oh fuck, have you ever seen those old ladies in purple shirts and red hats?
While out to breakfast last weekend, I was seated near a table full of post menopausal harpies dressed in purple and red. They loudly complained that Obama won't let people beat their children and that's why this country is such bad shape. They bitched at the waitress that it was too cold, then too hot, the coffee didn't taste good and the best, "the menu says no substitutions but you're going to do it or I'll complain to the manager." The waitress tried explaining that she couldn't and the lady cut her off with, "I don't want excuses, I want my breakfast"
While talking to my friend, one of the purple people eaters looks over at us, makes this bitchy face and says loudly, "shouldn't they be at work?! What is this country coming to? At that age I had four kids and no time for dilly dallying"
My buddy who gives no fucks looks over and says, "popping kids out of your vagina isn't a job, lady and by the way it's our day off so why don't you mind your own damn business?"
**TL;DR** old ladies in purple shirts and ugly red hats are awful | Oh fuck, have you ever seen those old ladies in purple shirts and red hats?
While out to breakfast last weekend, I was seated near a table full of post menopausal harpies dressed in purple and red. They loudly complained that Obama won't let people beat their children and that's why this country is such bad shape. They bitched at the waitress that it was too cold, then too hot, the coffee didn't taste good and the best, "the menu says no substitutions but you're going to do it or I'll complain to the manager." The waitress tried explaining that she couldn't and the lady cut her off with, "I don't want excuses, I want my breakfast"
While talking to my friend, one of the purple people eaters looks over at us, makes this bitchy face and says loudly, "shouldn't they be at work?! What is this country coming to? At that age I had four kids and no time for dilly dallying"
My buddy who gives no fucks looks over and says, "popping kids out of your vagina isn't a job, lady and by the way it's our day off so why don't you mind your own damn business?"
TL;DR old ladies in purple shirts and ugly red hats are awful
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw9aym | Oh fuck, have you ever seen those old ladies in purple shirts and red hats?
While out to breakfast last weekend, I was seated near a table full of post menopausal harpies dressed in purple and red. They loudly complained that Obama won't let people beat their children and that's why this country is such bad shape. They bitched at the waitress that it was too cold, then too hot, the coffee didn't taste good and the best, "the menu says no substitutions but you're going to do it or I'll complain to the manager." The waitress tried explaining that she couldn't and the lady cut her off with, "I don't want excuses, I want my breakfast"
While talking to my friend, one of the purple people eaters looks over at us, makes this bitchy face and says loudly, "shouldn't they be at work?! What is this country coming to? At that age I had four kids and no time for dilly dallying"
My buddy who gives no fucks looks over and says, "popping kids out of your vagina isn't a job, lady and by the way it's our day off so why don't you mind your own damn business?" | old ladies in purple shirts and ugly red hats are awful |
QuantumFury | A girl was behind me on the waffle maker line at dining hall back in college. Her appearance is stereotypical geek girl which came with braces, freckles, glasses, and laptop sling bag. Either way, she was trying to start a conversation and which I wasn't in mood but I answered politely. She asked me what I putting on my waffle and I said vanilla ice cream and couple of fruits. Then she started telling me about what she gonna put on hers but seemed to start having an orgasm from her own description of her fantasy waffle. Her eyes rolled back, softly moaning, body quivering in ecstasy while she describes how she was gonna drizzle her waffle in hot fudge syrup and smear whip cream all over the waffle. Needless to say I lost my appetite for a waffle that night and for the rest of the semester.
**Tl; dr : A geeky girl fantasies about her waffle and I lose my waffle appetite for a while.** | A girl was behind me on the waffle maker line at dining hall back in college. Her appearance is stereotypical geek girl which came with braces, freckles, glasses, and laptop sling bag. Either way, she was trying to start a conversation and which I wasn't in mood but I answered politely. She asked me what I putting on my waffle and I said vanilla ice cream and couple of fruits. Then she started telling me about what she gonna put on hers but seemed to start having an orgasm from her own description of her fantasy waffle. Her eyes rolled back, softly moaning, body quivering in ecstasy while she describes how she was gonna drizzle her waffle in hot fudge syrup and smear whip cream all over the waffle. Needless to say I lost my appetite for a waffle that night and for the rest of the semester.
Tl; dr : A geeky girl fantasies about her waffle and I lose my waffle appetite for a while.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw91zo | A girl was behind me on the waffle maker line at dining hall back in college. Her appearance is stereotypical geek girl which came with braces, freckles, glasses, and laptop sling bag. Either way, she was trying to start a conversation and which I wasn't in mood but I answered politely. She asked me what I putting on my waffle and I said vanilla ice cream and couple of fruits. Then she started telling me about what she gonna put on hers but seemed to start having an orgasm from her own description of her fantasy waffle. Her eyes rolled back, softly moaning, body quivering in ecstasy while she describes how she was gonna drizzle her waffle in hot fudge syrup and smear whip cream all over the waffle. Needless to say I lost my appetite for a waffle that night and for the rest of the semester. | A geeky girl fantasies about her waffle and I lose my waffle appetite for a while. |
Serpent1189 | I was really afraid of dentists and didn't go for like 10 years. But I found someone who does sedation dentistry, checked him out on Yelp and made an appointment. The guy was so cool about everything and after walking me through all of my sedation options also told me about the advances in dentistry in the years I had not gone and convinced me not to be sedated. Couldn't have been happier.
Tl;dr - Yelp. | I was really afraid of dentists and didn't go for like 10 years. But I found someone who does sedation dentistry, checked him out on Yelp and made an appointment. The guy was so cool about everything and after walking me through all of my sedation options also told me about the advances in dentistry in the years I had not gone and convinced me not to be sedated. Couldn't have been happier.
Tl;dr - Yelp.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciw8h9d | I was really afraid of dentists and didn't go for like 10 years. But I found someone who does sedation dentistry, checked him out on Yelp and made an appointment. The guy was so cool about everything and after walking me through all of my sedation options also told me about the advances in dentistry in the years I had not gone and convinced me not to be sedated. Couldn't have been happier. | Yelp. |
jrw713 | Imagine the same situation with a human village and a beautiful garden separated by a dark forest where a monster once lived.
The first generation that lived there sends explorers into the woods, but each explorer was found dead the next day (killed by the monster in the woods). They will tell their kids not to go in the woods.
Years pass, and the monster dies. The 2nd generation will tell their kids not to go in the woods because there was once a very real danger, even if they hadn't experienced it themselves.
tl;dr: humans would do the same thing | Imagine the same situation with a human village and a beautiful garden separated by a dark forest where a monster once lived.
The first generation that lived there sends explorers into the woods, but each explorer was found dead the next day (killed by the monster in the woods). They will tell their kids not to go in the woods.
Years pass, and the monster dies. The 2nd generation will tell their kids not to go in the woods because there was once a very real danger, even if they hadn't experienced it themselves.
tl;dr: humans would do the same thing
| Jokes | t5_2qh72 | ciwpar2 | Imagine the same situation with a human village and a beautiful garden separated by a dark forest where a monster once lived.
The first generation that lived there sends explorers into the woods, but each explorer was found dead the next day (killed by the monster in the woods). They will tell their kids not to go in the woods.
Years pass, and the monster dies. The 2nd generation will tell their kids not to go in the woods because there was once a very real danger, even if they hadn't experienced it themselves. | humans would do the same thing |
Jest2 | "it seems like the latter approach would alienate people and possibly exacerbate whatever communication problems they may be having" -- You're right! I feel this way too. There is WAY too much senseless downvoting on Reddit, usually towards me it seems. My only goal is to vow to follow the voting rules in hopes we all do and the needless downvoting levels out. No, I don't take a hall-monitor approach and way my finger at every bad post, but grammatical corrections in this harsh cold era of blatantly unfair autocorrect, I will defend the parent comment, especially against meme/reddit cliche Snarkasm. Those are the buzz kill; for joke threads especially.
Edit: wag, not way. And, TLDR: don't Reddit with the caption, "What's wrong with this picture" taped to the top of your computer screen. | "it seems like the latter approach would alienate people and possibly exacerbate whatever communication problems they may be having" -- You're right! I feel this way too. There is WAY too much senseless downvoting on Reddit, usually towards me it seems. My only goal is to vow to follow the voting rules in hopes we all do and the needless downvoting levels out. No, I don't take a hall-monitor approach and way my finger at every bad post, but grammatical corrections in this harsh cold era of blatantly unfair autocorrect, I will defend the parent comment, especially against meme/reddit cliche Snarkasm. Those are the buzz kill; for joke threads especially.
Edit: wag, not way. And, TLDR: don't Reddit with the caption, "What's wrong with this picture" taped to the top of your computer screen.
| Jokes | t5_2qh72 | ciwo1ig | it seems like the latter approach would alienate people and possibly exacerbate whatever communication problems they may be having" -- You're right! I feel this way too. There is WAY too much senseless downvoting on Reddit, usually towards me it seems. My only goal is to vow to follow the voting rules in hopes we all do and the needless downvoting levels out. No, I don't take a hall-monitor approach and way my finger at every bad post, but grammatical corrections in this harsh cold era of blatantly unfair autocorrect, I will defend the parent comment, especially against meme/reddit cliche Snarkasm. Those are the buzz kill; for joke threads especially.
Edit: wag, not way. And, | don't Reddit with the caption, "What's wrong with this picture" taped to the top of your computer screen. |
tonedeaf_sidekick | I encountered this sentence in a Japanese-learning site
> 姉が空港まで迎えに来てくれます。
which is accompanied by the translation
> My big sister is coming to pick me up at the airport.
Is the use of まで after 空港 correct here? I'd have expected へ or に to be used instead, or more likely で (if the focus is on 空港 being the place where I'm picked up instead of being the destination of 姉's movement).
---
##Update##
To clarify on the last part (using で), I was thinking of 空港 as the place where 迎え takes place, instead of the destination of 来てくれる. Though after looking up some example sentences, for this, に is used instead of で. Then again, the more likely interpretation might be that に is indicating the destination of 来てくれる instead.
Also, [a search of "pick me up" on 英辞郎]( returned results showing that either に or まで is used with 迎えに来る (and its variants).
---
##Update 2##
Google search for [に迎えに来]( returned 13,900,000 hits, whereas [まで迎えに来]( returned 9,060,000 hits. *Keep in mind* that the に迎えに来 results are not necessarily "location + に迎えに来", so this doesn't necessarily indicate に being used more frequently than まで in this context.
**TL;DR** まで or に is commonly used for 空港___迎えに来てくれます, people don't use へ and で here.
Thanks everyone for your responses.
| I encountered this sentence in a Japanese-learning site
> 姉が空港まで迎えに来てくれます。
which is accompanied by the translation
> My big sister is coming to pick me up at the airport.
Is the use of まで after 空港 correct here? I'd have expected へ or に to be used instead, or more likely で (if the focus is on 空港 being the place where I'm picked up instead of being the destination of 姉's movement).
Update
To clarify on the last part (using で), I was thinking of 空港 as the place where 迎え takes place, instead of the destination of 来てくれる. Though after looking up some example sentences, for this, に is used instead of で. Then again, the more likely interpretation might be that に is indicating the destination of 来てくれる instead.
Also, a search of "pick me up" on 英辞郎 .
Update 2
Google search for [に迎えに来]( returned 13,900,000 hits, whereas [まで迎えに来]( returned 9,060,000 hits. Keep in mind that the に迎えに来 results are not necessarily "location + に迎えに来", so this doesn't necessarily indicate に being used more frequently than まで in this context.
TL;DR まで or に is commonly used for 空港___迎えに来てくれます, people don't use へ and で here.
Thanks everyone for your responses.
| LearnJapanese | t5_2qyls | ciwv8wz | I encountered this sentence in a Japanese-learning site
> 姉が空港まで迎えに来てくれます。
which is accompanied by the translation
> My big sister is coming to pick me up at the airport.
Is the use of まで after 空港 correct here? I'd have expected へ or に to be used instead, or more likely で (if the focus is on 空港 being the place where I'm picked up instead of being the destination of 姉's movement).
Update
To clarify on the last part (using で), I was thinking of 空港 as the place where 迎え takes place, instead of the destination of 来てくれる. Though after looking up some example sentences, for this, に is used instead of で. Then again, the more likely interpretation might be that に is indicating the destination of 来てくれる instead.
Also, a search of "pick me up" on 英辞郎 .
Update 2
Google search for [に迎えに来]( returned 13,900,000 hits, whereas [まで迎えに来]( returned 9,060,000 hits. Keep in mind that the に迎えに来 results are not necessarily "location + に迎えに来", so this doesn't necessarily indicate に being used more frequently than まで in this context. | まで or に is commonly used for 空港___迎えに来てくれます, people don't use へ and で here.
Thanks everyone for your responses. |
tolkaze | I'm a FIFO worker, so have 2 weeks away at a time with no internet. I can tell you now, that whatever you plan to take with you won't be enough. Make sure you bring 3 to 4 times more stuff than you think you will need because you will definately want a bigger selection. Get an external HDD that doesn't require external power so you can hold much much more.
For games, keep it simple with something that will amuse you in different ways, like GTA3 or something older. RTS is good, because each game can take a few hours. Get something like FTL, which you can play a little or a lot. Basically buy a bunch of games on steam, download, switch to offline mode and make sure they work before you are cut off from internet.
Movies and TV:
Make sure you have a huge selection of different movies. Bring DVD's or downloaded content, but make sure you have different genres etc. You may binge on a single TV series, or you might not feel like it when you get away from the internet.
If you like books, goto Project Gutenberg (sp?) to get a few thousand out of print books, and also get a copy of Calibre. Even if you don't have an ereader, you can still read books. There are also plenty of free ways to legally acquire ebooks.
If you have time, and the space, you can download text version of wikipedia (well... some of it anyway)
TLDR; Bring more than you need or want... you will want a much bigger selection than you think you need | I'm a FIFO worker, so have 2 weeks away at a time with no internet. I can tell you now, that whatever you plan to take with you won't be enough. Make sure you bring 3 to 4 times more stuff than you think you will need because you will definately want a bigger selection. Get an external HDD that doesn't require external power so you can hold much much more.
For games, keep it simple with something that will amuse you in different ways, like GTA3 or something older. RTS is good, because each game can take a few hours. Get something like FTL, which you can play a little or a lot. Basically buy a bunch of games on steam, download, switch to offline mode and make sure they work before you are cut off from internet.
Movies and TV:
Make sure you have a huge selection of different movies. Bring DVD's or downloaded content, but make sure you have different genres etc. You may binge on a single TV series, or you might not feel like it when you get away from the internet.
If you like books, goto Project Gutenberg (sp?) to get a few thousand out of print books, and also get a copy of Calibre. Even if you don't have an ereader, you can still read books. There are also plenty of free ways to legally acquire ebooks.
If you have time, and the space, you can download text version of wikipedia (well... some of it anyway)
TLDR; Bring more than you need or want... you will want a much bigger selection than you think you need
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwqlo3 | I'm a FIFO worker, so have 2 weeks away at a time with no internet. I can tell you now, that whatever you plan to take with you won't be enough. Make sure you bring 3 to 4 times more stuff than you think you will need because you will definately want a bigger selection. Get an external HDD that doesn't require external power so you can hold much much more.
For games, keep it simple with something that will amuse you in different ways, like GTA3 or something older. RTS is good, because each game can take a few hours. Get something like FTL, which you can play a little or a lot. Basically buy a bunch of games on steam, download, switch to offline mode and make sure they work before you are cut off from internet.
Movies and TV:
Make sure you have a huge selection of different movies. Bring DVD's or downloaded content, but make sure you have different genres etc. You may binge on a single TV series, or you might not feel like it when you get away from the internet.
If you like books, goto Project Gutenberg (sp?) to get a few thousand out of print books, and also get a copy of Calibre. Even if you don't have an ereader, you can still read books. There are also plenty of free ways to legally acquire ebooks.
If you have time, and the space, you can download text version of wikipedia (well... some of it anyway) | Bring more than you need or want... you will want a much bigger selection than you think you need |
14789651478963741236 | Download an emulator and some roms to go with it.
Download some TV shows like Hannibal, Game of Thrones, Dexter, Pretty Little Liars, etc.
Download some films.
Download some e-books, PDFs, etc.
Make some web pages available offline, such as Wikipedia articles you might like to read through when you have the time.
Download porn.
TL;DR: Download everything. | Download an emulator and some roms to go with it.
Download some TV shows like Hannibal, Game of Thrones, Dexter, Pretty Little Liars, etc.
Download some films.
Download some e-books, PDFs, etc.
Make some web pages available offline, such as Wikipedia articles you might like to read through when you have the time.
Download porn.
TL;DR: Download everything.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwm585 | Download an emulator and some roms to go with it.
Download some TV shows like Hannibal, Game of Thrones, Dexter, Pretty Little Liars, etc.
Download some films.
Download some e-books, PDFs, etc.
Make some web pages available offline, such as Wikipedia articles you might like to read through when you have the time.
Download porn. | Download everything. |
matt1129 | I find people like you pathetically endearing. Why don't you take your worthless liberal arts degree and use it to heat your home or whatever you are living in, instead of advising others to pursue the same fruitless lifestyle. Tldr; writers like you are worthless and make me upset | I find people like you pathetically endearing. Why don't you take your worthless liberal arts degree and use it to heat your home or whatever you are living in, instead of advising others to pursue the same fruitless lifestyle. Tldr; writers like you are worthless and make me upset
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciwyrv5 | I find people like you pathetically endearing. Why don't you take your worthless liberal arts degree and use it to heat your home or whatever you are living in, instead of advising others to pursue the same fruitless lifestyle. | writers like you are worthless and make me upset |
Learjet45dream | Hi there. 20 year old male valet attendant here. I worked for the same company here in Denver last summer when I was home from school, and they hired me again this summer to work at the same location.
The location I work at is a valet for 2 hotels and 6 restaurants (and a place called World of Beer). We have a parking garage on the complex with very limited parking given that there are 2 hotels and 6 restaurants. We have ~40 parking spots total that are reserved as valet only parking spots in the garage from an hour before we open until an hour after we close. We additionally have 6-7 spots right up top where we operate that we reserve for the very nice cars that come in, or if we're ridiculously busy and need somewhere to put a couple of the cars briefly to keep traffic moving. *The garage is also a single level, below ground, with minimal parking available outside the garage as well. I'd estimate there's less than 350 spots total for the complex, and sometimes people are forced to valet as we can and do run out of parking spots that aren't reserved for the valet. We do also have an overflow garage that is about 0.2 miles away from our main garage where we have more room than we'll ever fill.*
Now, let's talk about the kinds of cars we get on a regular basis. The most common manufacturers are Mercedes, Audi, and BMW. Not just the entry level cars either. Sure, we get our fair share of C classes, A4s, and 3 series, but we probably get just as many of the more expensive models as well. We do occasionally get some exotics, although it's certainly not like we're operating at a 5 star luxury hotel in Miami or Vegas where multiple exotics show up daily. We've gotten Maseratis (I myself parked a Maserati Coupe from the early 2000s last summer), Porsches (rather common actually, I've parked my fair share of 911s including Turbos), the **occasional** Ferrari, and also top of the line luxury cars like M line BMWs (i.e. $100k+ M5/M6), AMG Mercedes models, and S line Audis.
As a note, when I was hired last summer, I was hired as part of the group of people hired to be the valet staff as it was a brand new development. Since last summer, there has been a total of 1, that's right **one**, claim. 24 of our 40 spots in the garage are tandem parking spots and are the largest in the garage (so we have 12 tandem spots making space for 24 vehicles). We always park cars in tandem last to avoid having to move one car to retrieve another. It just adds room for error. Unfortunately, it can't always be avoided. Generally speaking, when someone has to move a tandem parked cars, it's busy enough that the valet retrieving the car blocked in moves both. The single claim at the location was a result of this happening. A large truck was moved in order to get a vehicle blocked in out. Unfortunately, the attendant was rushing while it was busy, and the truck ended up in reverse instead of park, so it ended up slowly rolling into a pole in the garage. It was a simple mistake. Shit happens.
Now, keep in mind, we operate 5 days/week (Tue-Sat) year round. This past Friday was decently busy for us with 90 cars parking over the course of the night (with 4 people working). A slow night might be 20-30 cars, with average being around 50-60. Some nights will be slow, some oddly busy, and some just average. If we take a conservative average of 30 cars/night over the last year, That amounts to 7800 vehicles we've parked. Bump that average to 40 cars (more realistic), and you're over 10,000 cars total.
So, of all the cars we've parked (ranging anywhere from 6,000 or so to 10,000+), exactly 1 has had a claim.
So, what's my point in all this? Well, it's simple really. Valets aren't the joy-riding, immature knuckleheads everyone seems to think they are.
So, how do you avoid valets like the one mentioned? Well, here are what I would call my "rules" for choosing whether or not to valet your car.
* Know where your car is being parked. Do they have any spots where you'll be able to see your car while you're at your restaurant or wherever it happens to be? Yes? Great. Tip them when you show up, and ask to have your car kept visible if appropriate. No? Ask. We're happy to answer any questions you have. Are there cameras? Don't know? Ask. If someone shows up and tips us $10, we keep their car up top. Plain and simple. Keep in mind, we offer complimentary valet as well. Someone tipping us when they show up is incentive to keep their car up top. These people almost always tip on the way out too if they tip say $5 upon arrival. People that tip $10+ sometimes still tip, although that's considered a very good tip for us so we treat you just as well as you treat us.
* USE COMMON SENSE. Do they valet attendants have visible tattoos or piercings? Are they well groomed? Do they wear a uniform? No? Then don't trust them with your car. The company I work for requires you to be in uniform at all times, does not allow visible tattoos or piercings (except for ears), and requires men to be clean shaven and well groomed.
* Ask about their liability. Where I work, we're responsible for your car when it's under our care. The rules are simple and straightforward. We mark any visible damage to your car upon arrival. It gets parked, windows rolled up, convertible top put up if applicable, and locked. We also have cameras all over our garage, so if something happens to your car, it will be recorded. Make sure to check your car for any damage before leaving. Once you leave the property in your car, we're no longer liable, and not because we're trying to get out of damaging your car. People could leave, somehow damage their car, then come back and try to blame it on us.
* Consider the alternative. Don't trust the area? Do spots seem really tight? Does it seem likely someone might open their door into yours and give you a nice dent/scratch? Generally speaking, the valet is responsible for your car as soon as you hand over the keys. We're extremely careful not to hit another car when opening the door. Our spots are also isolated from the non-valet spots, so there's no risk of someone parking next to one of our cars and damaging it unless their completely stupid and manage to hit a parked car.
Sincerely,
A hard working valet who hates stereotypes.
**tl;dr** Not all valets are the stupid, young, joy-riding fools everyone seems to think. As long as you use common sense when choosing to valet your car, you'll be fine and avoid situations like the one OP linked to.
*Edit: Added the stuff in italics* | Hi there. 20 year old male valet attendant here. I worked for the same company here in Denver last summer when I was home from school, and they hired me again this summer to work at the same location.
The location I work at is a valet for 2 hotels and 6 restaurants (and a place called World of Beer). We have a parking garage on the complex with very limited parking given that there are 2 hotels and 6 restaurants. We have ~40 parking spots total that are reserved as valet only parking spots in the garage from an hour before we open until an hour after we close. We additionally have 6-7 spots right up top where we operate that we reserve for the very nice cars that come in, or if we're ridiculously busy and need somewhere to put a couple of the cars briefly to keep traffic moving. The garage is also a single level, below ground, with minimal parking available outside the garage as well. I'd estimate there's less than 350 spots total for the complex, and sometimes people are forced to valet as we can and do run out of parking spots that aren't reserved for the valet. We do also have an overflow garage that is about 0.2 miles away from our main garage where we have more room than we'll ever fill.
Now, let's talk about the kinds of cars we get on a regular basis. The most common manufacturers are Mercedes, Audi, and BMW. Not just the entry level cars either. Sure, we get our fair share of C classes, A4s, and 3 series, but we probably get just as many of the more expensive models as well. We do occasionally get some exotics, although it's certainly not like we're operating at a 5 star luxury hotel in Miami or Vegas where multiple exotics show up daily. We've gotten Maseratis (I myself parked a Maserati Coupe from the early 2000s last summer), Porsches (rather common actually, I've parked my fair share of 911s including Turbos), the occasional Ferrari, and also top of the line luxury cars like M line BMWs (i.e. $100k+ M5/M6), AMG Mercedes models, and S line Audis.
As a note, when I was hired last summer, I was hired as part of the group of people hired to be the valet staff as it was a brand new development. Since last summer, there has been a total of 1, that's right one , claim. 24 of our 40 spots in the garage are tandem parking spots and are the largest in the garage (so we have 12 tandem spots making space for 24 vehicles). We always park cars in tandem last to avoid having to move one car to retrieve another. It just adds room for error. Unfortunately, it can't always be avoided. Generally speaking, when someone has to move a tandem parked cars, it's busy enough that the valet retrieving the car blocked in moves both. The single claim at the location was a result of this happening. A large truck was moved in order to get a vehicle blocked in out. Unfortunately, the attendant was rushing while it was busy, and the truck ended up in reverse instead of park, so it ended up slowly rolling into a pole in the garage. It was a simple mistake. Shit happens.
Now, keep in mind, we operate 5 days/week (Tue-Sat) year round. This past Friday was decently busy for us with 90 cars parking over the course of the night (with 4 people working). A slow night might be 20-30 cars, with average being around 50-60. Some nights will be slow, some oddly busy, and some just average. If we take a conservative average of 30 cars/night over the last year, That amounts to 7800 vehicles we've parked. Bump that average to 40 cars (more realistic), and you're over 10,000 cars total.
So, of all the cars we've parked (ranging anywhere from 6,000 or so to 10,000+), exactly 1 has had a claim.
So, what's my point in all this? Well, it's simple really. Valets aren't the joy-riding, immature knuckleheads everyone seems to think they are.
So, how do you avoid valets like the one mentioned? Well, here are what I would call my "rules" for choosing whether or not to valet your car.
Know where your car is being parked. Do they have any spots where you'll be able to see your car while you're at your restaurant or wherever it happens to be? Yes? Great. Tip them when you show up, and ask to have your car kept visible if appropriate. No? Ask. We're happy to answer any questions you have. Are there cameras? Don't know? Ask. If someone shows up and tips us $10, we keep their car up top. Plain and simple. Keep in mind, we offer complimentary valet as well. Someone tipping us when they show up is incentive to keep their car up top. These people almost always tip on the way out too if they tip say $5 upon arrival. People that tip $10+ sometimes still tip, although that's considered a very good tip for us so we treat you just as well as you treat us.
USE COMMON SENSE. Do they valet attendants have visible tattoos or piercings? Are they well groomed? Do they wear a uniform? No? Then don't trust them with your car. The company I work for requires you to be in uniform at all times, does not allow visible tattoos or piercings (except for ears), and requires men to be clean shaven and well groomed.
Ask about their liability. Where I work, we're responsible for your car when it's under our care. The rules are simple and straightforward. We mark any visible damage to your car upon arrival. It gets parked, windows rolled up, convertible top put up if applicable, and locked. We also have cameras all over our garage, so if something happens to your car, it will be recorded. Make sure to check your car for any damage before leaving. Once you leave the property in your car, we're no longer liable, and not because we're trying to get out of damaging your car. People could leave, somehow damage their car, then come back and try to blame it on us.
Consider the alternative. Don't trust the area? Do spots seem really tight? Does it seem likely someone might open their door into yours and give you a nice dent/scratch? Generally speaking, the valet is responsible for your car as soon as you hand over the keys. We're extremely careful not to hit another car when opening the door. Our spots are also isolated from the non-valet spots, so there's no risk of someone parking next to one of our cars and damaging it unless their completely stupid and manage to hit a parked car.
Sincerely,
A hard working valet who hates stereotypes.
tl;dr Not all valets are the stupid, young, joy-riding fools everyone seems to think. As long as you use common sense when choosing to valet your car, you'll be fine and avoid situations like the one OP linked to.
Edit: Added the stuff in italics
| cars | t5_2qhl2 | ciwrbto | Hi there. 20 year old male valet attendant here. I worked for the same company here in Denver last summer when I was home from school, and they hired me again this summer to work at the same location.
The location I work at is a valet for 2 hotels and 6 restaurants (and a place called World of Beer). We have a parking garage on the complex with very limited parking given that there are 2 hotels and 6 restaurants. We have ~40 parking spots total that are reserved as valet only parking spots in the garage from an hour before we open until an hour after we close. We additionally have 6-7 spots right up top where we operate that we reserve for the very nice cars that come in, or if we're ridiculously busy and need somewhere to put a couple of the cars briefly to keep traffic moving. The garage is also a single level, below ground, with minimal parking available outside the garage as well. I'd estimate there's less than 350 spots total for the complex, and sometimes people are forced to valet as we can and do run out of parking spots that aren't reserved for the valet. We do also have an overflow garage that is about 0.2 miles away from our main garage where we have more room than we'll ever fill.
Now, let's talk about the kinds of cars we get on a regular basis. The most common manufacturers are Mercedes, Audi, and BMW. Not just the entry level cars either. Sure, we get our fair share of C classes, A4s, and 3 series, but we probably get just as many of the more expensive models as well. We do occasionally get some exotics, although it's certainly not like we're operating at a 5 star luxury hotel in Miami or Vegas where multiple exotics show up daily. We've gotten Maseratis (I myself parked a Maserati Coupe from the early 2000s last summer), Porsches (rather common actually, I've parked my fair share of 911s including Turbos), the occasional Ferrari, and also top of the line luxury cars like M line BMWs (i.e. $100k+ M5/M6), AMG Mercedes models, and S line Audis.
As a note, when I was hired last summer, I was hired as part of the group of people hired to be the valet staff as it was a brand new development. Since last summer, there has been a total of 1, that's right one , claim. 24 of our 40 spots in the garage are tandem parking spots and are the largest in the garage (so we have 12 tandem spots making space for 24 vehicles). We always park cars in tandem last to avoid having to move one car to retrieve another. It just adds room for error. Unfortunately, it can't always be avoided. Generally speaking, when someone has to move a tandem parked cars, it's busy enough that the valet retrieving the car blocked in moves both. The single claim at the location was a result of this happening. A large truck was moved in order to get a vehicle blocked in out. Unfortunately, the attendant was rushing while it was busy, and the truck ended up in reverse instead of park, so it ended up slowly rolling into a pole in the garage. It was a simple mistake. Shit happens.
Now, keep in mind, we operate 5 days/week (Tue-Sat) year round. This past Friday was decently busy for us with 90 cars parking over the course of the night (with 4 people working). A slow night might be 20-30 cars, with average being around 50-60. Some nights will be slow, some oddly busy, and some just average. If we take a conservative average of 30 cars/night over the last year, That amounts to 7800 vehicles we've parked. Bump that average to 40 cars (more realistic), and you're over 10,000 cars total.
So, of all the cars we've parked (ranging anywhere from 6,000 or so to 10,000+), exactly 1 has had a claim.
So, what's my point in all this? Well, it's simple really. Valets aren't the joy-riding, immature knuckleheads everyone seems to think they are.
So, how do you avoid valets like the one mentioned? Well, here are what I would call my "rules" for choosing whether or not to valet your car.
Know where your car is being parked. Do they have any spots where you'll be able to see your car while you're at your restaurant or wherever it happens to be? Yes? Great. Tip them when you show up, and ask to have your car kept visible if appropriate. No? Ask. We're happy to answer any questions you have. Are there cameras? Don't know? Ask. If someone shows up and tips us $10, we keep their car up top. Plain and simple. Keep in mind, we offer complimentary valet as well. Someone tipping us when they show up is incentive to keep their car up top. These people almost always tip on the way out too if they tip say $5 upon arrival. People that tip $10+ sometimes still tip, although that's considered a very good tip for us so we treat you just as well as you treat us.
USE COMMON SENSE. Do they valet attendants have visible tattoos or piercings? Are they well groomed? Do they wear a uniform? No? Then don't trust them with your car. The company I work for requires you to be in uniform at all times, does not allow visible tattoos or piercings (except for ears), and requires men to be clean shaven and well groomed.
Ask about their liability. Where I work, we're responsible for your car when it's under our care. The rules are simple and straightforward. We mark any visible damage to your car upon arrival. It gets parked, windows rolled up, convertible top put up if applicable, and locked. We also have cameras all over our garage, so if something happens to your car, it will be recorded. Make sure to check your car for any damage before leaving. Once you leave the property in your car, we're no longer liable, and not because we're trying to get out of damaging your car. People could leave, somehow damage their car, then come back and try to blame it on us.
Consider the alternative. Don't trust the area? Do spots seem really tight? Does it seem likely someone might open their door into yours and give you a nice dent/scratch? Generally speaking, the valet is responsible for your car as soon as you hand over the keys. We're extremely careful not to hit another car when opening the door. Our spots are also isolated from the non-valet spots, so there's no risk of someone parking next to one of our cars and damaging it unless their completely stupid and manage to hit a parked car.
Sincerely,
A hard working valet who hates stereotypes. | Not all valets are the stupid, young, joy-riding fools everyone seems to think. As long as you use common sense when choosing to valet your car, you'll be fine and avoid situations like the one OP linked to.
Edit: Added the stuff in italics |
AnnaLemma | It's not anything really *horrifying* - like, we didn't end up having termites which ate the house while we were sleeping or anything like that. But we were first-time buyers, so we had no idea *what* the fuck we were doing. The whole process is confusing as hell (and it didn't help that I was pregnant for the first - and hopefully only - time while we were in the middle of it, so we had all of *that* nonsense to deal with at the same time). So when our agent said "Sure, no problem, I'll get you an inspector, you don't need to worry about it" - well. You know what they say about hindsight.
Anyway, the inspector did find a couple of minor things - soffits that needed replacing (that was the day I learned that there was such a thing as a soffit), the dishwasher being old and probably non-functioning, the bath being water-stained, things like that. It all seemed pretty pro forma, in retrospect - he wouldn't give the house a *total* pass because that would have been *very* weird, but it was the sort of stuff that the seller could fix pretty cheaply.
Within a few months (maybe a year) we start seeing more problematic stuff: the ceiling in the upstairs bath is peeling, the bathroom fixtures start leaking badly, a couple of the stairs to the second floor started sagging a noticeably, that sort of stuff. Then my husband started making some alterations to the lighting in the basement (he has a ceramics studio down there), and found that the lighting was DIY-wired! Badly! The dude who lived there before us apparently just took copper-wired fixtures and Frankensteined them onto the existing aluminum wiring. (By the way? no one told us we had aluminum wiring.) Same thing upstairs: when we changed the light fixtures, there were loose wires just sort of hanging there. Can you say "fire hazard"? Yes you can, because in the last couple of years there were *two* very, very bad fires in our development, and one that seemed like it was *relatively* bad.
So yeah. The TL;DR is that the inspector very obviously either didn't catch or downplayed some of the very things that an inspector is *supposed to* alert his clients to. The house was cosmetically perfect when we bought it - not chic or new, but in pristine condition. But underneath that pretty paint and new carpeting were some middling-major issues (which would have been much more costly if my husband weren't handy enough to fix some of them on his own). | It's not anything really horrifying - like, we didn't end up having termites which ate the house while we were sleeping or anything like that. But we were first-time buyers, so we had no idea what the fuck we were doing. The whole process is confusing as hell (and it didn't help that I was pregnant for the first - and hopefully only - time while we were in the middle of it, so we had all of that nonsense to deal with at the same time). So when our agent said "Sure, no problem, I'll get you an inspector, you don't need to worry about it" - well. You know what they say about hindsight.
Anyway, the inspector did find a couple of minor things - soffits that needed replacing (that was the day I learned that there was such a thing as a soffit), the dishwasher being old and probably non-functioning, the bath being water-stained, things like that. It all seemed pretty pro forma, in retrospect - he wouldn't give the house a total pass because that would have been very weird, but it was the sort of stuff that the seller could fix pretty cheaply.
Within a few months (maybe a year) we start seeing more problematic stuff: the ceiling in the upstairs bath is peeling, the bathroom fixtures start leaking badly, a couple of the stairs to the second floor started sagging a noticeably, that sort of stuff. Then my husband started making some alterations to the lighting in the basement (he has a ceramics studio down there), and found that the lighting was DIY-wired! Badly! The dude who lived there before us apparently just took copper-wired fixtures and Frankensteined them onto the existing aluminum wiring. (By the way? no one told us we had aluminum wiring.) Same thing upstairs: when we changed the light fixtures, there were loose wires just sort of hanging there. Can you say "fire hazard"? Yes you can, because in the last couple of years there were two very, very bad fires in our development, and one that seemed like it was relatively bad.
So yeah. The TL;DR is that the inspector very obviously either didn't catch or downplayed some of the very things that an inspector is supposed to alert his clients to. The house was cosmetically perfect when we bought it - not chic or new, but in pristine condition. But underneath that pretty paint and new carpeting were some middling-major issues (which would have been much more costly if my husband weren't handy enough to fix some of them on his own).
| BreakingParents | t5_312wz | cix0itd | It's not anything really horrifying - like, we didn't end up having termites which ate the house while we were sleeping or anything like that. But we were first-time buyers, so we had no idea what the fuck we were doing. The whole process is confusing as hell (and it didn't help that I was pregnant for the first - and hopefully only - time while we were in the middle of it, so we had all of that nonsense to deal with at the same time). So when our agent said "Sure, no problem, I'll get you an inspector, you don't need to worry about it" - well. You know what they say about hindsight.
Anyway, the inspector did find a couple of minor things - soffits that needed replacing (that was the day I learned that there was such a thing as a soffit), the dishwasher being old and probably non-functioning, the bath being water-stained, things like that. It all seemed pretty pro forma, in retrospect - he wouldn't give the house a total pass because that would have been very weird, but it was the sort of stuff that the seller could fix pretty cheaply.
Within a few months (maybe a year) we start seeing more problematic stuff: the ceiling in the upstairs bath is peeling, the bathroom fixtures start leaking badly, a couple of the stairs to the second floor started sagging a noticeably, that sort of stuff. Then my husband started making some alterations to the lighting in the basement (he has a ceramics studio down there), and found that the lighting was DIY-wired! Badly! The dude who lived there before us apparently just took copper-wired fixtures and Frankensteined them onto the existing aluminum wiring. (By the way? no one told us we had aluminum wiring.) Same thing upstairs: when we changed the light fixtures, there were loose wires just sort of hanging there. Can you say "fire hazard"? Yes you can, because in the last couple of years there were two very, very bad fires in our development, and one that seemed like it was relatively bad.
So yeah. The | is that the inspector very obviously either didn't catch or downplayed some of the very things that an inspector is supposed to alert his clients to. The house was cosmetically perfect when we bought it - not chic or new, but in pristine condition. But underneath that pretty paint and new carpeting were some middling-major issues (which would have been much more costly if my husband weren't handy enough to fix some of them on his own). |
Ninja-iris | Chop chili and scratch your eye. Only once!!
Oh and also, I once found a bottle of sparkly water in the kitchen, naturally I put it in the fridge. Hours later I mindlessly take the bottle, and takes a huge gulp. As I swallow I can feel a horrible burn in my throat and mouth. Turns out my SO bought a bottle of cilit bang, the bottle broke, so he pored it into a water bottle he found.
I had to go to the emergency center for burns in my throat. I ate a lot of icecream the following week.
Now I sniff every bottle I ever drink from, even new ones.
Tldr: mark your goddam bottles if you switch the contents. | Chop chili and scratch your eye. Only once!!
Oh and also, I once found a bottle of sparkly water in the kitchen, naturally I put it in the fridge. Hours later I mindlessly take the bottle, and takes a huge gulp. As I swallow I can feel a horrible burn in my throat and mouth. Turns out my SO bought a bottle of cilit bang, the bottle broke, so he pored it into a water bottle he found.
I had to go to the emergency center for burns in my throat. I ate a lot of icecream the following week.
Now I sniff every bottle I ever drink from, even new ones.
Tldr: mark your goddam bottles if you switch the contents.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | ciww70q | Chop chili and scratch your eye. Only once!!
Oh and also, I once found a bottle of sparkly water in the kitchen, naturally I put it in the fridge. Hours later I mindlessly take the bottle, and takes a huge gulp. As I swallow I can feel a horrible burn in my throat and mouth. Turns out my SO bought a bottle of cilit bang, the bottle broke, so he pored it into a water bottle he found.
I had to go to the emergency center for burns in my throat. I ate a lot of icecream the following week.
Now I sniff every bottle I ever drink from, even new ones. | mark your goddam bottles if you switch the contents. |
1mike12 | Im copying and pasting my response to another question.
I also learned PHP through codeacademy. At least that's where I started. I then followed along with an online tutorial to build a Content Management System. Then, after that, I attempted to make my own project. It's during this that you find out how annoying it is working with databases and having to build your own active records for everything. It was very slow going but the entire process forced me to learn about all the hard stuff.
I think if you just jump straight into laravel, you wont fully appreciate why laravel does certain things. It abstracts all the nasty, tiresome stuff away. But if something goes wrong, you will need to know what's going on behind that abstraction, or at least have some sort of educated guess. I would have been totally clueless if I didn't attempt the raw stuff first. So I guess tl;dr try to do stuff in PHP, so you are better at using Laravel after.
| Im copying and pasting my response to another question.
I also learned PHP through codeacademy. At least that's where I started. I then followed along with an online tutorial to build a Content Management System. Then, after that, I attempted to make my own project. It's during this that you find out how annoying it is working with databases and having to build your own active records for everything. It was very slow going but the entire process forced me to learn about all the hard stuff.
I think if you just jump straight into laravel, you wont fully appreciate why laravel does certain things. It abstracts all the nasty, tiresome stuff away. But if something goes wrong, you will need to know what's going on behind that abstraction, or at least have some sort of educated guess. I would have been totally clueless if I didn't attempt the raw stuff first. So I guess tl;dr try to do stuff in PHP, so you are better at using Laravel after.
| laravel | t5_2uakt | cix2t8s | Im copying and pasting my response to another question.
I also learned PHP through codeacademy. At least that's where I started. I then followed along with an online tutorial to build a Content Management System. Then, after that, I attempted to make my own project. It's during this that you find out how annoying it is working with databases and having to build your own active records for everything. It was very slow going but the entire process forced me to learn about all the hard stuff.
I think if you just jump straight into laravel, you wont fully appreciate why laravel does certain things. It abstracts all the nasty, tiresome stuff away. But if something goes wrong, you will need to know what's going on behind that abstraction, or at least have some sort of educated guess. I would have been totally clueless if I didn't attempt the raw stuff first. So I guess | try to do stuff in PHP, so you are better at using Laravel after. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.