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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
bf4truth | netcode didnt fix a whole lot
plus, TTK is still the same - netcode fix only makes it so you dont get all the info at once
you used to always drop dead instantly because you got all the info at once - WHY? because if the server only sends you info at 10hz, you die way faster than the return rate of server info
at 30hz, you are more likely to get intermediate data - so you might see hits register over time rather than at once
you still take the same damage in the same time though! one is just coming to you in 3 packets over the same period of time you used to get it all in 1 packet
here is an analogy - if you check your popcorn in the microwave every 10 minutes, you will see 100% unpopped corn to almost 100% in ONE event. If you checked every 30 seconds, youd see it at 5%, 10%, 50%, etc, popped. The corn still pops in the same time - 10 minutes. But by checking every 30 seconds, youre seeing more between phases.
Its the same concept with the netcode high frequency change. YOu arent dying in 1 hit anymore because you actually get the information in quicker interims. You see your health at 75%, 50%, and 25%. Prior, it was 100%, then 0%.... BUT YOU STILL DIED THE SAME SPEED.
If you die in 100 milliseconds, but the server only updates you every 150, you will go from 100% - 0% in an update. If it updates 50 milliseconds, you will see 50%, then 0% hp. YOu still died in 100ms, but prior to the change, the info wasnt sent to you fast enough.
TLDR - TTK never changed. Perhaps fixes that addresses hit registering helped, but the netcode did not. | netcode didnt fix a whole lot
plus, TTK is still the same - netcode fix only makes it so you dont get all the info at once
you used to always drop dead instantly because you got all the info at once - WHY? because if the server only sends you info at 10hz, you die way faster than the return rate of server info
at 30hz, you are more likely to get intermediate data - so you might see hits register over time rather than at once
you still take the same damage in the same time though! one is just coming to you in 3 packets over the same period of time you used to get it all in 1 packet
here is an analogy - if you check your popcorn in the microwave every 10 minutes, you will see 100% unpopped corn to almost 100% in ONE event. If you checked every 30 seconds, youd see it at 5%, 10%, 50%, etc, popped. The corn still pops in the same time - 10 minutes. But by checking every 30 seconds, youre seeing more between phases.
Its the same concept with the netcode high frequency change. YOu arent dying in 1 hit anymore because you actually get the information in quicker interims. You see your health at 75%, 50%, and 25%. Prior, it was 100%, then 0%.... BUT YOU STILL DIED THE SAME SPEED.
If you die in 100 milliseconds, but the server only updates you every 150, you will go from 100% - 0% in an update. If it updates 50 milliseconds, you will see 50%, then 0% hp. YOu still died in 100ms, but prior to the change, the info wasnt sent to you fast enough.
TLDR - TTK never changed. Perhaps fixes that addresses hit registering helped, but the netcode did not.
| battlefield_4 | t5_2uie9 | cjbusda | netcode didnt fix a whole lot
plus, TTK is still the same - netcode fix only makes it so you dont get all the info at once
you used to always drop dead instantly because you got all the info at once - WHY? because if the server only sends you info at 10hz, you die way faster than the return rate of server info
at 30hz, you are more likely to get intermediate data - so you might see hits register over time rather than at once
you still take the same damage in the same time though! one is just coming to you in 3 packets over the same period of time you used to get it all in 1 packet
here is an analogy - if you check your popcorn in the microwave every 10 minutes, you will see 100% unpopped corn to almost 100% in ONE event. If you checked every 30 seconds, youd see it at 5%, 10%, 50%, etc, popped. The corn still pops in the same time - 10 minutes. But by checking every 30 seconds, youre seeing more between phases.
Its the same concept with the netcode high frequency change. YOu arent dying in 1 hit anymore because you actually get the information in quicker interims. You see your health at 75%, 50%, and 25%. Prior, it was 100%, then 0%.... BUT YOU STILL DIED THE SAME SPEED.
If you die in 100 milliseconds, but the server only updates you every 150, you will go from 100% - 0% in an update. If it updates 50 milliseconds, you will see 50%, then 0% hp. YOu still died in 100ms, but prior to the change, the info wasnt sent to you fast enough. | TTK never changed. Perhaps fixes that addresses hit registering helped, but the netcode did not. |
mk7eam | i really love the changes that DICE LA are pushing int othe CTE but here is the first patch i dont like since the CTE's creation... increasing the TTK(time to kill) battlefield already haves low damage models i dont see the point in making it even worse... on live i have times where i empty my whole magazine for 2 guys and they still live and i have to use my postol... all the movement speed changes and acceleration are a welcome addition. If I am correct was it not the whole point of Battlefield 4 to be a "competetive" game for Esport? If i remember correctly one of the guys from original DICE or EA said that Battlefield 4 will be the biggest shooter for Esports in 6 months or something like that... Well it is not... if you want to really make the game into a Esport, make it competetive .. main preority is the connection it should be nice and snapy then is the weapon balance,They should kill fast they should be strong up close , there should be more risky plays more squard oriented gameplay... Imo Snipers should be one hit kills all the time there is no logic being shot buy 308.magnum and surviving or just tanking 50ish damage at long range... at close range all guns should have higher damage 4 shots for high ROF and 3 shots for High Dmg ones... Shotguns should be a powerhouse at close range , they are atm but a little mroe tweaking, i my self play burst fire rifles and single shot ones i like accuricy rifles as of now the m16A4 is my favorite gun in the game but it should get some tweaking I would love if it gets a higher damage model so it can compensate for the delay between shots and make it better at range for a accuricy gun its pretty bad at long range compared to other guns, and lastly the DMRs , DMRs atm are pretty fun guns but they are wrongfuly used , they pretty much such at long range, have a really slow time to kill and are not that accurate atleast as of my experience with them , maybe make them a 2 shot kill at close range and a oneshot kill to the head? And lower their ROF so they are not so spammy up close they should retain high damage at range so they can fill a role between a sniper rifle and a assault rifle and most importantly of all please change the sound that DMRs make the sound that other players hear when they are shot i mean , the whip sound you now DISH DISH DISH it is horrible and annoying why not make them sound like they actually sound like to the player shooting them? well this is all i had to say I this is my honest opinion As a experienced FPS player for the last 14 years this is what i can say and this is what i would love to see , we have the power to change now DICE LA are so active and im thank you for this , so if anyone of you see's this please take it in to account !
TL;DR : Game should be Faster,snapier , damage models for guns should remain unchanged or increased in some instances. DMRs and Burst Rifles should get a better TTK and damage model, Snipers should always be oneshot kills so they are more realistic(ppl complaining about this change the fix is easy they should just put a sniper limit maybe 1 per squad...?) | i really love the changes that DICE LA are pushing int othe CTE but here is the first patch i dont like since the CTE's creation... increasing the TTK(time to kill) battlefield already haves low damage models i dont see the point in making it even worse... on live i have times where i empty my whole magazine for 2 guys and they still live and i have to use my postol... all the movement speed changes and acceleration are a welcome addition. If I am correct was it not the whole point of Battlefield 4 to be a "competetive" game for Esport? If i remember correctly one of the guys from original DICE or EA said that Battlefield 4 will be the biggest shooter for Esports in 6 months or something like that... Well it is not... if you want to really make the game into a Esport, make it competetive .. main preority is the connection it should be nice and snapy then is the weapon balance,They should kill fast they should be strong up close , there should be more risky plays more squard oriented gameplay... Imo Snipers should be one hit kills all the time there is no logic being shot buy 308.magnum and surviving or just tanking 50ish damage at long range... at close range all guns should have higher damage 4 shots for high ROF and 3 shots for High Dmg ones... Shotguns should be a powerhouse at close range , they are atm but a little mroe tweaking, i my self play burst fire rifles and single shot ones i like accuricy rifles as of now the m16A4 is my favorite gun in the game but it should get some tweaking I would love if it gets a higher damage model so it can compensate for the delay between shots and make it better at range for a accuricy gun its pretty bad at long range compared to other guns, and lastly the DMRs , DMRs atm are pretty fun guns but they are wrongfuly used , they pretty much such at long range, have a really slow time to kill and are not that accurate atleast as of my experience with them , maybe make them a 2 shot kill at close range and a oneshot kill to the head? And lower their ROF so they are not so spammy up close they should retain high damage at range so they can fill a role between a sniper rifle and a assault rifle and most importantly of all please change the sound that DMRs make the sound that other players hear when they are shot i mean , the whip sound you now DISH DISH DISH it is horrible and annoying why not make them sound like they actually sound like to the player shooting them? well this is all i had to say I this is my honest opinion As a experienced FPS player for the last 14 years this is what i can say and this is what i would love to see , we have the power to change now DICE LA are so active and im thank you for this , so if anyone of you see's this please take it in to account !
TL;DR : Game should be Faster,snapier , damage models for guns should remain unchanged or increased in some instances. DMRs and Burst Rifles should get a better TTK and damage model, Snipers should always be oneshot kills so they are more realistic(ppl complaining about this change the fix is easy they should just put a sniper limit maybe 1 per squad...?)
| battlefield_4 | t5_2uie9 | cj877dt | i really love the changes that DICE LA are pushing int othe CTE but here is the first patch i dont like since the CTE's creation... increasing the TTK(time to kill) battlefield already haves low damage models i dont see the point in making it even worse... on live i have times where i empty my whole magazine for 2 guys and they still live and i have to use my postol... all the movement speed changes and acceleration are a welcome addition. If I am correct was it not the whole point of Battlefield 4 to be a "competetive" game for Esport? If i remember correctly one of the guys from original DICE or EA said that Battlefield 4 will be the biggest shooter for Esports in 6 months or something like that... Well it is not... if you want to really make the game into a Esport, make it competetive .. main preority is the connection it should be nice and snapy then is the weapon balance,They should kill fast they should be strong up close , there should be more risky plays more squard oriented gameplay... Imo Snipers should be one hit kills all the time there is no logic being shot buy 308.magnum and surviving or just tanking 50ish damage at long range... at close range all guns should have higher damage 4 shots for high ROF and 3 shots for High Dmg ones... Shotguns should be a powerhouse at close range , they are atm but a little mroe tweaking, i my self play burst fire rifles and single shot ones i like accuricy rifles as of now the m16A4 is my favorite gun in the game but it should get some tweaking I would love if it gets a higher damage model so it can compensate for the delay between shots and make it better at range for a accuricy gun its pretty bad at long range compared to other guns, and lastly the DMRs , DMRs atm are pretty fun guns but they are wrongfuly used , they pretty much such at long range, have a really slow time to kill and are not that accurate atleast as of my experience with them , maybe make them a 2 shot kill at close range and a oneshot kill to the head? And lower their ROF so they are not so spammy up close they should retain high damage at range so they can fill a role between a sniper rifle and a assault rifle and most importantly of all please change the sound that DMRs make the sound that other players hear when they are shot i mean , the whip sound you now DISH DISH DISH it is horrible and annoying why not make them sound like they actually sound like to the player shooting them? well this is all i had to say I this is my honest opinion As a experienced FPS player for the last 14 years this is what i can say and this is what i would love to see , we have the power to change now DICE LA are so active and im thank you for this , so if anyone of you see's this please take it in to account ! | Game should be Faster,snapier , damage models for guns should remain unchanged or increased in some instances. DMRs and Burst Rifles should get a better TTK and damage model, Snipers should always be oneshot kills so they are more realistic(ppl complaining about this change the fix is easy they should just put a sniper limit maybe 1 per squad...?) |
doughscraper | There are videos of the 2 big towers coming down, they didn't implode, they fucked up multiple city blocks worth of buildings. It is not a clean implosion.
The plane's fuel weakened the steel structure, hence, fall down.
Building 7's main support was knocked out, fell down.
Many many more people didn't hear 'multiple explosions'. Eye witness accounts are not reliable.
tl;dr: sheeple. | There are videos of the 2 big towers coming down, they didn't implode, they fucked up multiple city blocks worth of buildings. It is not a clean implosion.
The plane's fuel weakened the steel structure, hence, fall down.
Building 7's main support was knocked out, fell down.
Many many more people didn't hear 'multiple explosions'. Eye witness accounts are not reliable.
tl;dr: sheeple.
| MorbidReality | t5_2tz1e | cj953hp | There are videos of the 2 big towers coming down, they didn't implode, they fucked up multiple city blocks worth of buildings. It is not a clean implosion.
The plane's fuel weakened the steel structure, hence, fall down.
Building 7's main support was knocked out, fell down.
Many many more people didn't hear 'multiple explosions'. Eye witness accounts are not reliable. | sheeple. |
Valkorio | You are so right and after the game complaining on social media...it's like Brasil complaining that Germany scored them 7 goals of course a team won't hesistate to destroy you if you let them the chance...there aren't only ponies and candies out there. The real world is harsh.
TL;DR: Report Germany 7-1 Brasil | You are so right and after the game complaining on social media...it's like Brasil complaining that Germany scored them 7 goals of course a team won't hesistate to destroy you if you let them the chance...there aren't only ponies and candies out there. The real world is harsh.
TL;DR: Report Germany 7-1 Brasil
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cj8cvyi | You are so right and after the game complaining on social media...it's like Brasil complaining that Germany scored them 7 goals of course a team won't hesistate to destroy you if you let them the chance...there aren't only ponies and candies out there. The real world is harsh. | Report Germany 7-1 Brasil |
dried_up_waterparks | Lol.
Alright well next time I'm faced with determining what is "reasonable" in the circumstances I'll consult Websters.
Tribunal in a legal context, when used correctly, is a word for an alternative mode of adjudication than a "Court of Law." A court itself is subject to strict rules of evidence. Commonly known as a "quasi-judicial" body.
A "military tribunal" is called such because it *does not operate under the same strict rules of evidence that a criminal court of law does*.
Things like hearsay evidence rules are relaxed, what evidence may be admitted, standards of proof, burdens of proof, and legal representation. The rules of evidence have developed over centuries to ensure a *fair process when determining criminal culpability*.
So you can throw Merriam at me, but I happen to have a law degree and I can say --with extreme certainty-- that "tribunal" and "court" are distinct.
Specifically, the **tribunals** we were discussing are designed to find guilt, but we aren't concern about purpose, we are concerned with process.
The military **tribunal** in the United States does not have a civilian jury (or the option to be tried in front of one), charges are brought by military authorities, the judicial officers are military members (not strictly separate from the executive branch which --again-- is indicative of tribunal not Court).
Further, a tribunal is distinct as the apeal is usually a:
1. Statutory right to appeal to court; or
2. A statutory appeal scheme (ie board --> tribunal); or
3. A separate application for judicial review of the decision (which is a totally different matter than the actual trial).
It is for these reasons that there is concern about fair process.
tl;dr - No. Webster's is a terrible source, and I'm still right.
| Lol.
Alright well next time I'm faced with determining what is "reasonable" in the circumstances I'll consult Websters.
Tribunal in a legal context, when used correctly, is a word for an alternative mode of adjudication than a "Court of Law." A court itself is subject to strict rules of evidence. Commonly known as a "quasi-judicial" body.
A "military tribunal" is called such because it does not operate under the same strict rules of evidence that a criminal court of law does .
Things like hearsay evidence rules are relaxed, what evidence may be admitted, standards of proof, burdens of proof, and legal representation. The rules of evidence have developed over centuries to ensure a fair process when determining criminal culpability .
So you can throw Merriam at me, but I happen to have a law degree and I can say --with extreme certainty-- that "tribunal" and "court" are distinct.
Specifically, the tribunals we were discussing are designed to find guilt, but we aren't concern about purpose, we are concerned with process.
The military tribunal in the United States does not have a civilian jury (or the option to be tried in front of one), charges are brought by military authorities, the judicial officers are military members (not strictly separate from the executive branch which --again-- is indicative of tribunal not Court).
Further, a tribunal is distinct as the apeal is usually a:
Statutory right to appeal to court; or
A statutory appeal scheme (ie board --> tribunal); or
A separate application for judicial review of the decision (which is a totally different matter than the actual trial).
It is for these reasons that there is concern about fair process.
tl;dr - No. Webster's is a terrible source, and I'm still right.
| CanadaPolitics | t5_2s4gt | cjbt0m0 | Lol.
Alright well next time I'm faced with determining what is "reasonable" in the circumstances I'll consult Websters.
Tribunal in a legal context, when used correctly, is a word for an alternative mode of adjudication than a "Court of Law." A court itself is subject to strict rules of evidence. Commonly known as a "quasi-judicial" body.
A "military tribunal" is called such because it does not operate under the same strict rules of evidence that a criminal court of law does .
Things like hearsay evidence rules are relaxed, what evidence may be admitted, standards of proof, burdens of proof, and legal representation. The rules of evidence have developed over centuries to ensure a fair process when determining criminal culpability .
So you can throw Merriam at me, but I happen to have a law degree and I can say --with extreme certainty-- that "tribunal" and "court" are distinct.
Specifically, the tribunals we were discussing are designed to find guilt, but we aren't concern about purpose, we are concerned with process.
The military tribunal in the United States does not have a civilian jury (or the option to be tried in front of one), charges are brought by military authorities, the judicial officers are military members (not strictly separate from the executive branch which --again-- is indicative of tribunal not Court).
Further, a tribunal is distinct as the apeal is usually a:
Statutory right to appeal to court; or
A statutory appeal scheme (ie board --> tribunal); or
A separate application for judicial review of the decision (which is a totally different matter than the actual trial).
It is for these reasons that there is concern about fair process. | No. Webster's is a terrible source, and I'm still right. |
sphenisciformes | **Continued from my comment above....**
* A study on male fertility with soy.[8]
The article is entitled: "The Role of Nutraceuticals in Male Fertility." (Ko & Sabenegh, 2014) Neutraceuticals is a word that's unrecognized by US law (and I'm sure elsewhere) and it is usually a food or else a supplement, or even a drug, that is marketed to help cure some medical issue.
I can't get free access to this article, so someone else may have to fill in because I don't want to spend $30, but I can see the first page: This article is talking about medically therapeutic nutraceuticals used to promote sperm function, libido, etc. Tey also emphasize the importance of oxidative stress.
Why did you include this study, OP? It seems barely relevant to the claims you're making and I'm sure there are stronger articles out there if what you are stating would be true.
* Another 2014 Study.[9]
Again: rats =/= humans! This study looks specifically at "Equol (EQ), a metabolite of the soy isoflavone daidzein, has well known estrogenic properties." (1st line of abstract) They summarize that: "our findings are the first data that EQ did not induce anti-androgenic effects on brain, prostate and male reproductive parameters, however, estrogenic neuroendocrine and reproductive effects of EQ were observed."
This study used another strain of 2-month-old rats specifically bred for lab experiments. After being kept in the standard conditions, the experiment began at 4 months. They induced nutrients tested by gavage. These rats were not consuming soy products or in any normal way that could be compared to humans.
There are also plenty of studies that show lab conditions are abnormal and cannot be considered to have positive welfare in all situations. Lab rat behavior and physiology is dependent on all of this. For instance, they only let them breed at 4pm - that's so bizarre if you know anything about rat reproductive behaviors and social constructs; they don't breed at a given time like that.
However, the authors still conclude: "Reproductive outcomes as determined by the mating index, fecundity index and fetal outcomes were not affected by sub-acute oral administration of EQ both at low and high doses to adult male rats for 5 days." (They had 5-day testing intervals.) FLUT had an effect, but "these results represent the first demonstration that EQ did not exert anti-androgenic effects on reproductive outcomes in adult male rats. It may be argued that the applied doses of EQ were too low to affect reproductive and fetal outcome parameters in male rats. However, serum concentrations of EQ measured in rats treated with 100 mg EQ/kg BW/day were in the range found in Asian men consuming the traditional soy-rich diet ( Hedlund et al., 2003 and Morton et al., 2002)."
Seriously, OP, I don't think you read this article. Not that humans consume EQ like these rats were, but it still didn't matter!
* A second study on the effects of a soy-based diet on prepubescent male rats.[10]
No.... the authors say: "The present study was designed to determine if a high fat diet at sexual maturation moderates testicular toxicity occasioned by exposure to BPA during reproductive development."
Why are you misleading people? The only mention of soy in this article is saying that soy-free food should be used to minimize exposure to estrogens that might interfere with experimental results! There are no mentions of isoflavones or anything like that! Did you just search for articles published in 2014 that mention something remotely related to male reproductive biology that included the word "soy"? I don't see another explanation.
* A study on giving soy to women to increase their estrogen levels, postnatal.[11]
Postnatal women? OP, my (wo)man, you were making claims about male fertility. What's the deal with this now? I'll humor you....
However... this is actually a review article called: "Environmental epigenetics and phytoestrogen/phytochemical exposures" (Guerrero-Bosagna & Skinner, 2012) The abstract says: "The current review focuses on available information on the environmental epigenetics of phytoestrogen/phytochemical exposures, with impacts on health, disease and evolutionary biology considered."
The authors discuss how "isoflavone consumption in Asian countries (25–100 mg/day) is much higher than in western countries, such as the UK, with daily consumption below 1 mg." (Going back to the original article, this shows just how extreme that one subject was.)
They also discuss how soy has been found to help postmenopausal women by increasing hormone circulation (and increasing sexual arousal). There were some negative for women prone to fibroids, for instance, but again - everyone responds to different things in different ways, so this is not shocking. They also don't talk specifically about soy, but phytoestrogens, which "are naturally available endocrine disruptors in the environment" and "one of the largest classes of compounds humans are exposed to throughout life."
The conclusion says: "Given the diverse mechanism of action, the potency of these compounds, the impact of phytochemicals on disease, and the potential for combinatorial effects with other common synthetic toxicants, it will be fundamental in the future to increase the focus on epigenetic effects of phytoestrogens/phytochemicals. Perhaps most important will be to investigate potential transgenerational effects of exposure to phytoestrogens/phytochemicals."
* Increasing estrogen in postmenopausal Chinese-women.[12]
Wait... what - postmenopausal women? OP, you were talking about male infertility... grasping at straws?
Seriously, though, the article is called: "Maca reduces blood pressure and depression, in a pilot study in postmenopausal women"
I don't know what else to say but copy the results: "There were no differences in estradiol, FSH, TSH, SHBG, glucose, lipid profiles and serum cytokines amongst those who received Maca as compared to placebo group, however, a significant decrease in diastolic blood pressure and depression was apparent after Maca treatment."
So... maca helps reduce the symptoms of depression in postmenopausal women in China. Great! But how does this relate to your outlandish claims...? It doesn't.
***TL;DR*: OP is copying and pasting articles that have nothing to do with their original claim or actually lend support to the opposite of what they're claiming. I break it down article by article.** | Continued from my comment above....
A study on male fertility with soy.[8]
The article is entitled: "The Role of Nutraceuticals in Male Fertility." (Ko & Sabenegh, 2014) Neutraceuticals is a word that's unrecognized by US law (and I'm sure elsewhere) and it is usually a food or else a supplement, or even a drug, that is marketed to help cure some medical issue.
I can't get free access to this article, so someone else may have to fill in because I don't want to spend $30, but I can see the first page: This article is talking about medically therapeutic nutraceuticals used to promote sperm function, libido, etc. Tey also emphasize the importance of oxidative stress.
Why did you include this study, OP? It seems barely relevant to the claims you're making and I'm sure there are stronger articles out there if what you are stating would be true.
Another 2014 Study.[9]
Again: rats =/= humans! This study looks specifically at "Equol (EQ), a metabolite of the soy isoflavone daidzein, has well known estrogenic properties." (1st line of abstract) They summarize that: "our findings are the first data that EQ did not induce anti-androgenic effects on brain, prostate and male reproductive parameters, however, estrogenic neuroendocrine and reproductive effects of EQ were observed."
This study used another strain of 2-month-old rats specifically bred for lab experiments. After being kept in the standard conditions, the experiment began at 4 months. They induced nutrients tested by gavage. These rats were not consuming soy products or in any normal way that could be compared to humans.
There are also plenty of studies that show lab conditions are abnormal and cannot be considered to have positive welfare in all situations. Lab rat behavior and physiology is dependent on all of this. For instance, they only let them breed at 4pm - that's so bizarre if you know anything about rat reproductive behaviors and social constructs; they don't breed at a given time like that.
However, the authors still conclude: "Reproductive outcomes as determined by the mating index, fecundity index and fetal outcomes were not affected by sub-acute oral administration of EQ both at low and high doses to adult male rats for 5 days." (They had 5-day testing intervals.) FLUT had an effect, but "these results represent the first demonstration that EQ did not exert anti-androgenic effects on reproductive outcomes in adult male rats. It may be argued that the applied doses of EQ were too low to affect reproductive and fetal outcome parameters in male rats. However, serum concentrations of EQ measured in rats treated with 100 mg EQ/kg BW/day were in the range found in Asian men consuming the traditional soy-rich diet ( Hedlund et al., 2003 and Morton et al., 2002)."
Seriously, OP, I don't think you read this article. Not that humans consume EQ like these rats were, but it still didn't matter!
A second study on the effects of a soy-based diet on prepubescent male rats.[10]
No.... the authors say: "The present study was designed to determine if a high fat diet at sexual maturation moderates testicular toxicity occasioned by exposure to BPA during reproductive development."
Why are you misleading people? The only mention of soy in this article is saying that soy-free food should be used to minimize exposure to estrogens that might interfere with experimental results! There are no mentions of isoflavones or anything like that! Did you just search for articles published in 2014 that mention something remotely related to male reproductive biology that included the word "soy"? I don't see another explanation.
A study on giving soy to women to increase their estrogen levels, postnatal.[11]
Postnatal women? OP, my (wo)man, you were making claims about male fertility. What's the deal with this now? I'll humor you....
However... this is actually a review article called: "Environmental epigenetics and phytoestrogen/phytochemical exposures" (Guerrero-Bosagna & Skinner, 2012) The abstract says: "The current review focuses on available information on the environmental epigenetics of phytoestrogen/phytochemical exposures, with impacts on health, disease and evolutionary biology considered."
The authors discuss how "isoflavone consumption in Asian countries (25–100 mg/day) is much higher than in western countries, such as the UK, with daily consumption below 1 mg." (Going back to the original article, this shows just how extreme that one subject was.)
They also discuss how soy has been found to help postmenopausal women by increasing hormone circulation (and increasing sexual arousal). There were some negative for women prone to fibroids, for instance, but again - everyone responds to different things in different ways, so this is not shocking. They also don't talk specifically about soy, but phytoestrogens, which "are naturally available endocrine disruptors in the environment" and "one of the largest classes of compounds humans are exposed to throughout life."
The conclusion says: "Given the diverse mechanism of action, the potency of these compounds, the impact of phytochemicals on disease, and the potential for combinatorial effects with other common synthetic toxicants, it will be fundamental in the future to increase the focus on epigenetic effects of phytoestrogens/phytochemicals. Perhaps most important will be to investigate potential transgenerational effects of exposure to phytoestrogens/phytochemicals."
Increasing estrogen in postmenopausal Chinese-women.[12]
Wait... what - postmenopausal women? OP, you were talking about male infertility... grasping at straws?
Seriously, though, the article is called: "Maca reduces blood pressure and depression, in a pilot study in postmenopausal women"
I don't know what else to say but copy the results: "There were no differences in estradiol, FSH, TSH, SHBG, glucose, lipid profiles and serum cytokines amongst those who received Maca as compared to placebo group, however, a significant decrease in diastolic blood pressure and depression was apparent after Maca treatment."
So... maca helps reduce the symptoms of depression in postmenopausal women in China. Great! But how does this relate to your outlandish claims...? It doesn't.
TL;DR : OP is copying and pasting articles that have nothing to do with their original claim or actually lend support to the opposite of what they're claiming. I break it down article by article.
| todayilearned | t5_2qqjc | cj8n8l7 | Continued from my comment above....
A study on male fertility with soy.[8]
The article is entitled: "The Role of Nutraceuticals in Male Fertility." (Ko & Sabenegh, 2014) Neutraceuticals is a word that's unrecognized by US law (and I'm sure elsewhere) and it is usually a food or else a supplement, or even a drug, that is marketed to help cure some medical issue.
I can't get free access to this article, so someone else may have to fill in because I don't want to spend $30, but I can see the first page: This article is talking about medically therapeutic nutraceuticals used to promote sperm function, libido, etc. Tey also emphasize the importance of oxidative stress.
Why did you include this study, OP? It seems barely relevant to the claims you're making and I'm sure there are stronger articles out there if what you are stating would be true.
Another 2014 Study.[9]
Again: rats =/= humans! This study looks specifically at "Equol (EQ), a metabolite of the soy isoflavone daidzein, has well known estrogenic properties." (1st line of abstract) They summarize that: "our findings are the first data that EQ did not induce anti-androgenic effects on brain, prostate and male reproductive parameters, however, estrogenic neuroendocrine and reproductive effects of EQ were observed."
This study used another strain of 2-month-old rats specifically bred for lab experiments. After being kept in the standard conditions, the experiment began at 4 months. They induced nutrients tested by gavage. These rats were not consuming soy products or in any normal way that could be compared to humans.
There are also plenty of studies that show lab conditions are abnormal and cannot be considered to have positive welfare in all situations. Lab rat behavior and physiology is dependent on all of this. For instance, they only let them breed at 4pm - that's so bizarre if you know anything about rat reproductive behaviors and social constructs; they don't breed at a given time like that.
However, the authors still conclude: "Reproductive outcomes as determined by the mating index, fecundity index and fetal outcomes were not affected by sub-acute oral administration of EQ both at low and high doses to adult male rats for 5 days." (They had 5-day testing intervals.) FLUT had an effect, but "these results represent the first demonstration that EQ did not exert anti-androgenic effects on reproductive outcomes in adult male rats. It may be argued that the applied doses of EQ were too low to affect reproductive and fetal outcome parameters in male rats. However, serum concentrations of EQ measured in rats treated with 100 mg EQ/kg BW/day were in the range found in Asian men consuming the traditional soy-rich diet ( Hedlund et al., 2003 and Morton et al., 2002)."
Seriously, OP, I don't think you read this article. Not that humans consume EQ like these rats were, but it still didn't matter!
A second study on the effects of a soy-based diet on prepubescent male rats.[10]
No.... the authors say: "The present study was designed to determine if a high fat diet at sexual maturation moderates testicular toxicity occasioned by exposure to BPA during reproductive development."
Why are you misleading people? The only mention of soy in this article is saying that soy-free food should be used to minimize exposure to estrogens that might interfere with experimental results! There are no mentions of isoflavones or anything like that! Did you just search for articles published in 2014 that mention something remotely related to male reproductive biology that included the word "soy"? I don't see another explanation.
A study on giving soy to women to increase their estrogen levels, postnatal.[11]
Postnatal women? OP, my (wo)man, you were making claims about male fertility. What's the deal with this now? I'll humor you....
However... this is actually a review article called: "Environmental epigenetics and phytoestrogen/phytochemical exposures" (Guerrero-Bosagna & Skinner, 2012) The abstract says: "The current review focuses on available information on the environmental epigenetics of phytoestrogen/phytochemical exposures, with impacts on health, disease and evolutionary biology considered."
The authors discuss how "isoflavone consumption in Asian countries (25–100 mg/day) is much higher than in western countries, such as the UK, with daily consumption below 1 mg." (Going back to the original article, this shows just how extreme that one subject was.)
They also discuss how soy has been found to help postmenopausal women by increasing hormone circulation (and increasing sexual arousal). There were some negative for women prone to fibroids, for instance, but again - everyone responds to different things in different ways, so this is not shocking. They also don't talk specifically about soy, but phytoestrogens, which "are naturally available endocrine disruptors in the environment" and "one of the largest classes of compounds humans are exposed to throughout life."
The conclusion says: "Given the diverse mechanism of action, the potency of these compounds, the impact of phytochemicals on disease, and the potential for combinatorial effects with other common synthetic toxicants, it will be fundamental in the future to increase the focus on epigenetic effects of phytoestrogens/phytochemicals. Perhaps most important will be to investigate potential transgenerational effects of exposure to phytoestrogens/phytochemicals."
Increasing estrogen in postmenopausal Chinese-women.[12]
Wait... what - postmenopausal women? OP, you were talking about male infertility... grasping at straws?
Seriously, though, the article is called: "Maca reduces blood pressure and depression, in a pilot study in postmenopausal women"
I don't know what else to say but copy the results: "There were no differences in estradiol, FSH, TSH, SHBG, glucose, lipid profiles and serum cytokines amongst those who received Maca as compared to placebo group, however, a significant decrease in diastolic blood pressure and depression was apparent after Maca treatment."
So... maca helps reduce the symptoms of depression in postmenopausal women in China. Great! But how does this relate to your outlandish claims...? It doesn't. | OP is copying and pasting articles that have nothing to do with their original claim or actually lend support to the opposite of what they're claiming. I break it down article by article. |
TrustMeImALawStudent | I also have BF4 on my SSD, and with all the DLCs, I'm at capacity. I've moved most of my other "non-essential" programs to my HDD. But I'm now getting a 512GB SSD as a game drive so I can move more programs back to my boot drive.
TL;DR: I'm throwing more money into my PC. | I also have BF4 on my SSD, and with all the DLCs, I'm at capacity. I've moved most of my other "non-essential" programs to my HDD. But I'm now getting a 512GB SSD as a game drive so I can move more programs back to my boot drive.
TL;DR: I'm throwing more money into my PC.
| buildapc | t5_2rnve | cj8i7am | I also have BF4 on my SSD, and with all the DLCs, I'm at capacity. I've moved most of my other "non-essential" programs to my HDD. But I'm now getting a 512GB SSD as a game drive so I can move more programs back to my boot drive. | I'm throwing more money into my PC. |
georonymus | I would argue that nu-metal never really existed. People in the entertainment industry (read: not musicians) were looking for a grand narrative that could speak for late-90s alt-metal, like they had in the early-90s with grunge. Labeling a handful of bands as 'nu-metal' created a brand, and branded items are easier to sell.
People will argue that even grunge and glam-rock before it were more products of marketing than actual musical movements, but those genres, albeit loosely, had certain geographical (glam from LA, grunge from PacNW) and musical similarities that existed, to some degree, in most bands under those genres.
When you look at the 'nu-metal' bands of the late-90s, there is no geographical cohesion, there is no musical cohesion, there is no grand narrative to which we can attribute these bands other than the moniker; nu-metal.
tldr; system of a down and limp bizkit were considered the same genre. Therefor, nu-metal never meant anything. | I would argue that nu-metal never really existed. People in the entertainment industry (read: not musicians) were looking for a grand narrative that could speak for late-90s alt-metal, like they had in the early-90s with grunge. Labeling a handful of bands as 'nu-metal' created a brand, and branded items are easier to sell.
People will argue that even grunge and glam-rock before it were more products of marketing than actual musical movements, but those genres, albeit loosely, had certain geographical (glam from LA, grunge from PacNW) and musical similarities that existed, to some degree, in most bands under those genres.
When you look at the 'nu-metal' bands of the late-90s, there is no geographical cohesion, there is no musical cohesion, there is no grand narrative to which we can attribute these bands other than the moniker; nu-metal.
tldr; system of a down and limp bizkit were considered the same genre. Therefor, nu-metal never meant anything.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cj8j70s | I would argue that nu-metal never really existed. People in the entertainment industry (read: not musicians) were looking for a grand narrative that could speak for late-90s alt-metal, like they had in the early-90s with grunge. Labeling a handful of bands as 'nu-metal' created a brand, and branded items are easier to sell.
People will argue that even grunge and glam-rock before it were more products of marketing than actual musical movements, but those genres, albeit loosely, had certain geographical (glam from LA, grunge from PacNW) and musical similarities that existed, to some degree, in most bands under those genres.
When you look at the 'nu-metal' bands of the late-90s, there is no geographical cohesion, there is no musical cohesion, there is no grand narrative to which we can attribute these bands other than the moniker; nu-metal. | system of a down and limp bizkit were considered the same genre. Therefor, nu-metal never meant anything. |
RecluseGamer | [The Maxwell poll they linked]( is fucking gibberish. The "code book" is the actual results. It gives the % of respondents that receive welfare and the % of respondents that self identify as one party or another, but never correlates the two.
As for the intelligence/education corrolation they attempted, they had an average of a 10% difference.
And, as OP said, he ignored the post graduate group because:
>..I wouldn't call them more educated in general. Just more educated in their specific field.
So, averaging the postgrad with the college grad to even things out, it gives 51% democrat and 46.5% republican. So the majority of the least educated and most educated vote democrat.
**TL;DR- They were right about the falsehood of uneducated voters always voting republican, but the welfare stuff is pure BS.** | [The Maxwell poll they linked]( is fucking gibberish. The "code book" is the actual results. It gives the % of respondents that receive welfare and the % of respondents that self identify as one party or another, but never correlates the two.
As for the intelligence/education corrolation they attempted, they had an average of a 10% difference.
And, as OP said, he ignored the post graduate group because:
>..I wouldn't call them more educated in general. Just more educated in their specific field.
So, averaging the postgrad with the college grad to even things out, it gives 51% democrat and 46.5% republican. So the majority of the least educated and most educated vote democrat.
TL;DR- They were right about the falsehood of uneducated voters always voting republican, but the welfare stuff is pure BS.
| ShitRConservativeSays | t5_2xlfc | cj8wx5n | The Maxwell poll they linked]( is fucking gibberish. The "code book" is the actual results. It gives the % of respondents that receive welfare and the % of respondents that self identify as one party or another, but never correlates the two.
As for the intelligence/education corrolation they attempted, they had an average of a 10% difference.
And, as OP said, he ignored the post graduate group because:
>..I wouldn't call them more educated in general. Just more educated in their specific field.
So, averaging the postgrad with the college grad to even things out, it gives 51% democrat and 46.5% republican. So the majority of the least educated and most educated vote democrat. | They were right about the falsehood of uneducated voters always voting republican, but the welfare stuff is pure BS. |
totesathrowaway123 | Just to be completely open before I start, I'm using a throwaway account. I'm normally pretty shameless on Reddit, but I prefer anonymity when discussing this aspect of my past.
When I was between 12 and 16, I was what you would classify as "otherkin." I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believed that I was part werewolf. I can assure you that it is indeed *very* possible to believe that you are some sort of mythical creature. I can't tell you why everyone does, but I can tell you some of the factors that led to my adoption of the idea.
When I was younger, I wouldn't exactly call myself very popular-- at least, not how the term is popularly connoted. Most everyone else knew me in the same way that you would "know" that one chair that squeaks a bit when you lean back. I was nothing more or less than a quirk in the background noise of reality. I was only approached when people wanted something. That pattern continued until I met my first true friend. We'll call him S.
To say that S was imaginative is an understatement. He was able to immediately concoct elaborate storylines with a variety of challenges for us to overcome. It was normal enough at first. After all, children regularly role-play as part of their socialization. It's not uncommon for them to play as implausible heroes in impossible situations. It's also not uncommon for particular characters to reoccur often. But after a while, our adventures started taking a turn towards what was retrospectively bizarre but what was, at the time, fantastic: We started to believe that we somehow embodied these characters in a more literal sense. The more we played, the more these personalities solidified in our minds and they eventually emerged as aspects of our actual selves.
I've read through most of the comments in this CMV, so I'm going to address the elephant in the room: "How could anyone believe that they were actually the people they played?" Honestly, I couldn't give you a complete answer. What I will do is give you my best theory.
Around this time, S and I started to seriously hit puberty. Our bodies were literally changing at incredible rates. We found ourselves measurably stronger and more adept at certain tasks in a few months time-- a rate that we naively thought was superhuman. We were seemingly converging on the characters that we assumed during play. I can't be entirely sure, but I would bet that our thought process was this:
1) We pretend to be these characters. This means that they exist somewhere in our minds.
2) We were seemingly growing to a strength that these characters possessed.
Conclusion: The reason we were thinking about them and the reason we were growing to be like them is because we *really* were them. The purpose of our games were congruent to the purpose of young tigers play-fighting: To prepare ourselves for what we would actually become.
I have to stress that this is retrospective because if I didn't it might appear that this conclusion dawned on us like an epiphany. It didn't. It was slowly adopted by our minds. Which is much more dangerous. Time gives the opportunity for falsehoods to solidify through the mounting of improbable "evidence."
The strength and confidence of being a werewolf is utterly addicting. Remember those moments of awkwardness and uncertainty that came with being a preteen/young teenager? Well that must have been a problem for you, mere mortal, because I had the blood of a fucking monster and monsters don't have to worry about your banal trivialities. I understand how implausible and absurd this line of thought seems, but could you imagine how unbelievably **liberating** it can be? It gave me a way to cope with a reality that I was just struggling to understand. A reality that I was feeling more and more isolated from as every day passed. It was a vicious cycle: The more people rejected me for my other idiosyncrasies (I was a very nerdy kid and my choice of sports was never exactly popular) the more I withdrew into my being a werewolf. The more I withdrew into being a werewolf, the more confident I was in my current idiosyncrasies and the more others started to sneak in. Soon, a small group of people recognized pattern and knew the mechanism, knew that I was a beast. They knew from experience.
This is where I met some of the greatest friends I've ever had in my life. It turns out that others were just like me. They had "others" either inside them or embodied by their minds and souls. They were open with me, included me, and we all felt a sense of kinship. We were a family of outcasts and misfits. You'd be amazed at how many people latched on to this idea or actively enabled it. I met three of my girlfriends through connections in the group and two of them were active participants. And I can assure you that every single person in that was in this group was just as sincere in their beliefs as I was in mine.
At one point in the comments, I saw the OP and a few others express doubt at the sincerity of some believers due to the fact that they don't embody all the behaviors that their "trapped" personalities would ostensibly entail. (I think the example used is that kids aren't flinging themselves into the streets like hedgehogs so they have to at least be aware that they aren't entirely hedgehogs). From my experience, the exact opposite is true. I was *so* sure that I was a werewolf, so committed to the belief, that I did my damnedest to ensure that no one outside the group would find out. I recognized that we were in a human world and if we wanted to survive without being ostracized, we had to act as normally as possible. That meant subduing the more visible aspects of yourself so that you could have as normal a life as possible. Imagine being a transgender individual in a time before it was more socially acceptable. You felt like an outsider unfairly born into a world that would reject your actual self. Many simply repressed themselves to get along as well as they could, but some people were more vocal about it. As such, they were rejected, shunned, and faced threats of violence. Those "attention seeking kids" on Tumblr aren't much different. They're bullheaded-- the world ought to accept them for who they are! And then they're subsequently shunned, rejected, and (at least in high school) recipients of very real threats of violence. Some of the more "visible" members got picked on relentlessly. They'd get targeted for coordinated harassment campaigns by certain cliques that only thought of them as "that fuckin' weird kid in my gym class." I know people who got the shit beaten out of them because someone would get carried away. In the face of this very real adversity, do you think that most of us would be stupid enough to chase traffic? I would say that we just wanted to be normal, but that's not entirely accurate. The reason that I was first attracted to the seemingly innocent practice to begin with was because I *was* normal. I was just a quirk in the background noise, remember? I think I subliminally recognized that everyone else was too. If normal involved loneliness and uncertainty then I wanted out. I wanted to be the kind of normal that I observed in some adults and pop-culture heroes. I wanted to be confident and unwavering. Everyone in the group was in the pursuit of this idealized normalcy. It would be many years before I realized that there is no such thing as unwavering confidence. That even heroes face hardship and doubt.
(Again, when I say "I thought" and "I wanted" it has to be clear that these weren't my contemporaneous conscious thoughts. These phrases are the product of a retrospective analysis. I can be sure of those things now. At the time, I was only sure of what I thought I was and what I actually wasn't: A werewolf trapped in a human world).
I eventually left the idea, but it wasn't exactly easy. I spent a good portion of my developmentally crucial years convincing myself of a fantastical falsehood. It took a lot of time to rewrite myself. To find other means to embody the confidence and assurance that I now realize was the driving force behind my behavior. But not everybody leaves. And of those that do, not everyone manages to return in one piece.
I'm sure you can sit here and diagnose some sort of psychological condition. In fact, I'd be stupid to think that you already haven't. But I can offer nothing more than the most sincere assurance that I was sane. I understood the reality that most people experience and I "understood" levels that I thought simply existed beyond it. And please do not use my usage of the term "beyond it" as an excuse to debase religiosity. The wiring is similar but not identical. I knew people who were hardcore Christians that justified there existence through convoluted interpretations of scripture. I knew others that were atheists and just thought that we were special via other rationalizations. (In fact, I can remember a couple of instances where Christian proponents debated Atheist ones. It's interesting to watch a Vampire debate a Monster on the virtues of faith). I can't speak for everyone, but I know that my evolution was probably a product of some twisted form of rationalization (see the part about 1. 2. and Conclusion above). I don't think I was deranged. Stupid? Absolutely. Embarrassingly accepting of the supernatural? You bet. But if you allow for people to believe in the existence of something, anything, that could exist beyond our mortal ken and they are in desperate need of some sort of strength to understand an uncertain world, I would say that it isn't insane, irrational, or some sophomoric attempt to get attention. Sadly, it can make all the sense in the world.
**TL;DR: Coming from someone who would've previously identified as "otherkin," be careful about labeling these beliefs as insincere or insane. Everyone is fighting a battle that you know nothing about. They may not even know much about it themselves.** | Just to be completely open before I start, I'm using a throwaway account. I'm normally pretty shameless on Reddit, but I prefer anonymity when discussing this aspect of my past.
When I was between 12 and 16, I was what you would classify as "otherkin." I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believed that I was part werewolf. I can assure you that it is indeed very possible to believe that you are some sort of mythical creature. I can't tell you why everyone does, but I can tell you some of the factors that led to my adoption of the idea.
When I was younger, I wouldn't exactly call myself very popular-- at least, not how the term is popularly connoted. Most everyone else knew me in the same way that you would "know" that one chair that squeaks a bit when you lean back. I was nothing more or less than a quirk in the background noise of reality. I was only approached when people wanted something. That pattern continued until I met my first true friend. We'll call him S.
To say that S was imaginative is an understatement. He was able to immediately concoct elaborate storylines with a variety of challenges for us to overcome. It was normal enough at first. After all, children regularly role-play as part of their socialization. It's not uncommon for them to play as implausible heroes in impossible situations. It's also not uncommon for particular characters to reoccur often. But after a while, our adventures started taking a turn towards what was retrospectively bizarre but what was, at the time, fantastic: We started to believe that we somehow embodied these characters in a more literal sense. The more we played, the more these personalities solidified in our minds and they eventually emerged as aspects of our actual selves.
I've read through most of the comments in this CMV, so I'm going to address the elephant in the room: "How could anyone believe that they were actually the people they played?" Honestly, I couldn't give you a complete answer. What I will do is give you my best theory.
Around this time, S and I started to seriously hit puberty. Our bodies were literally changing at incredible rates. We found ourselves measurably stronger and more adept at certain tasks in a few months time-- a rate that we naively thought was superhuman. We were seemingly converging on the characters that we assumed during play. I can't be entirely sure, but I would bet that our thought process was this:
1) We pretend to be these characters. This means that they exist somewhere in our minds.
2) We were seemingly growing to a strength that these characters possessed.
Conclusion: The reason we were thinking about them and the reason we were growing to be like them is because we really were them. The purpose of our games were congruent to the purpose of young tigers play-fighting: To prepare ourselves for what we would actually become.
I have to stress that this is retrospective because if I didn't it might appear that this conclusion dawned on us like an epiphany. It didn't. It was slowly adopted by our minds. Which is much more dangerous. Time gives the opportunity for falsehoods to solidify through the mounting of improbable "evidence."
The strength and confidence of being a werewolf is utterly addicting. Remember those moments of awkwardness and uncertainty that came with being a preteen/young teenager? Well that must have been a problem for you, mere mortal, because I had the blood of a fucking monster and monsters don't have to worry about your banal trivialities. I understand how implausible and absurd this line of thought seems, but could you imagine how unbelievably liberating it can be? It gave me a way to cope with a reality that I was just struggling to understand. A reality that I was feeling more and more isolated from as every day passed. It was a vicious cycle: The more people rejected me for my other idiosyncrasies (I was a very nerdy kid and my choice of sports was never exactly popular) the more I withdrew into my being a werewolf. The more I withdrew into being a werewolf, the more confident I was in my current idiosyncrasies and the more others started to sneak in. Soon, a small group of people recognized pattern and knew the mechanism, knew that I was a beast. They knew from experience.
This is where I met some of the greatest friends I've ever had in my life. It turns out that others were just like me. They had "others" either inside them or embodied by their minds and souls. They were open with me, included me, and we all felt a sense of kinship. We were a family of outcasts and misfits. You'd be amazed at how many people latched on to this idea or actively enabled it. I met three of my girlfriends through connections in the group and two of them were active participants. And I can assure you that every single person in that was in this group was just as sincere in their beliefs as I was in mine.
At one point in the comments, I saw the OP and a few others express doubt at the sincerity of some believers due to the fact that they don't embody all the behaviors that their "trapped" personalities would ostensibly entail. (I think the example used is that kids aren't flinging themselves into the streets like hedgehogs so they have to at least be aware that they aren't entirely hedgehogs). From my experience, the exact opposite is true. I was so sure that I was a werewolf, so committed to the belief, that I did my damnedest to ensure that no one outside the group would find out. I recognized that we were in a human world and if we wanted to survive without being ostracized, we had to act as normally as possible. That meant subduing the more visible aspects of yourself so that you could have as normal a life as possible. Imagine being a transgender individual in a time before it was more socially acceptable. You felt like an outsider unfairly born into a world that would reject your actual self. Many simply repressed themselves to get along as well as they could, but some people were more vocal about it. As such, they were rejected, shunned, and faced threats of violence. Those "attention seeking kids" on Tumblr aren't much different. They're bullheaded-- the world ought to accept them for who they are! And then they're subsequently shunned, rejected, and (at least in high school) recipients of very real threats of violence. Some of the more "visible" members got picked on relentlessly. They'd get targeted for coordinated harassment campaigns by certain cliques that only thought of them as "that fuckin' weird kid in my gym class." I know people who got the shit beaten out of them because someone would get carried away. In the face of this very real adversity, do you think that most of us would be stupid enough to chase traffic? I would say that we just wanted to be normal, but that's not entirely accurate. The reason that I was first attracted to the seemingly innocent practice to begin with was because I was normal. I was just a quirk in the background noise, remember? I think I subliminally recognized that everyone else was too. If normal involved loneliness and uncertainty then I wanted out. I wanted to be the kind of normal that I observed in some adults and pop-culture heroes. I wanted to be confident and unwavering. Everyone in the group was in the pursuit of this idealized normalcy. It would be many years before I realized that there is no such thing as unwavering confidence. That even heroes face hardship and doubt.
(Again, when I say "I thought" and "I wanted" it has to be clear that these weren't my contemporaneous conscious thoughts. These phrases are the product of a retrospective analysis. I can be sure of those things now. At the time, I was only sure of what I thought I was and what I actually wasn't: A werewolf trapped in a human world).
I eventually left the idea, but it wasn't exactly easy. I spent a good portion of my developmentally crucial years convincing myself of a fantastical falsehood. It took a lot of time to rewrite myself. To find other means to embody the confidence and assurance that I now realize was the driving force behind my behavior. But not everybody leaves. And of those that do, not everyone manages to return in one piece.
I'm sure you can sit here and diagnose some sort of psychological condition. In fact, I'd be stupid to think that you already haven't. But I can offer nothing more than the most sincere assurance that I was sane. I understood the reality that most people experience and I "understood" levels that I thought simply existed beyond it. And please do not use my usage of the term "beyond it" as an excuse to debase religiosity. The wiring is similar but not identical. I knew people who were hardcore Christians that justified there existence through convoluted interpretations of scripture. I knew others that were atheists and just thought that we were special via other rationalizations. (In fact, I can remember a couple of instances where Christian proponents debated Atheist ones. It's interesting to watch a Vampire debate a Monster on the virtues of faith). I can't speak for everyone, but I know that my evolution was probably a product of some twisted form of rationalization (see the part about 1. 2. and Conclusion above). I don't think I was deranged. Stupid? Absolutely. Embarrassingly accepting of the supernatural? You bet. But if you allow for people to believe in the existence of something, anything, that could exist beyond our mortal ken and they are in desperate need of some sort of strength to understand an uncertain world, I would say that it isn't insane, irrational, or some sophomoric attempt to get attention. Sadly, it can make all the sense in the world.
TL;DR: Coming from someone who would've previously identified as "otherkin," be careful about labeling these beliefs as insincere or insane. Everyone is fighting a battle that you know nothing about. They may not even know much about it themselves.
| changemyview | t5_2w2s8 | cj9b560 | Just to be completely open before I start, I'm using a throwaway account. I'm normally pretty shameless on Reddit, but I prefer anonymity when discussing this aspect of my past.
When I was between 12 and 16, I was what you would classify as "otherkin." I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believed that I was part werewolf. I can assure you that it is indeed very possible to believe that you are some sort of mythical creature. I can't tell you why everyone does, but I can tell you some of the factors that led to my adoption of the idea.
When I was younger, I wouldn't exactly call myself very popular-- at least, not how the term is popularly connoted. Most everyone else knew me in the same way that you would "know" that one chair that squeaks a bit when you lean back. I was nothing more or less than a quirk in the background noise of reality. I was only approached when people wanted something. That pattern continued until I met my first true friend. We'll call him S.
To say that S was imaginative is an understatement. He was able to immediately concoct elaborate storylines with a variety of challenges for us to overcome. It was normal enough at first. After all, children regularly role-play as part of their socialization. It's not uncommon for them to play as implausible heroes in impossible situations. It's also not uncommon for particular characters to reoccur often. But after a while, our adventures started taking a turn towards what was retrospectively bizarre but what was, at the time, fantastic: We started to believe that we somehow embodied these characters in a more literal sense. The more we played, the more these personalities solidified in our minds and they eventually emerged as aspects of our actual selves.
I've read through most of the comments in this CMV, so I'm going to address the elephant in the room: "How could anyone believe that they were actually the people they played?" Honestly, I couldn't give you a complete answer. What I will do is give you my best theory.
Around this time, S and I started to seriously hit puberty. Our bodies were literally changing at incredible rates. We found ourselves measurably stronger and more adept at certain tasks in a few months time-- a rate that we naively thought was superhuman. We were seemingly converging on the characters that we assumed during play. I can't be entirely sure, but I would bet that our thought process was this:
1) We pretend to be these characters. This means that they exist somewhere in our minds.
2) We were seemingly growing to a strength that these characters possessed.
Conclusion: The reason we were thinking about them and the reason we were growing to be like them is because we really were them. The purpose of our games were congruent to the purpose of young tigers play-fighting: To prepare ourselves for what we would actually become.
I have to stress that this is retrospective because if I didn't it might appear that this conclusion dawned on us like an epiphany. It didn't. It was slowly adopted by our minds. Which is much more dangerous. Time gives the opportunity for falsehoods to solidify through the mounting of improbable "evidence."
The strength and confidence of being a werewolf is utterly addicting. Remember those moments of awkwardness and uncertainty that came with being a preteen/young teenager? Well that must have been a problem for you, mere mortal, because I had the blood of a fucking monster and monsters don't have to worry about your banal trivialities. I understand how implausible and absurd this line of thought seems, but could you imagine how unbelievably liberating it can be? It gave me a way to cope with a reality that I was just struggling to understand. A reality that I was feeling more and more isolated from as every day passed. It was a vicious cycle: The more people rejected me for my other idiosyncrasies (I was a very nerdy kid and my choice of sports was never exactly popular) the more I withdrew into my being a werewolf. The more I withdrew into being a werewolf, the more confident I was in my current idiosyncrasies and the more others started to sneak in. Soon, a small group of people recognized pattern and knew the mechanism, knew that I was a beast. They knew from experience.
This is where I met some of the greatest friends I've ever had in my life. It turns out that others were just like me. They had "others" either inside them or embodied by their minds and souls. They were open with me, included me, and we all felt a sense of kinship. We were a family of outcasts and misfits. You'd be amazed at how many people latched on to this idea or actively enabled it. I met three of my girlfriends through connections in the group and two of them were active participants. And I can assure you that every single person in that was in this group was just as sincere in their beliefs as I was in mine.
At one point in the comments, I saw the OP and a few others express doubt at the sincerity of some believers due to the fact that they don't embody all the behaviors that their "trapped" personalities would ostensibly entail. (I think the example used is that kids aren't flinging themselves into the streets like hedgehogs so they have to at least be aware that they aren't entirely hedgehogs). From my experience, the exact opposite is true. I was so sure that I was a werewolf, so committed to the belief, that I did my damnedest to ensure that no one outside the group would find out. I recognized that we were in a human world and if we wanted to survive without being ostracized, we had to act as normally as possible. That meant subduing the more visible aspects of yourself so that you could have as normal a life as possible. Imagine being a transgender individual in a time before it was more socially acceptable. You felt like an outsider unfairly born into a world that would reject your actual self. Many simply repressed themselves to get along as well as they could, but some people were more vocal about it. As such, they were rejected, shunned, and faced threats of violence. Those "attention seeking kids" on Tumblr aren't much different. They're bullheaded-- the world ought to accept them for who they are! And then they're subsequently shunned, rejected, and (at least in high school) recipients of very real threats of violence. Some of the more "visible" members got picked on relentlessly. They'd get targeted for coordinated harassment campaigns by certain cliques that only thought of them as "that fuckin' weird kid in my gym class." I know people who got the shit beaten out of them because someone would get carried away. In the face of this very real adversity, do you think that most of us would be stupid enough to chase traffic? I would say that we just wanted to be normal, but that's not entirely accurate. The reason that I was first attracted to the seemingly innocent practice to begin with was because I was normal. I was just a quirk in the background noise, remember? I think I subliminally recognized that everyone else was too. If normal involved loneliness and uncertainty then I wanted out. I wanted to be the kind of normal that I observed in some adults and pop-culture heroes. I wanted to be confident and unwavering. Everyone in the group was in the pursuit of this idealized normalcy. It would be many years before I realized that there is no such thing as unwavering confidence. That even heroes face hardship and doubt.
(Again, when I say "I thought" and "I wanted" it has to be clear that these weren't my contemporaneous conscious thoughts. These phrases are the product of a retrospective analysis. I can be sure of those things now. At the time, I was only sure of what I thought I was and what I actually wasn't: A werewolf trapped in a human world).
I eventually left the idea, but it wasn't exactly easy. I spent a good portion of my developmentally crucial years convincing myself of a fantastical falsehood. It took a lot of time to rewrite myself. To find other means to embody the confidence and assurance that I now realize was the driving force behind my behavior. But not everybody leaves. And of those that do, not everyone manages to return in one piece.
I'm sure you can sit here and diagnose some sort of psychological condition. In fact, I'd be stupid to think that you already haven't. But I can offer nothing more than the most sincere assurance that I was sane. I understood the reality that most people experience and I "understood" levels that I thought simply existed beyond it. And please do not use my usage of the term "beyond it" as an excuse to debase religiosity. The wiring is similar but not identical. I knew people who were hardcore Christians that justified there existence through convoluted interpretations of scripture. I knew others that were atheists and just thought that we were special via other rationalizations. (In fact, I can remember a couple of instances where Christian proponents debated Atheist ones. It's interesting to watch a Vampire debate a Monster on the virtues of faith). I can't speak for everyone, but I know that my evolution was probably a product of some twisted form of rationalization (see the part about 1. 2. and Conclusion above). I don't think I was deranged. Stupid? Absolutely. Embarrassingly accepting of the supernatural? You bet. But if you allow for people to believe in the existence of something, anything, that could exist beyond our mortal ken and they are in desperate need of some sort of strength to understand an uncertain world, I would say that it isn't insane, irrational, or some sophomoric attempt to get attention. Sadly, it can make all the sense in the world. | Coming from someone who would've previously identified as "otherkin," be careful about labeling these beliefs as insincere or insane. Everyone is fighting a battle that you know nothing about. They may not even know much about it themselves. |
VoilaVoilaWashington | Well, chap, the issue seems to be in that your verbosity you, at times only, of course, seem to distract from the real (also known as legitimate or, to be precise, succinct) message you are, and have been, attempting to convey. In this endeavour I do encourage, and even strongly encourage you to attempt the social media and microblogging site, Twitter ( although most countries have their own sites, so you may be able to append .ca, .co.uk, .ch, .it, and potentially others as well), as it restricts you to fewer characters (including punctuation and spaces, of course) than other media would allow.
I have found in my experiences and travels that this shortening of your language (and often regardless of language, although the Tululi of the Western Sahara do not have this issue) will lead to a more thorough understanding of the direct message, as many people (regardless of age, colour, creed, and intellect) do not have the comprehension or attention span to fully disseminate ideas, concepts, and arguments if expanded too excessively. I have been as brief and direct as possible and linguistically permitted here, which should demonstrate the value of this set of skills and talents.
Too long; didn't read (TL;DR): Brevity is.... wit. | Well, chap, the issue seems to be in that your verbosity you, at times only, of course, seem to distract from the real (also known as legitimate or, to be precise, succinct) message you are, and have been, attempting to convey. In this endeavour I do encourage, and even strongly encourage you to attempt the social media and microblogging site, Twitter ( although most countries have their own sites, so you may be able to append .ca, .co.uk, .ch, .it, and potentially others as well), as it restricts you to fewer characters (including punctuation and spaces, of course) than other media would allow.
I have found in my experiences and travels that this shortening of your language (and often regardless of language, although the Tululi of the Western Sahara do not have this issue) will lead to a more thorough understanding of the direct message, as many people (regardless of age, colour, creed, and intellect) do not have the comprehension or attention span to fully disseminate ideas, concepts, and arguments if expanded too excessively. I have been as brief and direct as possible and linguistically permitted here, which should demonstrate the value of this set of skills and talents.
Too long; didn't read (TL;DR): Brevity is.... wit.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cj95585 | Well, chap, the issue seems to be in that your verbosity you, at times only, of course, seem to distract from the real (also known as legitimate or, to be precise, succinct) message you are, and have been, attempting to convey. In this endeavour I do encourage, and even strongly encourage you to attempt the social media and microblogging site, Twitter ( although most countries have their own sites, so you may be able to append .ca, .co.uk, .ch, .it, and potentially others as well), as it restricts you to fewer characters (including punctuation and spaces, of course) than other media would allow.
I have found in my experiences and travels that this shortening of your language (and often regardless of language, although the Tululi of the Western Sahara do not have this issue) will lead to a more thorough understanding of the direct message, as many people (regardless of age, colour, creed, and intellect) do not have the comprehension or attention span to fully disseminate ideas, concepts, and arguments if expanded too excessively. I have been as brief and direct as possible and linguistically permitted here, which should demonstrate the value of this set of skills and talents.
Too long; didn't read ( | Brevity is.... wit. |
fross | Only if you're only viewing the context of the joke as being "black people can't swim". The joke would hold with different people and different items just as well, like white guys and a phone, or white girls and an ipod, or whatever. It's the guys' reaction, the back and forth keeping it out of the pool, and then the overreactrion of "well three people died but i saved my X" that makes it funny.
TL;DR: you may be seeing a racist joke in there because you want to see a racist joke in there. | Only if you're only viewing the context of the joke as being "black people can't swim". The joke would hold with different people and different items just as well, like white guys and a phone, or white girls and an ipod, or whatever. It's the guys' reaction, the back and forth keeping it out of the pool, and then the overreactrion of "well three people died but i saved my X" that makes it funny.
TL;DR: you may be seeing a racist joke in there because you want to see a racist joke in there.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cj93z3g | Only if you're only viewing the context of the joke as being "black people can't swim". The joke would hold with different people and different items just as well, like white guys and a phone, or white girls and an ipod, or whatever. It's the guys' reaction, the back and forth keeping it out of the pool, and then the overreactrion of "well three people died but i saved my X" that makes it funny. | you may be seeing a racist joke in there because you want to see a racist joke in there. |
A_Sleeping_Fox | The context is race, the joke is about black people, from the stereotypes about shoes to the drowning in the pool...
I get that you could display stereotypes of other groups, just saying that the producers of this video intended to make a joke about race and said joke would not work with white people making it.
TL;DR: I am seeing a joke involving race because that was the intent of the people who made the video. | The context is race, the joke is about black people, from the stereotypes about shoes to the drowning in the pool...
I get that you could display stereotypes of other groups, just saying that the producers of this video intended to make a joke about race and said joke would not work with white people making it.
TL;DR: I am seeing a joke involving race because that was the intent of the people who made the video.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cj942aj | The context is race, the joke is about black people, from the stereotypes about shoes to the drowning in the pool...
I get that you could display stereotypes of other groups, just saying that the producers of this video intended to make a joke about race and said joke would not work with white people making it. | I am seeing a joke involving race because that was the intent of the people who made the video. |
LondonPilot | To understand this, you need to understand the difference between "true airspeed" and "indicated airspeed".
True airspeed (TAS) is the speed at which the aircraft is actually flying through the air. It's of little interest to pilots, except for navigation.
Indicated airspeed (IAS) is based on the density of the air, and how many molecules of the gasses in the air pass over the wings.
If an aircraft is flying at 250kt TAS at sea level, in a temperature of 15 degrees C, it will have an IAS of 250kt. As the aircraft climbs, if it were to attempt to maintain TAS, its IAS would decrease because the air is thinner. More realistically, we tend to climb at a (to a point) constant IAS, which means as we climb our TAS gets higher and higher.
Aircraft wings stall (assuming other things are fixed too) at a fixed IAS.
So, to get to the levels the U2 flies at, pilots of these aircraft keep their IAS constant, above the stall speed. But because the air is so thin, they achieve a very high TAS when they do this.
Note: this is quite simplified, specifically because it ignores Mach effects.
TL;DR - aircraft like the U2 have to fly at a very high "true airspeed" in order to not stall. | To understand this, you need to understand the difference between "true airspeed" and "indicated airspeed".
True airspeed (TAS) is the speed at which the aircraft is actually flying through the air. It's of little interest to pilots, except for navigation.
Indicated airspeed (IAS) is based on the density of the air, and how many molecules of the gasses in the air pass over the wings.
If an aircraft is flying at 250kt TAS at sea level, in a temperature of 15 degrees C, it will have an IAS of 250kt. As the aircraft climbs, if it were to attempt to maintain TAS, its IAS would decrease because the air is thinner. More realistically, we tend to climb at a (to a point) constant IAS, which means as we climb our TAS gets higher and higher.
Aircraft wings stall (assuming other things are fixed too) at a fixed IAS.
So, to get to the levels the U2 flies at, pilots of these aircraft keep their IAS constant, above the stall speed. But because the air is so thin, they achieve a very high TAS when they do this.
Note: this is quite simplified, specifically because it ignores Mach effects.
TL;DR - aircraft like the U2 have to fly at a very high "true airspeed" in order to not stall.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cj96odl | To understand this, you need to understand the difference between "true airspeed" and "indicated airspeed".
True airspeed (TAS) is the speed at which the aircraft is actually flying through the air. It's of little interest to pilots, except for navigation.
Indicated airspeed (IAS) is based on the density of the air, and how many molecules of the gasses in the air pass over the wings.
If an aircraft is flying at 250kt TAS at sea level, in a temperature of 15 degrees C, it will have an IAS of 250kt. As the aircraft climbs, if it were to attempt to maintain TAS, its IAS would decrease because the air is thinner. More realistically, we tend to climb at a (to a point) constant IAS, which means as we climb our TAS gets higher and higher.
Aircraft wings stall (assuming other things are fixed too) at a fixed IAS.
So, to get to the levels the U2 flies at, pilots of these aircraft keep their IAS constant, above the stall speed. But because the air is so thin, they achieve a very high TAS when they do this.
Note: this is quite simplified, specifically because it ignores Mach effects. | aircraft like the U2 have to fly at a very high "true airspeed" in order to not stall. |
thepoeticedda | I'm trying to find some solid histories of Northern Longfist and Tan Tui to answer your question, but I'm mostly running into biased histories and romanticized legends from the 19th century, so sorry for not providing too terribly much in the way of really accurate histories. But my general impression of the history is this: Longfist is one of the old styles of northern chinese martial arts and is one of the styles very much associated with and influenced by the shaolin temple and Buddhist ideas of external martial arts (note, it's a very common style, and not some "secret shaolin kung fu" or whatever someone may try and sell it as). One of the forms in it, Tan Tui, is a basics routine that could easily be considered a martial art in it's own right, and longfist practitioners absorbed Tan Tui training into their martial arts curriculum. What's interesting is that Tan Tui comes from the Islamic Hui people of China and there's a chance that the style might've been imported from Persian fighting styles. My point is not to advertise the art, but just to show an example of an art that has a clear mixing of two styles from very different backgrounds that could possibly be traced back to the 10th century, was probably pretty prominent in the 17th century, and that we have factual written evidence of the mix existing in the 19th century. Although the history may be shoddy on the details from what I can tell, it seems pretty evident that mixing of styles is an old practice in China, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that mixing has gone on long before medieval china was doing it.
Here are some wikipedia articles, which don't seem to be too detailed, unfortunately:
and here's a documentary on Tan tui, which talks more about the folk legends behind Tan Tui, and unfortunately doesn't much mention the Islamic influence an origin of the art that everyone else seems to talk about:
EDIT: **tl;dr** we have proof that mixing martial arts happened at a century ago, but with an educated guess that it happened over a millennium ago. So no, there's no real beginning for it overall. | I'm trying to find some solid histories of Northern Longfist and Tan Tui to answer your question, but I'm mostly running into biased histories and romanticized legends from the 19th century, so sorry for not providing too terribly much in the way of really accurate histories. But my general impression of the history is this: Longfist is one of the old styles of northern chinese martial arts and is one of the styles very much associated with and influenced by the shaolin temple and Buddhist ideas of external martial arts (note, it's a very common style, and not some "secret shaolin kung fu" or whatever someone may try and sell it as). One of the forms in it, Tan Tui, is a basics routine that could easily be considered a martial art in it's own right, and longfist practitioners absorbed Tan Tui training into their martial arts curriculum. What's interesting is that Tan Tui comes from the Islamic Hui people of China and there's a chance that the style might've been imported from Persian fighting styles. My point is not to advertise the art, but just to show an example of an art that has a clear mixing of two styles from very different backgrounds that could possibly be traced back to the 10th century, was probably pretty prominent in the 17th century, and that we have factual written evidence of the mix existing in the 19th century. Although the history may be shoddy on the details from what I can tell, it seems pretty evident that mixing of styles is an old practice in China, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that mixing has gone on long before medieval china was doing it.
Here are some wikipedia articles, which don't seem to be too detailed, unfortunately:
and here's a documentary on Tan tui, which talks more about the folk legends behind Tan Tui, and unfortunately doesn't much mention the Islamic influence an origin of the art that everyone else seems to talk about:
EDIT: tl;dr we have proof that mixing martial arts happened at a century ago, but with an educated guess that it happened over a millennium ago. So no, there's no real beginning for it overall.
| martialarts | t5_2qkt4 | cj9d32w | I'm trying to find some solid histories of Northern Longfist and Tan Tui to answer your question, but I'm mostly running into biased histories and romanticized legends from the 19th century, so sorry for not providing too terribly much in the way of really accurate histories. But my general impression of the history is this: Longfist is one of the old styles of northern chinese martial arts and is one of the styles very much associated with and influenced by the shaolin temple and Buddhist ideas of external martial arts (note, it's a very common style, and not some "secret shaolin kung fu" or whatever someone may try and sell it as). One of the forms in it, Tan Tui, is a basics routine that could easily be considered a martial art in it's own right, and longfist practitioners absorbed Tan Tui training into their martial arts curriculum. What's interesting is that Tan Tui comes from the Islamic Hui people of China and there's a chance that the style might've been imported from Persian fighting styles. My point is not to advertise the art, but just to show an example of an art that has a clear mixing of two styles from very different backgrounds that could possibly be traced back to the 10th century, was probably pretty prominent in the 17th century, and that we have factual written evidence of the mix existing in the 19th century. Although the history may be shoddy on the details from what I can tell, it seems pretty evident that mixing of styles is an old practice in China, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that mixing has gone on long before medieval china was doing it.
Here are some wikipedia articles, which don't seem to be too detailed, unfortunately:
and here's a documentary on Tan tui, which talks more about the folk legends behind Tan Tui, and unfortunately doesn't much mention the Islamic influence an origin of the art that everyone else seems to talk about:
EDIT: | we have proof that mixing martial arts happened at a century ago, but with an educated guess that it happened over a millennium ago. So no, there's no real beginning for it overall. |
arcinguy | Combination of youthful ignorance, arrogance, and rebellion. I tested with a really high IQ early on in school, tried to get me to skip grades and take all advanced this that and the other. Even went to a local college instead of my high school in my senior year as part of this dual enrollment program. But by the time I was done with it, I was so tired of being resented by my peers and tired of family expecting so much I just wanted to get away from that. So I told myself I didn't need it and I'd make it on my own. And while that has proven to be true, I realize now that I don't want to just "make it". I also realize that I missed out on what could have been a great experience on it's own. Probably could have gone anywhere I wanted if I had just tried. I didn't know the value of the opportunities I had and took them for granted.
TL;DR I was young and stupid, thought I wouldn't need/miss it. | Combination of youthful ignorance, arrogance, and rebellion. I tested with a really high IQ early on in school, tried to get me to skip grades and take all advanced this that and the other. Even went to a local college instead of my high school in my senior year as part of this dual enrollment program. But by the time I was done with it, I was so tired of being resented by my peers and tired of family expecting so much I just wanted to get away from that. So I told myself I didn't need it and I'd make it on my own. And while that has proven to be true, I realize now that I don't want to just "make it". I also realize that I missed out on what could have been a great experience on it's own. Probably could have gone anywhere I wanted if I had just tried. I didn't know the value of the opportunities I had and took them for granted.
TL;DR I was young and stupid, thought I wouldn't need/miss it.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cja46oz | Combination of youthful ignorance, arrogance, and rebellion. I tested with a really high IQ early on in school, tried to get me to skip grades and take all advanced this that and the other. Even went to a local college instead of my high school in my senior year as part of this dual enrollment program. But by the time I was done with it, I was so tired of being resented by my peers and tired of family expecting so much I just wanted to get away from that. So I told myself I didn't need it and I'd make it on my own. And while that has proven to be true, I realize now that I don't want to just "make it". I also realize that I missed out on what could have been a great experience on it's own. Probably could have gone anywhere I wanted if I had just tried. I didn't know the value of the opportunities I had and took them for granted. | I was young and stupid, thought I wouldn't need/miss it. |
Dredlock11 | I am the same. Sometimes I just wish I could cry to let the feeling out. But I guess not.
TL;DR: i don cri evry teim | I am the same. Sometimes I just wish I could cry to let the feeling out. But I guess not.
TL;DR: i don cri evry teim
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cj9qqrv | I am the same. Sometimes I just wish I could cry to let the feeling out. But I guess not. | i don cri evry teim |
erus | That's a difficult question. As far as I know we don't have much to work with in terms of sources (stuff this old is way out of my league).
There's a mention of some kind of war-song in Tacitus' Germania:
> III
> They narrate of Hercules’ erstwhile stay With them and sing to him before the fray To him number one hero among the strong.
> They also have many a ‘baritus’ song auguring the impending battle’s fate With notes possessing a rhythmic clout kindling their souls as they’re belted out And according as their bands resonate Scare their foes while they themselves trepidate As more than voices they have the illusion Of hearing of valour the warlike fusion Both harshness and asperity Along with a broken clamour Are sought out particularly With mouths and tongues lambent To the shields of the armour So that harder and louder may boom The reverberating voice of doom
Ammianus Marcellinus also mentions something that might have been some kind of war-song war-cry (that the Romans didn't like):
> XXXI.7.11
> Therefore when the armies on both sides, advancing more cautiously, at last halted and stood immovable, the warriors, with mutual sternness, surveying each other with fierce looks. The Romans in every part of their line sang warlike songs, with a voice rising from a lower to a higher key, which they call barritus, and so encouraged themselves to gallant exertions. But the barbarians, with dissonant clamour, shouted out the praises of their ancestors, and amid their various discordant cries, tried occasional light skirmishes.
Jordanes also talks about music (maybe about the Goths) in his Getica:
> V.43
> They were the first race of men to string the bow with cords, as Lucan, who is more of a historian than a poet, affirms: "They string Armenian bows with Getic cords." In earliest times they sang of the deeds of their ancestors in strains of song accompanied by the cithara; chanting of Eterpamara, Hanala, Fritigern, Vidigoia and others whose fame among them is great; such heroes as admiring antiquity scarce proclaims its own to be.
I guess those are not terribly useful to really know about Germanic music...
Getting a little closer to the Holy Roman Empire, we find the so called Carolingian Renaissance. By that time, the chant of the Church in Rome was migrating north.
Charlemagne invited Albinus of York (an English scholar) around 781 to set up a cathedral school. The curriculum was that of the trivium and quadrivium, this last one including music. Now, by music I mean mostly some ancient Greek theory (which includes the maths to determine musical notes by using ratios and lengths on a taut string).
It was decided to unify the liturgy of all the realm (which was quite big). This meant the previous forms of chant (including Gallican chant) had to go. It was not an easy process, and this effort of standardization was significant for the history of music because we see the Western musical notation appearing during/after that process.
Do we have any concrete German musical examples from before the HRE? I am not sure. Well, I think it's closer to "no, not really" but "kind of" if you are not too picky.
The [Planctus (de obitu) Karoli]( is an anonymous eulogy written close to the death of Charlemagne (so this might be a little more "French" than "German"). We have music associated with it, but the notation (which is one of the earliest kinds we have) is not from the time the text was written. I cannot tell if the music was composed much later, or if it was communicated via oral tradition and then notated. In any case, [here's a video]( Compare the previous recording to [this one]( or even to [this other](
That notation is very problematic. You see the text, and then some neumes (dots and squiggles) above it. Those are not very specific... Be very sceptic about recordings of this sort of music. Yes, a lot of knowledgeable people have worked hard to get an idea of what all that sounded like, but the information we have is very limited. Some speculation is needed to attempt to recreate pretty much all music earlier than the 19th century, attempting to recreate music from neumes obviously requires MUCH more.
We have every reason to believe there was non-liturgical, non-religious music, and that there could be music with more instruments than the voice (with more instruments playing at once, too). However, I don't know of any surviving example of such music.
**TL;DR**
As with most music from so long ago, not terribly much. You are asking about something that is kind of prehistoric, because Western musical notation started to develop about the time limit you set. | That's a difficult question. As far as I know we don't have much to work with in terms of sources (stuff this old is way out of my league).
There's a mention of some kind of war-song in Tacitus' Germania:
> III
> They narrate of Hercules’ erstwhile stay With them and sing to him before the fray To him number one hero among the strong.
> They also have many a ‘baritus’ song auguring the impending battle’s fate With notes possessing a rhythmic clout kindling their souls as they’re belted out And according as their bands resonate Scare their foes while they themselves trepidate As more than voices they have the illusion Of hearing of valour the warlike fusion Both harshness and asperity Along with a broken clamour Are sought out particularly With mouths and tongues lambent To the shields of the armour So that harder and louder may boom The reverberating voice of doom
Ammianus Marcellinus also mentions something that might have been some kind of war-song war-cry (that the Romans didn't like):
> XXXI.7.11
> Therefore when the armies on both sides, advancing more cautiously, at last halted and stood immovable, the warriors, with mutual sternness, surveying each other with fierce looks. The Romans in every part of their line sang warlike songs, with a voice rising from a lower to a higher key, which they call barritus, and so encouraged themselves to gallant exertions. But the barbarians, with dissonant clamour, shouted out the praises of their ancestors, and amid their various discordant cries, tried occasional light skirmishes.
Jordanes also talks about music (maybe about the Goths) in his Getica:
> V.43
> They were the first race of men to string the bow with cords, as Lucan, who is more of a historian than a poet, affirms: "They string Armenian bows with Getic cords." In earliest times they sang of the deeds of their ancestors in strains of song accompanied by the cithara; chanting of Eterpamara, Hanala, Fritigern, Vidigoia and others whose fame among them is great; such heroes as admiring antiquity scarce proclaims its own to be.
I guess those are not terribly useful to really know about Germanic music...
Getting a little closer to the Holy Roman Empire, we find the so called Carolingian Renaissance. By that time, the chant of the Church in Rome was migrating north.
Charlemagne invited Albinus of York (an English scholar) around 781 to set up a cathedral school. The curriculum was that of the trivium and quadrivium, this last one including music. Now, by music I mean mostly some ancient Greek theory (which includes the maths to determine musical notes by using ratios and lengths on a taut string).
It was decided to unify the liturgy of all the realm (which was quite big). This meant the previous forms of chant (including Gallican chant) had to go. It was not an easy process, and this effort of standardization was significant for the history of music because we see the Western musical notation appearing during/after that process.
Do we have any concrete German musical examples from before the HRE? I am not sure. Well, I think it's closer to "no, not really" but "kind of" if you are not too picky.
The Planctus (de obitu) Karoli . We have music associated with it, but the notation (which is one of the earliest kinds we have) is not from the time the text was written. I cannot tell if the music was composed much later, or if it was communicated via oral tradition and then notated. In any case, [here's a video]( Compare the previous recording to [this one]( or even to [this other](
That notation is very problematic. You see the text, and then some neumes (dots and squiggles) above it. Those are not very specific... Be very sceptic about recordings of this sort of music. Yes, a lot of knowledgeable people have worked hard to get an idea of what all that sounded like, but the information we have is very limited. Some speculation is needed to attempt to recreate pretty much all music earlier than the 19th century, attempting to recreate music from neumes obviously requires MUCH more.
We have every reason to believe there was non-liturgical, non-religious music, and that there could be music with more instruments than the voice (with more instruments playing at once, too). However, I don't know of any surviving example of such music.
TL;DR
As with most music from so long ago, not terribly much. You are asking about something that is kind of prehistoric, because Western musical notation started to develop about the time limit you set.
| AskHistorians | t5_2ssp3 | cja4ryo | That's a difficult question. As far as I know we don't have much to work with in terms of sources (stuff this old is way out of my league).
There's a mention of some kind of war-song in Tacitus' Germania:
> III
> They narrate of Hercules’ erstwhile stay With them and sing to him before the fray To him number one hero among the strong.
> They also have many a ‘baritus’ song auguring the impending battle’s fate With notes possessing a rhythmic clout kindling their souls as they’re belted out And according as their bands resonate Scare their foes while they themselves trepidate As more than voices they have the illusion Of hearing of valour the warlike fusion Both harshness and asperity Along with a broken clamour Are sought out particularly With mouths and tongues lambent To the shields of the armour So that harder and louder may boom The reverberating voice of doom
Ammianus Marcellinus also mentions something that might have been some kind of war-song war-cry (that the Romans didn't like):
> XXXI.7.11
> Therefore when the armies on both sides, advancing more cautiously, at last halted and stood immovable, the warriors, with mutual sternness, surveying each other with fierce looks. The Romans in every part of their line sang warlike songs, with a voice rising from a lower to a higher key, which they call barritus, and so encouraged themselves to gallant exertions. But the barbarians, with dissonant clamour, shouted out the praises of their ancestors, and amid their various discordant cries, tried occasional light skirmishes.
Jordanes also talks about music (maybe about the Goths) in his Getica:
> V.43
> They were the first race of men to string the bow with cords, as Lucan, who is more of a historian than a poet, affirms: "They string Armenian bows with Getic cords." In earliest times they sang of the deeds of their ancestors in strains of song accompanied by the cithara; chanting of Eterpamara, Hanala, Fritigern, Vidigoia and others whose fame among them is great; such heroes as admiring antiquity scarce proclaims its own to be.
I guess those are not terribly useful to really know about Germanic music...
Getting a little closer to the Holy Roman Empire, we find the so called Carolingian Renaissance. By that time, the chant of the Church in Rome was migrating north.
Charlemagne invited Albinus of York (an English scholar) around 781 to set up a cathedral school. The curriculum was that of the trivium and quadrivium, this last one including music. Now, by music I mean mostly some ancient Greek theory (which includes the maths to determine musical notes by using ratios and lengths on a taut string).
It was decided to unify the liturgy of all the realm (which was quite big). This meant the previous forms of chant (including Gallican chant) had to go. It was not an easy process, and this effort of standardization was significant for the history of music because we see the Western musical notation appearing during/after that process.
Do we have any concrete German musical examples from before the HRE? I am not sure. Well, I think it's closer to "no, not really" but "kind of" if you are not too picky.
The Planctus (de obitu) Karoli . We have music associated with it, but the notation (which is one of the earliest kinds we have) is not from the time the text was written. I cannot tell if the music was composed much later, or if it was communicated via oral tradition and then notated. In any case, [here's a video]( Compare the previous recording to [this one]( or even to [this other](
That notation is very problematic. You see the text, and then some neumes (dots and squiggles) above it. Those are not very specific... Be very sceptic about recordings of this sort of music. Yes, a lot of knowledgeable people have worked hard to get an idea of what all that sounded like, but the information we have is very limited. Some speculation is needed to attempt to recreate pretty much all music earlier than the 19th century, attempting to recreate music from neumes obviously requires MUCH more.
We have every reason to believe there was non-liturgical, non-religious music, and that there could be music with more instruments than the voice (with more instruments playing at once, too). However, I don't know of any surviving example of such music. | As with most music from so long ago, not terribly much. You are asking about something that is kind of prehistoric, because Western musical notation started to develop about the time limit you set. |
AmorphousGamer | Vaati is a great storyteller. I love him. But I hate the fact that people watch his videos, where he weaves a story entirely based on speculation, and then parade that around as fact. "No, you're wrong, see Pinwheel is ACTUALLY an old necromancer who tried to bring his family back to life but instead merged them together into his own body, and now spends his days looking for a fix."
That's not said anywhere. That is entirely speculation. The way Vaati tells that story is great, but it's not fact.
TL;DR: Yes, VaatiVidya is very cool. But keep in mind that it is all *speculation.* | Vaati is a great storyteller. I love him. But I hate the fact that people watch his videos, where he weaves a story entirely based on speculation, and then parade that around as fact. "No, you're wrong, see Pinwheel is ACTUALLY an old necromancer who tried to bring his family back to life but instead merged them together into his own body, and now spends his days looking for a fix."
That's not said anywhere. That is entirely speculation. The way Vaati tells that story is great, but it's not fact.
TL;DR: Yes, VaatiVidya is very cool. But keep in mind that it is all speculation.
| darksouls | t5_2sazo | cj9z0v3 | Vaati is a great storyteller. I love him. But I hate the fact that people watch his videos, where he weaves a story entirely based on speculation, and then parade that around as fact. "No, you're wrong, see Pinwheel is ACTUALLY an old necromancer who tried to bring his family back to life but instead merged them together into his own body, and now spends his days looking for a fix."
That's not said anywhere. That is entirely speculation. The way Vaati tells that story is great, but it's not fact. | Yes, VaatiVidya is very cool. But keep in mind that it is all speculation. |
omegamax | I suppose , on a logician (see autistic) point of view , if you can go out with obese girls and rejecting them, they're not technically forever alone.
But eh, when a guy would have this sort of reasoning,he'll be called a fedora neckbeard. But for a woman ,that fighting oppression and worthy of a hashtag campaign.
Tl;dr Don't listen to those women , they're ultra hypocritical. | I suppose , on a logician (see autistic) point of view , if you can go out with obese girls and rejecting them, they're not technically forever alone.
But eh, when a guy would have this sort of reasoning,he'll be called a fedora neckbeard. But for a woman ,that fighting oppression and worthy of a hashtag campaign.
Tl;dr Don't listen to those women , they're ultra hypocritical.
| ForeverAlone | t5_2s3yz | cj9zjwx | I suppose , on a logician (see autistic) point of view , if you can go out with obese girls and rejecting them, they're not technically forever alone.
But eh, when a guy would have this sort of reasoning,he'll be called a fedora neckbeard. But for a woman ,that fighting oppression and worthy of a hashtag campaign. | Don't listen to those women , they're ultra hypocritical. |
carsgobeepbeep | As a present-day consultant and former hiring manager, I would advise against studying for or investing in anything other than current certification tracks.
Server 08 is a 7 year old operating system and while it might be common to find it out there, the only companies that are deploying that OS or that see value in that cert anymore (over the 2012R2 track that is) are those that are more interested in perpetuating an archaic approach to IT strategy than in adapting new tech and new trends.
TL;DR a server '08 cert in mid-2014 might help get you a job, but not one that is going to keep you relevant or interested in technology. | As a present-day consultant and former hiring manager, I would advise against studying for or investing in anything other than current certification tracks.
Server 08 is a 7 year old operating system and while it might be common to find it out there, the only companies that are deploying that OS or that see value in that cert anymore (over the 2012R2 track that is) are those that are more interested in perpetuating an archaic approach to IT strategy than in adapting new tech and new trends.
TL;DR a server '08 cert in mid-2014 might help get you a job, but not one that is going to keep you relevant or interested in technology.
| sysadmin | t5_2qnp7 | cj9zlpj | As a present-day consultant and former hiring manager, I would advise against studying for or investing in anything other than current certification tracks.
Server 08 is a 7 year old operating system and while it might be common to find it out there, the only companies that are deploying that OS or that see value in that cert anymore (over the 2012R2 track that is) are those that are more interested in perpetuating an archaic approach to IT strategy than in adapting new tech and new trends. | a server '08 cert in mid-2014 might help get you a job, but not one that is going to keep you relevant or interested in technology. |
smackson | Tilt shift simply makes the "plane of focus" non-parallel to your camera-sensor or film.
If you are taking a photo of a tall building, where the top is far away and the bottom is close, you might find that a *normal* lens forces you to have one or the other out of focus.
You can use a tilt-shift lens to bring the far and the close both into focus, since the far and the close are related in a smooth way. This is how you use a tilt-shift lens *to increase your depth of field*.
In fact, before there was the internet and reddit, this kind of architecture photography was the main use for tilt-shift tech (and it's pre-SLR equivalent, [camera bodies with flexible bellows that enabled you to make the film plane non-parallel with the normal focal plane](
(Note: Not only did the non-parrallel affect the focus but also the perspective)
Using tilt-shift to do the opposite-- to decrease the depth of field along a plane to make further stuff and nearer stuff *more* out of focus than they would be with a normal lens, and giving that "miniature" appearance-- is a relatively recent technique/phenomenon but it's now very famous (and totally cool when done well, I agree!)
Just keep in mind that if you want to decrease the depth of field and throw some *distances* out of focus, use longer focal-lengths and wider apertures (lower f-stop numbers). There are digital filters to fake this.
But if changing the depth of field along a certain plane across the entire photograph is needed, tilt-shift does this. (And there are digital filters to fake this, and there is an overlap with the depth-of-field fakery).
tl;dr The space-shuttle shot does not have the entire top portion of photo, or bottom, entirely defocused, but leaves the shuttle sharp to imitate a narrow depth of field, which would not work with plain tilt-shift. | Tilt shift simply makes the "plane of focus" non-parallel to your camera-sensor or film.
If you are taking a photo of a tall building, where the top is far away and the bottom is close, you might find that a normal lens forces you to have one or the other out of focus.
You can use a tilt-shift lens to bring the far and the close both into focus, since the far and the close are related in a smooth way. This is how you use a tilt-shift lens to increase your depth of field .
In fact, before there was the internet and reddit, this kind of architecture photography was the main use for tilt-shift tech (and it's pre-SLR equivalent, [camera bodies with flexible bellows that enabled you to make the film plane non-parallel with the normal focal plane](
(Note: Not only did the non-parrallel affect the focus but also the perspective)
Using tilt-shift to do the opposite-- to decrease the depth of field along a plane to make further stuff and nearer stuff more out of focus than they would be with a normal lens, and giving that "miniature" appearance-- is a relatively recent technique/phenomenon but it's now very famous (and totally cool when done well, I agree!)
Just keep in mind that if you want to decrease the depth of field and throw some distances out of focus, use longer focal-lengths and wider apertures (lower f-stop numbers). There are digital filters to fake this.
But if changing the depth of field along a certain plane across the entire photograph is needed, tilt-shift does this. (And there are digital filters to fake this, and there is an overlap with the depth-of-field fakery).
tl;dr The space-shuttle shot does not have the entire top portion of photo, or bottom, entirely defocused, but leaves the shuttle sharp to imitate a narrow depth of field, which would not work with plain tilt-shift.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | cjb51mg | Tilt shift simply makes the "plane of focus" non-parallel to your camera-sensor or film.
If you are taking a photo of a tall building, where the top is far away and the bottom is close, you might find that a normal lens forces you to have one or the other out of focus.
You can use a tilt-shift lens to bring the far and the close both into focus, since the far and the close are related in a smooth way. This is how you use a tilt-shift lens to increase your depth of field .
In fact, before there was the internet and reddit, this kind of architecture photography was the main use for tilt-shift tech (and it's pre-SLR equivalent, [camera bodies with flexible bellows that enabled you to make the film plane non-parallel with the normal focal plane](
(Note: Not only did the non-parrallel affect the focus but also the perspective)
Using tilt-shift to do the opposite-- to decrease the depth of field along a plane to make further stuff and nearer stuff more out of focus than they would be with a normal lens, and giving that "miniature" appearance-- is a relatively recent technique/phenomenon but it's now very famous (and totally cool when done well, I agree!)
Just keep in mind that if you want to decrease the depth of field and throw some distances out of focus, use longer focal-lengths and wider apertures (lower f-stop numbers). There are digital filters to fake this.
But if changing the depth of field along a certain plane across the entire photograph is needed, tilt-shift does this. (And there are digital filters to fake this, and there is an overlap with the depth-of-field fakery). | The space-shuttle shot does not have the entire top portion of photo, or bottom, entirely defocused, but leaves the shuttle sharp to imitate a narrow depth of field, which would not work with plain tilt-shift. |
R3T1CAL | > I'm not sure, but it would be cool to walk home from class, and have Destiny already logged in for me.
It doesn't matter if you turn your xbox one on while away, Destiny then needs to start and will sit at the Title Screen until you press A. Then you have to choose the character you want to login as. After no active for a period of time it logs you off anyway. Plus how would you know what to press or move the cursor to choose your character?
Currently I can walk in, turn on my xbox, have destiny open and ready to play in less than 90 seconds. Even faster if it was the last game I had open.
>Or, like I said, if I forgot to turn my xbox off and don't want to wait one or six (mine is set at six at the moment) hours, then I could turn it off.
If you don't want to wait 6 hours, then set it to a lower threshold. Remember the Xbox One is designed to be an always on system. so there isn't a reason beside it cost money to run.
I totally get wanting to turn off/on the Xbox One locally, but while your away, It's unnecessary. It's not pointless, but it doesn't have any real use case. Especially when auto downloading and remote purchasing coming in August.
**tl;dr:** Your core idea is great, but the ability to turn on/off outside of your home has no real world use case. Everything you could need your xbox to do while not there: download & install games/updates are features. | > I'm not sure, but it would be cool to walk home from class, and have Destiny already logged in for me.
It doesn't matter if you turn your xbox one on while away, Destiny then needs to start and will sit at the Title Screen until you press A. Then you have to choose the character you want to login as. After no active for a period of time it logs you off anyway. Plus how would you know what to press or move the cursor to choose your character?
Currently I can walk in, turn on my xbox, have destiny open and ready to play in less than 90 seconds. Even faster if it was the last game I had open.
>Or, like I said, if I forgot to turn my xbox off and don't want to wait one or six (mine is set at six at the moment) hours, then I could turn it off.
If you don't want to wait 6 hours, then set it to a lower threshold. Remember the Xbox One is designed to be an always on system. so there isn't a reason beside it cost money to run.
I totally get wanting to turn off/on the Xbox One locally, but while your away, It's unnecessary. It's not pointless, but it doesn't have any real use case. Especially when auto downloading and remote purchasing coming in August.
tl;dr: Your core idea is great, but the ability to turn on/off outside of your home has no real world use case. Everything you could need your xbox to do while not there: download & install games/updates are features.
| xboxone | t5_2xbci | cjb4v9j | I'm not sure, but it would be cool to walk home from class, and have Destiny already logged in for me.
It doesn't matter if you turn your xbox one on while away, Destiny then needs to start and will sit at the Title Screen until you press A. Then you have to choose the character you want to login as. After no active for a period of time it logs you off anyway. Plus how would you know what to press or move the cursor to choose your character?
Currently I can walk in, turn on my xbox, have destiny open and ready to play in less than 90 seconds. Even faster if it was the last game I had open.
>Or, like I said, if I forgot to turn my xbox off and don't want to wait one or six (mine is set at six at the moment) hours, then I could turn it off.
If you don't want to wait 6 hours, then set it to a lower threshold. Remember the Xbox One is designed to be an always on system. so there isn't a reason beside it cost money to run.
I totally get wanting to turn off/on the Xbox One locally, but while your away, It's unnecessary. It's not pointless, but it doesn't have any real use case. Especially when auto downloading and remote purchasing coming in August. | Your core idea is great, but the ability to turn on/off outside of your home has no real world use case. Everything you could need your xbox to do while not there: download & install games/updates are features. |
mattmanutd | Here is the thing guys, Like probably all of you, I want to this deal to go down so bad. However, more and more it seems like he isnt moving. I want him to move here so bad that, like almost everyone else on this sub, I am quick to believe the less reliable sources and shun the ones that have been trusted reporters for us and have a proven record when it comes to providing reliable info for us. Yet, now its getting a bit whacky. Allegri himself has now said he isn't leaving (yes I understand he has to say it) AND still none of our trusted journalists have budged on their stance that there is nothing to this story.
I think its time we take a step back and realize the reality of this happening is slim (like most of this sub's view on the Di Maria transfer rumors). It sucks even more that there is no other direct link to another CM but one I urge you guys to be just a bit more patient give things about two weeks. I have a weird feeling that United are trying to let the Vidal saga die down before we reveal who we are actually pursuing.
TLDR: Yes we all want Vidal BADLY but, it's time to start looking at the reality and preparing to move on. Also just throwing this out there but maybe United are waiting for these rumors to die down so they can reveal who they are seriously pursuing. | Here is the thing guys, Like probably all of you, I want to this deal to go down so bad. However, more and more it seems like he isnt moving. I want him to move here so bad that, like almost everyone else on this sub, I am quick to believe the less reliable sources and shun the ones that have been trusted reporters for us and have a proven record when it comes to providing reliable info for us. Yet, now its getting a bit whacky. Allegri himself has now said he isn't leaving (yes I understand he has to say it) AND still none of our trusted journalists have budged on their stance that there is nothing to this story.
I think its time we take a step back and realize the reality of this happening is slim (like most of this sub's view on the Di Maria transfer rumors). It sucks even more that there is no other direct link to another CM but one I urge you guys to be just a bit more patient give things about two weeks. I have a weird feeling that United are trying to let the Vidal saga die down before we reveal who we are actually pursuing.
TLDR: Yes we all want Vidal BADLY but, it's time to start looking at the reality and preparing to move on. Also just throwing this out there but maybe United are waiting for these rumors to die down so they can reveal who they are seriously pursuing.
| reddevils | t5_2rxse | cjazt8e | Here is the thing guys, Like probably all of you, I want to this deal to go down so bad. However, more and more it seems like he isnt moving. I want him to move here so bad that, like almost everyone else on this sub, I am quick to believe the less reliable sources and shun the ones that have been trusted reporters for us and have a proven record when it comes to providing reliable info for us. Yet, now its getting a bit whacky. Allegri himself has now said he isn't leaving (yes I understand he has to say it) AND still none of our trusted journalists have budged on their stance that there is nothing to this story.
I think its time we take a step back and realize the reality of this happening is slim (like most of this sub's view on the Di Maria transfer rumors). It sucks even more that there is no other direct link to another CM but one I urge you guys to be just a bit more patient give things about two weeks. I have a weird feeling that United are trying to let the Vidal saga die down before we reveal who we are actually pursuing. | Yes we all want Vidal BADLY but, it's time to start looking at the reality and preparing to move on. Also just throwing this out there but maybe United are waiting for these rumors to die down so they can reveal who they are seriously pursuing. |
Nambot | Are you asking about 2D animation or 3D? There's a *very* big difference in terms of problems for both. To explain both I will be referring to [this video of a wood fireplace]( (On minute length, though youtube has some ten hour versions if you prefer)
For 2D the issue is that fire moves around an awful lot, and flickers quite quickly. Although the video shows that the fire has a somewhat consistent shape (this tends to be true only for long burning, controlled fires, not wildfires), the flames flicker a lot, and this is hard to animate consistently. Depending on your level of realism for your animation, it is often quicker and easier to chat and use the [cartoon fire]( especially if the fire is simply part of an unimportant background. However, cartoon fire has clear distinctions between the colours, and as the video for the real fire shows, the colours tend to meld together much smoother than that of cartoon fire.
If you take a more realistic approach however it can often clash with the style of the rest of the cartoon, and it takes a lot of time as you have to spend a lot more effort on each frame. increased time per frame has an increased cost, and unless you're working on something with a big budget that's aiming for awards, it's unlikely you'll be allowed to work on a realistic fire.
For 3D the biggest issue is lighting. The rendering process for animations involves taking the object as seen in the 3D program, and then drawing each individual frame in as high a polycount as possible. First it'll draw the default model, then apply each texture, particle effect and light source. Since fire is it's own light source, adding realistic fire complicates matters. When rendering, multiple frames, computers can acknowledge what in a previous frame will be the same. So if you had a drawing of a man turning his head left and right, the torso may not necessarily be completely re-rendered.
Go back and look at the fire video. As you can see, the fire's flicker changes the shadow on the object. Now, if the shadow has changed on an object between frames, a computer will have to re-render everything in that frame as it has all changed.This will slow down rendering times considerably, and is often difficult to concede for an unimportant effect.
If you're animating a videogame, there is then further problems to do with rendering lighting in real time. In addition, the animation needs to be long enough to not noticeably loop, but not so long that it's file size is enormous, and detrimental to the performance of the game itself.
For both 2D and 3D there is one other thing to remember, and that is that fire is not a tangible object, and thus animators don't really know how to deal with it. When you see a picture of a fire, you can replicate how it looks, but it's hard to get an idea of it's exact dimension. Look once more at the video, how thick are the flames? There's no real way to measure it from any angle, other than the on you're facing. Many animators have no true understanding of what fire actually is (at least in the sense of it's size, mass, consistency, etc) and this is often hard to convey realistically on paper, and harder still to tell a computer how fire should behave.
**Tl;dr** Fire is hard to animate realistically because it is complicated, and would take more time to work on it than would be realistically feasible. | Are you asking about 2D animation or 3D? There's a very big difference in terms of problems for both. To explain both I will be referring to this video of a wood fireplace
For 2D the issue is that fire moves around an awful lot, and flickers quite quickly. Although the video shows that the fire has a somewhat consistent shape (this tends to be true only for long burning, controlled fires, not wildfires), the flames flicker a lot, and this is hard to animate consistently. Depending on your level of realism for your animation, it is often quicker and easier to chat and use the [cartoon fire]( especially if the fire is simply part of an unimportant background. However, cartoon fire has clear distinctions between the colours, and as the video for the real fire shows, the colours tend to meld together much smoother than that of cartoon fire.
If you take a more realistic approach however it can often clash with the style of the rest of the cartoon, and it takes a lot of time as you have to spend a lot more effort on each frame. increased time per frame has an increased cost, and unless you're working on something with a big budget that's aiming for awards, it's unlikely you'll be allowed to work on a realistic fire.
For 3D the biggest issue is lighting. The rendering process for animations involves taking the object as seen in the 3D program, and then drawing each individual frame in as high a polycount as possible. First it'll draw the default model, then apply each texture, particle effect and light source. Since fire is it's own light source, adding realistic fire complicates matters. When rendering, multiple frames, computers can acknowledge what in a previous frame will be the same. So if you had a drawing of a man turning his head left and right, the torso may not necessarily be completely re-rendered.
Go back and look at the fire video. As you can see, the fire's flicker changes the shadow on the object. Now, if the shadow has changed on an object between frames, a computer will have to re-render everything in that frame as it has all changed.This will slow down rendering times considerably, and is often difficult to concede for an unimportant effect.
If you're animating a videogame, there is then further problems to do with rendering lighting in real time. In addition, the animation needs to be long enough to not noticeably loop, but not so long that it's file size is enormous, and detrimental to the performance of the game itself.
For both 2D and 3D there is one other thing to remember, and that is that fire is not a tangible object, and thus animators don't really know how to deal with it. When you see a picture of a fire, you can replicate how it looks, but it's hard to get an idea of it's exact dimension. Look once more at the video, how thick are the flames? There's no real way to measure it from any angle, other than the on you're facing. Many animators have no true understanding of what fire actually is (at least in the sense of it's size, mass, consistency, etc) and this is often hard to convey realistically on paper, and harder still to tell a computer how fire should behave.
Tl;dr Fire is hard to animate realistically because it is complicated, and would take more time to work on it than would be realistically feasible.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cjb4glt | Are you asking about 2D animation or 3D? There's a very big difference in terms of problems for both. To explain both I will be referring to this video of a wood fireplace
For 2D the issue is that fire moves around an awful lot, and flickers quite quickly. Although the video shows that the fire has a somewhat consistent shape (this tends to be true only for long burning, controlled fires, not wildfires), the flames flicker a lot, and this is hard to animate consistently. Depending on your level of realism for your animation, it is often quicker and easier to chat and use the [cartoon fire]( especially if the fire is simply part of an unimportant background. However, cartoon fire has clear distinctions between the colours, and as the video for the real fire shows, the colours tend to meld together much smoother than that of cartoon fire.
If you take a more realistic approach however it can often clash with the style of the rest of the cartoon, and it takes a lot of time as you have to spend a lot more effort on each frame. increased time per frame has an increased cost, and unless you're working on something with a big budget that's aiming for awards, it's unlikely you'll be allowed to work on a realistic fire.
For 3D the biggest issue is lighting. The rendering process for animations involves taking the object as seen in the 3D program, and then drawing each individual frame in as high a polycount as possible. First it'll draw the default model, then apply each texture, particle effect and light source. Since fire is it's own light source, adding realistic fire complicates matters. When rendering, multiple frames, computers can acknowledge what in a previous frame will be the same. So if you had a drawing of a man turning his head left and right, the torso may not necessarily be completely re-rendered.
Go back and look at the fire video. As you can see, the fire's flicker changes the shadow on the object. Now, if the shadow has changed on an object between frames, a computer will have to re-render everything in that frame as it has all changed.This will slow down rendering times considerably, and is often difficult to concede for an unimportant effect.
If you're animating a videogame, there is then further problems to do with rendering lighting in real time. In addition, the animation needs to be long enough to not noticeably loop, but not so long that it's file size is enormous, and detrimental to the performance of the game itself.
For both 2D and 3D there is one other thing to remember, and that is that fire is not a tangible object, and thus animators don't really know how to deal with it. When you see a picture of a fire, you can replicate how it looks, but it's hard to get an idea of it's exact dimension. Look once more at the video, how thick are the flames? There's no real way to measure it from any angle, other than the on you're facing. Many animators have no true understanding of what fire actually is (at least in the sense of it's size, mass, consistency, etc) and this is often hard to convey realistically on paper, and harder still to tell a computer how fire should behave. | Fire is hard to animate realistically because it is complicated, and would take more time to work on it than would be realistically feasible. |
spazmodic- | Reminds me of [this](
> Man I hate koalas. talk about the most disappointing animal. They only eat eucalyptus which has next to no caloric value and is actually poisonous to them so they spend 23 hours a day sleeping because a) they have no energy to spend moving around and b) they're tripping their fucking balls off.
> so during this time they just piss all over themselves. just in their sleep. just always dripping piss from their forked penises(their one redeeming feature).
> So i was with this whole youth travel group in queensland and we get to go hold a koala. I'm all excited. so we get there and they hand me this obviously piss soaked and gumpy ball of coarse fur. Did I mention that they're not soft? Like at all? I would put koala fur somewhere around woodchuck hair for softness, and on top of that they have this huge bone plate down their back. Fuckin bullshit.
> So they hand me this piss soaked coarse hard ball thing with claws and then proceed to tell us about why koalas are endangered. My first guess was that their habitat was being eroded or something. Turns out that they all have chlamydia and it's making them all sterile. They told me the ones in the park were all clean, but I really didn't want to get my first std from koala piss.
> tl;dr: koalas are disgusting piss balls.
| Reminds me of [this](
> Man I hate koalas. talk about the most disappointing animal. They only eat eucalyptus which has next to no caloric value and is actually poisonous to them so they spend 23 hours a day sleeping because a) they have no energy to spend moving around and b) they're tripping their fucking balls off.
> so during this time they just piss all over themselves. just in their sleep. just always dripping piss from their forked penises(their one redeeming feature).
> So i was with this whole youth travel group in queensland and we get to go hold a koala. I'm all excited. so we get there and they hand me this obviously piss soaked and gumpy ball of coarse fur. Did I mention that they're not soft? Like at all? I would put koala fur somewhere around woodchuck hair for softness, and on top of that they have this huge bone plate down their back. Fuckin bullshit.
> So they hand me this piss soaked coarse hard ball thing with claws and then proceed to tell us about why koalas are endangered. My first guess was that their habitat was being eroded or something. Turns out that they all have chlamydia and it's making them all sterile. They told me the ones in the park were all clean, but I really didn't want to get my first std from koala piss.
> tl;dr: koalas are disgusting piss balls.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | cjbfor0 | Reminds me of [this](
> Man I hate koalas. talk about the most disappointing animal. They only eat eucalyptus which has next to no caloric value and is actually poisonous to them so they spend 23 hours a day sleeping because a) they have no energy to spend moving around and b) they're tripping their fucking balls off.
> so during this time they just piss all over themselves. just in their sleep. just always dripping piss from their forked penises(their one redeeming feature).
> So i was with this whole youth travel group in queensland and we get to go hold a koala. I'm all excited. so we get there and they hand me this obviously piss soaked and gumpy ball of coarse fur. Did I mention that they're not soft? Like at all? I would put koala fur somewhere around woodchuck hair for softness, and on top of that they have this huge bone plate down their back. Fuckin bullshit.
> So they hand me this piss soaked coarse hard ball thing with claws and then proceed to tell us about why koalas are endangered. My first guess was that their habitat was being eroded or something. Turns out that they all have chlamydia and it's making them all sterile. They told me the ones in the park were all clean, but I really didn't want to get my first std from koala piss.
> | koalas are disgusting piss balls. |
redpillspeeddate | I have hit this situation and it has worked out for me, but it all depends on your SMV.
A Social circle date will often work like this, the easiest way is to invite a wing or if you think you can handle both then go for it.
The secret is to tease the friend and game them both, the friend being interested can create a bit of competition and jealousy which actually works in your favor. The other way you can handle it is agree and amplify, "Wow, you move fast, I usually like a few dates before we start looking for a threesome" this is a good tease and it sets the mood.
The other thing that is good about an extra is it gives you a bit of a pass from being the most entertaining thing, you can let them go do their own then and you don't have to drive every moment of the conversation. Yes its a shit test but its an easy one to pass.
I had a first date about a month ago with a plate I wasn't sure about yet, my company had tickets to a ball game so I invited her, and told her to bring a friend if she wanted as to make it less awkward and if she proved to be lame, her and her friend could hang out and I would just hang with my co-workers. It actually lowered my risk. By the end of the game, I continued to lead both and it went very well. We ended up dropping off the friend and got some time by ourselves. This was a long date, but it hit that 7-10 hour mark where you can get everything you want from her.
tl;dr; Yes its a shit test, but if you hold frame, let it roll off you, you can actually flip it to your advantage if your smv is high enough. | I have hit this situation and it has worked out for me, but it all depends on your SMV.
A Social circle date will often work like this, the easiest way is to invite a wing or if you think you can handle both then go for it.
The secret is to tease the friend and game them both, the friend being interested can create a bit of competition and jealousy which actually works in your favor. The other way you can handle it is agree and amplify, "Wow, you move fast, I usually like a few dates before we start looking for a threesome" this is a good tease and it sets the mood.
The other thing that is good about an extra is it gives you a bit of a pass from being the most entertaining thing, you can let them go do their own then and you don't have to drive every moment of the conversation. Yes its a shit test but its an easy one to pass.
I had a first date about a month ago with a plate I wasn't sure about yet, my company had tickets to a ball game so I invited her, and told her to bring a friend if she wanted as to make it less awkward and if she proved to be lame, her and her friend could hang out and I would just hang with my co-workers. It actually lowered my risk. By the end of the game, I continued to lead both and it went very well. We ended up dropping off the friend and got some time by ourselves. This was a long date, but it hit that 7-10 hour mark where you can get everything you want from her.
tl;dr; Yes its a shit test, but if you hold frame, let it roll off you, you can actually flip it to your advantage if your smv is high enough.
| asktrp | t5_2y2sm | cjbhpki | I have hit this situation and it has worked out for me, but it all depends on your SMV.
A Social circle date will often work like this, the easiest way is to invite a wing or if you think you can handle both then go for it.
The secret is to tease the friend and game them both, the friend being interested can create a bit of competition and jealousy which actually works in your favor. The other way you can handle it is agree and amplify, "Wow, you move fast, I usually like a few dates before we start looking for a threesome" this is a good tease and it sets the mood.
The other thing that is good about an extra is it gives you a bit of a pass from being the most entertaining thing, you can let them go do their own then and you don't have to drive every moment of the conversation. Yes its a shit test but its an easy one to pass.
I had a first date about a month ago with a plate I wasn't sure about yet, my company had tickets to a ball game so I invited her, and told her to bring a friend if she wanted as to make it less awkward and if she proved to be lame, her and her friend could hang out and I would just hang with my co-workers. It actually lowered my risk. By the end of the game, I continued to lead both and it went very well. We ended up dropping off the friend and got some time by ourselves. This was a long date, but it hit that 7-10 hour mark where you can get everything you want from her. | Yes its a shit test, but if you hold frame, let it roll off you, you can actually flip it to your advantage if your smv is high enough. |
dyskolos | Roughly, yes. However, I would say it contrariwise: *in most cases*, syllable final m's and n's indicated *actually pronounced* consonants in most cases: before velars (incido, ingenium), labials (impero), dental stops (condo, spondeo).
**n before s** and **final m** disappeared, leaving a nasal vowel, that soon lost its nasalization as well. These m's and n's were preserved or restored in the writing only, and in fact it appeared in words never having had a nasal consonant/vowel, like *thensaurus* for *thesaurus*, from Greek *θησαυρός*.
A better understanding of the issue can be found in Allen's *Vox Latina*, pp. 27-31:
> "... in words like *consul*, where the *n* is followed by the fricative *s*, one would certainly not be wrong in pronouncing it normally; but other pronunciations were current even among educated persons in classical times. At a very early period *n* in such an environment had lost its consonantal value [...] replaced by a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel, which was at the same time lengthened by way of compensation for the lost consonant. [...] As a result, in the earliest inscriptions one often finds spellings of the type *cosol*, *cesor*, *cosentiont*, etc., alongside the spellings with *n*. In popular speech the nasalization was eventually lost, and we are told that even Cicero used to pronounce some such words without an *n*, e.g. *forēsia, Megalēsia, hortēsia*. In Vulgar Latin it must have been completely lost, for there is no sign of it whatever in the derived words in the Romance languages [...]
>
> But in the official orthography the *n* was preserved or restored, and this had its effect on most educated speech of the classical period. Probably few speakers, however, were entirely consistent [...]
>
> The same considerations apply to cases where *n* is followed by the other Latin fricative, *f*; hence inscriptional forms such as *cofeci, iferos* for *confeci, inferos*[...]
>
> m [at the end of the words] in general seems to have been reduced ... to a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel [...] and in early inscriptions one often finds the final *m* omitted [...]. In the course of the second century, the official spelling established the writing of final *m*; but forms without *m* continued occasionally to be found. That the vowel was lengthened as well as nasalized is suggested by the fact that such final syllables, when followed by an initial consonant, count as heavy [...]. For the *m* in this position, when followed by an initial vowel, Verrius Flaccus is said to have favoured writing a half-*m* only; Quintilian describes it as hardly pronounced; and later grammarians refer to it as being completely lost. If elision involves complete loss of the final vowel, the distinction between nasalized and non-nasalized in this context is of course purely academic.
>
> [...] Where, however, a final *m* was followed by a closely connected word beginning with a stop (plosive or nasal) consonant, it seems to have been treated rather as in the interior of a word, being assimilated to the following consonant [...] Thus we find inscriptional *tan durum* for *tam durum*."
TL;DR: n's before f or s, as well as final m's, disappeared. They were retained/reintroduced in the spelling for the sake of orthography, not (primarily) to express a nasalization. | Roughly, yes. However, I would say it contrariwise: in most cases , syllable final m's and n's indicated actually pronounced consonants in most cases: before velars (incido, ingenium), labials (impero), dental stops (condo, spondeo).
n before s and final m disappeared, leaving a nasal vowel, that soon lost its nasalization as well. These m's and n's were preserved or restored in the writing only, and in fact it appeared in words never having had a nasal consonant/vowel, like thensaurus for thesaurus , from Greek θησαυρός .
A better understanding of the issue can be found in Allen's Vox Latina , pp. 27-31:
> "... in words like consul , where the n is followed by the fricative s , one would certainly not be wrong in pronouncing it normally; but other pronunciations were current even among educated persons in classical times. At a very early period n in such an environment had lost its consonantal value [...] replaced by a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel, which was at the same time lengthened by way of compensation for the lost consonant. [...] As a result, in the earliest inscriptions one often finds spellings of the type cosol , cesor , cosentiont , etc., alongside the spellings with n . In popular speech the nasalization was eventually lost, and we are told that even Cicero used to pronounce some such words without an n , e.g. forēsia, Megalēsia, hortēsia . In Vulgar Latin it must have been completely lost, for there is no sign of it whatever in the derived words in the Romance languages [...]
>
> But in the official orthography the n was preserved or restored, and this had its effect on most educated speech of the classical period. Probably few speakers, however, were entirely consistent [...]
>
> The same considerations apply to cases where n is followed by the other Latin fricative, f ; hence inscriptional forms such as cofeci, iferos for confeci, inferos [...]
>
> m [at the end of the words] in general seems to have been reduced ... to a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel [...] and in early inscriptions one often finds the final m omitted [...]. In the course of the second century, the official spelling established the writing of final m ; but forms without m continued occasionally to be found. That the vowel was lengthened as well as nasalized is suggested by the fact that such final syllables, when followed by an initial consonant, count as heavy [...]. For the m in this position, when followed by an initial vowel, Verrius Flaccus is said to have favoured writing a half- m only; Quintilian describes it as hardly pronounced; and later grammarians refer to it as being completely lost. If elision involves complete loss of the final vowel, the distinction between nasalized and non-nasalized in this context is of course purely academic.
>
> [...] Where, however, a final m was followed by a closely connected word beginning with a stop (plosive or nasal) consonant, it seems to have been treated rather as in the interior of a word, being assimilated to the following consonant [...] Thus we find inscriptional tan durum for tam durum ."
TL;DR: n's before f or s, as well as final m's, disappeared. They were retained/reintroduced in the spelling for the sake of orthography, not (primarily) to express a nasalization.
| latin | t5_2qloa | ck5b77s | Roughly, yes. However, I would say it contrariwise: in most cases , syllable final m's and n's indicated actually pronounced consonants in most cases: before velars (incido, ingenium), labials (impero), dental stops (condo, spondeo).
n before s and final m disappeared, leaving a nasal vowel, that soon lost its nasalization as well. These m's and n's were preserved or restored in the writing only, and in fact it appeared in words never having had a nasal consonant/vowel, like thensaurus for thesaurus , from Greek θησαυρός .
A better understanding of the issue can be found in Allen's Vox Latina , pp. 27-31:
> "... in words like consul , where the n is followed by the fricative s , one would certainly not be wrong in pronouncing it normally; but other pronunciations were current even among educated persons in classical times. At a very early period n in such an environment had lost its consonantal value [...] replaced by a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel, which was at the same time lengthened by way of compensation for the lost consonant. [...] As a result, in the earliest inscriptions one often finds spellings of the type cosol , cesor , cosentiont , etc., alongside the spellings with n . In popular speech the nasalization was eventually lost, and we are told that even Cicero used to pronounce some such words without an n , e.g. forēsia, Megalēsia, hortēsia . In Vulgar Latin it must have been completely lost, for there is no sign of it whatever in the derived words in the Romance languages [...]
>
> But in the official orthography the n was preserved or restored, and this had its effect on most educated speech of the classical period. Probably few speakers, however, were entirely consistent [...]
>
> The same considerations apply to cases where n is followed by the other Latin fricative, f ; hence inscriptional forms such as cofeci, iferos for confeci, inferos [...]
>
> m [at the end of the words] in general seems to have been reduced ... to a mere nasalization of the preceding vowel [...] and in early inscriptions one often finds the final m omitted [...]. In the course of the second century, the official spelling established the writing of final m ; but forms without m continued occasionally to be found. That the vowel was lengthened as well as nasalized is suggested by the fact that such final syllables, when followed by an initial consonant, count as heavy [...]. For the m in this position, when followed by an initial vowel, Verrius Flaccus is said to have favoured writing a half- m only; Quintilian describes it as hardly pronounced; and later grammarians refer to it as being completely lost. If elision involves complete loss of the final vowel, the distinction between nasalized and non-nasalized in this context is of course purely academic.
>
> [...] Where, however, a final m was followed by a closely connected word beginning with a stop (plosive or nasal) consonant, it seems to have been treated rather as in the interior of a word, being assimilated to the following consonant [...] Thus we find inscriptional tan durum for tam durum ." | n's before f or s, as well as final m's, disappeared. They were retained/reintroduced in the spelling for the sake of orthography, not (primarily) to express a nasalization. |
buckus69 | Most certifications are for IT folk - the people that take care of the servers, the routers, the operating systems, etc. Almost none of them are actually relevant to Software Development, and I have not seen anyone use them to their advantage when applying to Software Development jobs.
tl;dr; They won't hurt, but they probably won't help much, either. | Most certifications are for IT folk - the people that take care of the servers, the routers, the operating systems, etc. Almost none of them are actually relevant to Software Development, and I have not seen anyone use them to their advantage when applying to Software Development jobs.
tl;dr; They won't hurt, but they probably won't help much, either.
| cscareerquestions | t5_2sdpm | cjb6y0s | Most certifications are for IT folk - the people that take care of the servers, the routers, the operating systems, etc. Almost none of them are actually relevant to Software Development, and I have not seen anyone use them to their advantage when applying to Software Development jobs. | They won't hurt, but they probably won't help much, either. |
ferncorre | I went to the MSG show, and NJ shows at Izod and Atlantic City. In order: #1. Atlantic City, #2 Izod, and #3 MSG.
For the Atlantic City show I got to sit two rows back from the end of the cat walk, so that enhanced the experience. But the whole band was so ON for that show and the audience was phenomenal which makes for the whole awesome package. Izod center was a lot of fun too, especially the Spinal Tap moment right at the beginning with the curtain malfunction. :D They didn't miss a single beat though!
MSG was my very first time seeing any incarnation of Queen ever, and wasn't sure what to expect with Adam. I remember thinking at the end of the MSG show that he made you miss Freddie even more. Once the initial "shock" wore off and I went to the next two shows, it kinda felt like Adam was in the band all along and not necessarily filling a vacancy. I know, it probably sounds sacrilegious but that's how I felt :D
TL;DR: Atlantic City was my favorite show. | I went to the MSG show, and NJ shows at Izod and Atlantic City. In order: #1. Atlantic City, #2 Izod, and #3 MSG.
For the Atlantic City show I got to sit two rows back from the end of the cat walk, so that enhanced the experience. But the whole band was so ON for that show and the audience was phenomenal which makes for the whole awesome package. Izod center was a lot of fun too, especially the Spinal Tap moment right at the beginning with the curtain malfunction. :D They didn't miss a single beat though!
MSG was my very first time seeing any incarnation of Queen ever, and wasn't sure what to expect with Adam. I remember thinking at the end of the MSG show that he made you miss Freddie even more. Once the initial "shock" wore off and I went to the next two shows, it kinda felt like Adam was in the band all along and not necessarily filling a vacancy. I know, it probably sounds sacrilegious but that's how I felt :D
TL;DR: Atlantic City was my favorite show.
| queen | t5_2s4ze | cjc7mjb | I went to the MSG show, and NJ shows at Izod and Atlantic City. In order: #1. Atlantic City, #2 Izod, and #3 MSG.
For the Atlantic City show I got to sit two rows back from the end of the cat walk, so that enhanced the experience. But the whole band was so ON for that show and the audience was phenomenal which makes for the whole awesome package. Izod center was a lot of fun too, especially the Spinal Tap moment right at the beginning with the curtain malfunction. :D They didn't miss a single beat though!
MSG was my very first time seeing any incarnation of Queen ever, and wasn't sure what to expect with Adam. I remember thinking at the end of the MSG show that he made you miss Freddie even more. Once the initial "shock" wore off and I went to the next two shows, it kinda felt like Adam was in the band all along and not necessarily filling a vacancy. I know, it probably sounds sacrilegious but that's how I felt :D | Atlantic City was my favorite show. |
v1rtualninja | I went on a 'ride-along' with my cousin who is a cop. I asked him this very question. Short answer is yes. It varies from jurisdiction, depending on the financial needs of the department. Obviously it isn't official policy, but it is stressed that they 'do their jobs', lest it comes up in a job performance evaluation.
TLDR; Yes. | I went on a 'ride-along' with my cousin who is a cop. I asked him this very question. Short answer is yes. It varies from jurisdiction, depending on the financial needs of the department. Obviously it isn't official policy, but it is stressed that they 'do their jobs', lest it comes up in a job performance evaluation.
TLDR; Yes.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjbmc5p | I went on a 'ride-along' with my cousin who is a cop. I asked him this very question. Short answer is yes. It varies from jurisdiction, depending on the financial needs of the department. Obviously it isn't official policy, but it is stressed that they 'do their jobs', lest it comes up in a job performance evaluation. | Yes. |
allied-throwaway | Thanks. I've been on Lexapro for a cpl years now. The reason why is kind of a case study in the shittiness of the US insurance system: at first I had to go to free clinics (where as you probably know are the WORST places for psychiatric treatment) and then when I finally got added back onto my parents' insurance, there was really only one psychiatrist in my area, and he is of a older generation that sniffs out perceived "pill chasers."
Needless to say, since the Lexapro seemed to be managing my debilitating depression, this new psych (who I have seen every 3-6 months for the past two years) has insisted on continuing the Lexapro nightly before bed (because the shit makes me sleepy), and then giving me Klonopin to use as an emergency brake for anxiety.
Which now that I think about it this cocktail doesn't really do shit for mania after all. The worst part about mania for me is that I don't know it's happening until it's way too late and I've scorched the earth and burned bridges.
I would go to see the psych right now, but I got dropped from my parents' insurance for the crime of turning 26. And of course, this manic episode at work happened while I've been waiting to be able to enroll in my work's insurance.
TL;DR dumb sob story, can't change my meds immediately. | Thanks. I've been on Lexapro for a cpl years now. The reason why is kind of a case study in the shittiness of the US insurance system: at first I had to go to free clinics (where as you probably know are the WORST places for psychiatric treatment) and then when I finally got added back onto my parents' insurance, there was really only one psychiatrist in my area, and he is of a older generation that sniffs out perceived "pill chasers."
Needless to say, since the Lexapro seemed to be managing my debilitating depression, this new psych (who I have seen every 3-6 months for the past two years) has insisted on continuing the Lexapro nightly before bed (because the shit makes me sleepy), and then giving me Klonopin to use as an emergency brake for anxiety.
Which now that I think about it this cocktail doesn't really do shit for mania after all. The worst part about mania for me is that I don't know it's happening until it's way too late and I've scorched the earth and burned bridges.
I would go to see the psych right now, but I got dropped from my parents' insurance for the crime of turning 26. And of course, this manic episode at work happened while I've been waiting to be able to enroll in my work's insurance.
TL;DR dumb sob story, can't change my meds immediately.
| bipolar | t5_2qnv4 | cjbtudj | Thanks. I've been on Lexapro for a cpl years now. The reason why is kind of a case study in the shittiness of the US insurance system: at first I had to go to free clinics (where as you probably know are the WORST places for psychiatric treatment) and then when I finally got added back onto my parents' insurance, there was really only one psychiatrist in my area, and he is of a older generation that sniffs out perceived "pill chasers."
Needless to say, since the Lexapro seemed to be managing my debilitating depression, this new psych (who I have seen every 3-6 months for the past two years) has insisted on continuing the Lexapro nightly before bed (because the shit makes me sleepy), and then giving me Klonopin to use as an emergency brake for anxiety.
Which now that I think about it this cocktail doesn't really do shit for mania after all. The worst part about mania for me is that I don't know it's happening until it's way too late and I've scorched the earth and burned bridges.
I would go to see the psych right now, but I got dropped from my parents' insurance for the crime of turning 26. And of course, this manic episode at work happened while I've been waiting to be able to enroll in my work's insurance. | dumb sob story, can't change my meds immediately. |
CapitanJuarez | Lost 80 pounds, but then i got an overnight job. I work 10 pm to 6 am now, so the number of people i meet and interact with is much smaller than before. Similar to other people posting, i used to friendzone myself, due to my poor self-image. Im much more comfortable with myself now, but i still don't have a lot of experience with women, especially since i l keep to the schedule i mentioned above. I have noticed people are a lot more likely to hold conversations now. And i may be crazy, but seems a larger number of attractive women talk to me.
TL DR
Probably obvious or cliche: People are nicer/more approachable, but it also depends on your personality/attitude. | Lost 80 pounds, but then i got an overnight job. I work 10 pm to 6 am now, so the number of people i meet and interact with is much smaller than before. Similar to other people posting, i used to friendzone myself, due to my poor self-image. Im much more comfortable with myself now, but i still don't have a lot of experience with women, especially since i l keep to the schedule i mentioned above. I have noticed people are a lot more likely to hold conversations now. And i may be crazy, but seems a larger number of attractive women talk to me.
TL DR
Probably obvious or cliche: People are nicer/more approachable, but it also depends on your personality/attitude.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjbvfoj | Lost 80 pounds, but then i got an overnight job. I work 10 pm to 6 am now, so the number of people i meet and interact with is much smaller than before. Similar to other people posting, i used to friendzone myself, due to my poor self-image. Im much more comfortable with myself now, but i still don't have a lot of experience with women, especially since i l keep to the schedule i mentioned above. I have noticed people are a lot more likely to hold conversations now. And i may be crazy, but seems a larger number of attractive women talk to me. | Probably obvious or cliche: People are nicer/more approachable, but it also depends on your personality/attitude. |
XuruAnoa | I know how you feel, and it's understandable to a degree, but you must remember that it's partly both parties at fault. SOE may have hyped up quite a bit, that I agree with, but then again it's the people's fault for being overly-hyped and expecting so much in so little time.
If you've been keeping up with Landmark alpha/beta/updates, you can see they've just recently added caves and water. With combat being somewhere just awhile off after SOE Live. Being that caves is quite a core part of EQN and water is just important as it is and combat is yet to be tested and implemented, I can safely say EQN is still awhile off, and I'm sure we've all known that for awhile now.
My point is, I've moved on from my over-hyped self a year ago and I've just become optimistic about it. Just as the OP as said, I do feel like Landmark has a lot of potential, some people just don't see it and are tunneled vision just for EQN. I have played Landmark, and it's just not for me, maybe when they add combat I might try it again.
Even if EQN releases in 2017 or longer (which I don't think will happen, or at least I hope not) I rather wait for a great game than a rushed game, these things take time. Great things take time, and I'm willing to wait for it.
That's just my viewpoint on all of this.
TL:DR - SOE fault for hyping, people fault for expecting so much. EQN still has awhile to go and I've become optimistic and don't mind waiting as long as it becomes a great game. | I know how you feel, and it's understandable to a degree, but you must remember that it's partly both parties at fault. SOE may have hyped up quite a bit, that I agree with, but then again it's the people's fault for being overly-hyped and expecting so much in so little time.
If you've been keeping up with Landmark alpha/beta/updates, you can see they've just recently added caves and water. With combat being somewhere just awhile off after SOE Live. Being that caves is quite a core part of EQN and water is just important as it is and combat is yet to be tested and implemented, I can safely say EQN is still awhile off, and I'm sure we've all known that for awhile now.
My point is, I've moved on from my over-hyped self a year ago and I've just become optimistic about it. Just as the OP as said, I do feel like Landmark has a lot of potential, some people just don't see it and are tunneled vision just for EQN. I have played Landmark, and it's just not for me, maybe when they add combat I might try it again.
Even if EQN releases in 2017 or longer (which I don't think will happen, or at least I hope not) I rather wait for a great game than a rushed game, these things take time. Great things take time, and I'm willing to wait for it.
That's just my viewpoint on all of this.
TL:DR - SOE fault for hyping, people fault for expecting so much. EQN still has awhile to go and I've become optimistic and don't mind waiting as long as it becomes a great game.
| EQNext | t5_2saln | cjc8nx4 | I know how you feel, and it's understandable to a degree, but you must remember that it's partly both parties at fault. SOE may have hyped up quite a bit, that I agree with, but then again it's the people's fault for being overly-hyped and expecting so much in so little time.
If you've been keeping up with Landmark alpha/beta/updates, you can see they've just recently added caves and water. With combat being somewhere just awhile off after SOE Live. Being that caves is quite a core part of EQN and water is just important as it is and combat is yet to be tested and implemented, I can safely say EQN is still awhile off, and I'm sure we've all known that for awhile now.
My point is, I've moved on from my over-hyped self a year ago and I've just become optimistic about it. Just as the OP as said, I do feel like Landmark has a lot of potential, some people just don't see it and are tunneled vision just for EQN. I have played Landmark, and it's just not for me, maybe when they add combat I might try it again.
Even if EQN releases in 2017 or longer (which I don't think will happen, or at least I hope not) I rather wait for a great game than a rushed game, these things take time. Great things take time, and I'm willing to wait for it.
That's just my viewpoint on all of this. | SOE fault for hyping, people fault for expecting so much. EQN still has awhile to go and I've become optimistic and don't mind waiting as long as it becomes a great game. |
vaginal_animator | Ok, this might not be *entirely* related to homebrewing but here goes anyways. The common wisdom is that you can't sanitize something that's not clean and you can't sanitize while cleaning. So why then can I use my my dishes and utensils that were used in preparing raw meat after cleaning with dish liquid? Same with washing my hands after pooping. Does soap not clean ***and*** sanitize??
**TL;DR** Am I going to die? | Ok, this might not be entirely related to homebrewing but here goes anyways. The common wisdom is that you can't sanitize something that's not clean and you can't sanitize while cleaning. So why then can I use my my dishes and utensils that were used in preparing raw meat after cleaning with dish liquid? Same with washing my hands after pooping. Does soap not clean and sanitize??
TL;DR Am I going to die?
| Homebrewing | t5_2qj8u | cjc4oe9 | Ok, this might not be entirely related to homebrewing but here goes anyways. The common wisdom is that you can't sanitize something that's not clean and you can't sanitize while cleaning. So why then can I use my my dishes and utensils that were used in preparing raw meat after cleaning with dish liquid? Same with washing my hands after pooping. Does soap not clean and sanitize?? | Am I going to die? |
Buckwheat530 | As in how long it takes or when it takes place?
I haven't seen anyone officially do one, but here's a rough look at the time frame, starting from Episode 1:
**Season 1:** The first three episodes happen in under a week (if I'm not mistaken, Episode 3 acknowledges that Episode 1 was days previous. Episodes 4-11 don't have an exact time frame given, but can reasonable be assumed to follow a similar "week to week" basis as many shows strive for. Episodes 12 and 13 are essentially back to back, taking about a week, to a week and a half.
In total, Season 1 covers just over 2 months.
**Season 2:** We open hearing that it's about four months since the end of Season 1, from Ryan's "time in the mental facility." There aren't any episodes that, time wise, lead directly into one another this season. Though, in Episode 4, we learn that Kristen is pregnant, and she delivers the baby in Episode 9, which means that the middle of Season 2 takes place over roughly 9 months (I forget if she was a month pregnant or not when she announced it, or if the baby was a few months early. I didn't think the baby was early).
Episodes 12 and 13 happen in fairly short order, and 10 and 11 have a reasonable space of time between them (whenever there's a "reasonable amount," it's generally assumed to be the following week. Could be a false assumption, but usually how TV works).
So with that, Season 2 covers roughly 11 months. Total time so far: 18 months, or a year and a half.
**Season 3:** This season starts the following week, as proven by Ryan babysitting Wilfred while Jenna and Drew are on their honeymoon. Jenna and Drew coming back coming back the following week seems to lend credit to the idea that whenever a time difference isn't mentioned, a week between episodes should be assumed.
There are a number of filler episodes that could happen relatively concurrent to each other this season, but I'll continue to assume that, unless stated, there is a week between episodes. We know that episode 9 happens at Christmas, but we don't have any other specific date related episodes (that I can think of), so using this as a guidepost isn't incredibly helpful (I'm going off on a tangent here, sorry).
Without much from the show claiming the contrary, it can be assumed that Season 3 takes place over 13 weeks, or just over 3 months. Our total is up to 21 months.
**Season 4:** We know that this season starts *during* the Season 3 finale, so again, no time break. The implication from episode to episode seems again to be that there is a week between episode. We've seen no indication that more time than we're aware of has passed, so by the end of the Season, 10 weeks, or just over 2 months, will have likely passed.
Grand total for the series: Roughly 24 months, or two years.
**TL;DR:**
If Episode 1 is Day 0:
Day 0 - Day 60 = Season 1
Day 60 - Day 180 = Hiatus between Season 1 and 2
Day 180 - Day 330 = Season 2
Day 330 - Day 421 = Season 3 (Christmas is Day 393, for those who care)
Day 421 - 491 = Season 4 (Unless the time scale changes in the last 2-3 Episodes) | As in how long it takes or when it takes place?
I haven't seen anyone officially do one, but here's a rough look at the time frame, starting from Episode 1:
Season 1: The first three episodes happen in under a week (if I'm not mistaken, Episode 3 acknowledges that Episode 1 was days previous. Episodes 4-11 don't have an exact time frame given, but can reasonable be assumed to follow a similar "week to week" basis as many shows strive for. Episodes 12 and 13 are essentially back to back, taking about a week, to a week and a half.
In total, Season 1 covers just over 2 months.
Season 2: We open hearing that it's about four months since the end of Season 1, from Ryan's "time in the mental facility." There aren't any episodes that, time wise, lead directly into one another this season. Though, in Episode 4, we learn that Kristen is pregnant, and she delivers the baby in Episode 9, which means that the middle of Season 2 takes place over roughly 9 months (I forget if she was a month pregnant or not when she announced it, or if the baby was a few months early. I didn't think the baby was early).
Episodes 12 and 13 happen in fairly short order, and 10 and 11 have a reasonable space of time between them (whenever there's a "reasonable amount," it's generally assumed to be the following week. Could be a false assumption, but usually how TV works).
So with that, Season 2 covers roughly 11 months. Total time so far: 18 months, or a year and a half.
Season 3: This season starts the following week, as proven by Ryan babysitting Wilfred while Jenna and Drew are on their honeymoon. Jenna and Drew coming back coming back the following week seems to lend credit to the idea that whenever a time difference isn't mentioned, a week between episodes should be assumed.
There are a number of filler episodes that could happen relatively concurrent to each other this season, but I'll continue to assume that, unless stated, there is a week between episodes. We know that episode 9 happens at Christmas, but we don't have any other specific date related episodes (that I can think of), so using this as a guidepost isn't incredibly helpful (I'm going off on a tangent here, sorry).
Without much from the show claiming the contrary, it can be assumed that Season 3 takes place over 13 weeks, or just over 3 months. Our total is up to 21 months.
Season 4: We know that this season starts during the Season 3 finale, so again, no time break. The implication from episode to episode seems again to be that there is a week between episode. We've seen no indication that more time than we're aware of has passed, so by the end of the Season, 10 weeks, or just over 2 months, will have likely passed.
Grand total for the series: Roughly 24 months, or two years.
TL;DR:
If Episode 1 is Day 0:
Day 0 - Day 60 = Season 1
Day 60 - Day 180 = Hiatus between Season 1 and 2
Day 180 - Day 330 = Season 2
Day 330 - Day 421 = Season 3 (Christmas is Day 393, for those who care)
Day 421 - 491 = Season 4 (Unless the time scale changes in the last 2-3 Episodes)
| wilfred | t5_2sl2e | cjd13vd | As in how long it takes or when it takes place?
I haven't seen anyone officially do one, but here's a rough look at the time frame, starting from Episode 1:
Season 1: The first three episodes happen in under a week (if I'm not mistaken, Episode 3 acknowledges that Episode 1 was days previous. Episodes 4-11 don't have an exact time frame given, but can reasonable be assumed to follow a similar "week to week" basis as many shows strive for. Episodes 12 and 13 are essentially back to back, taking about a week, to a week and a half.
In total, Season 1 covers just over 2 months.
Season 2: We open hearing that it's about four months since the end of Season 1, from Ryan's "time in the mental facility." There aren't any episodes that, time wise, lead directly into one another this season. Though, in Episode 4, we learn that Kristen is pregnant, and she delivers the baby in Episode 9, which means that the middle of Season 2 takes place over roughly 9 months (I forget if she was a month pregnant or not when she announced it, or if the baby was a few months early. I didn't think the baby was early).
Episodes 12 and 13 happen in fairly short order, and 10 and 11 have a reasonable space of time between them (whenever there's a "reasonable amount," it's generally assumed to be the following week. Could be a false assumption, but usually how TV works).
So with that, Season 2 covers roughly 11 months. Total time so far: 18 months, or a year and a half.
Season 3: This season starts the following week, as proven by Ryan babysitting Wilfred while Jenna and Drew are on their honeymoon. Jenna and Drew coming back coming back the following week seems to lend credit to the idea that whenever a time difference isn't mentioned, a week between episodes should be assumed.
There are a number of filler episodes that could happen relatively concurrent to each other this season, but I'll continue to assume that, unless stated, there is a week between episodes. We know that episode 9 happens at Christmas, but we don't have any other specific date related episodes (that I can think of), so using this as a guidepost isn't incredibly helpful (I'm going off on a tangent here, sorry).
Without much from the show claiming the contrary, it can be assumed that Season 3 takes place over 13 weeks, or just over 3 months. Our total is up to 21 months.
Season 4: We know that this season starts during the Season 3 finale, so again, no time break. The implication from episode to episode seems again to be that there is a week between episode. We've seen no indication that more time than we're aware of has passed, so by the end of the Season, 10 weeks, or just over 2 months, will have likely passed.
Grand total for the series: Roughly 24 months, or two years. | If Episode 1 is Day 0:
Day 0 - Day 60 = Season 1
Day 60 - Day 180 = Hiatus between Season 1 and 2
Day 180 - Day 330 = Season 2
Day 330 - Day 421 = Season 3 (Christmas is Day 393, for those who care)
Day 421 - 491 = Season 4 (Unless the time scale changes in the last 2-3 Episodes) |
RiseAM | Players I've seen play: Matt Brown, Russell Cicerone, and Luke Winter fully deserve their slots. Matt Brown is an undeniably talented player who scored a lot of goals for Lansing. Without him, they would not have won the GLW division. Cicerone was so nice, he had 6th City Syndicate raving about him. For Cleveland supporters to rave about the talent of a Buffalo player... you know he's pretty damn good. Winter was great for Chattanooga this year, and is no small part of their spot in the NAtional Championship game.
Goalkeepers, I watched Hartley play, but I never really know how to judge keepers properly.
And of course the player I have the most experience with is Josh Rogers. I don't think he was the single most talented player on our squad this year, but he's been ever-present at center back and is our captain. He also took our penalty kicks this year with a 100% success rate. At his position, he's certainly qualified to be in this team.
Fort Pitt's center back is the one that's a little baffling to me. Their defense didn't really impress me that much when we played them. They got absolutely sliced apart in the second half. Not sure if he was with the team that day or not though, since the game was in Detroit.
Others, I haven't seen, I wasn't able to watch the Chattanooga-Sacramento Gold game live and I didn't go back to watch it. But NYRB and Gold both won their region, so I assume they were fully deserved.
TL;DR : Picks seem fairly solid to me. | Players I've seen play: Matt Brown, Russell Cicerone, and Luke Winter fully deserve their slots. Matt Brown is an undeniably talented player who scored a lot of goals for Lansing. Without him, they would not have won the GLW division. Cicerone was so nice, he had 6th City Syndicate raving about him. For Cleveland supporters to rave about the talent of a Buffalo player... you know he's pretty damn good. Winter was great for Chattanooga this year, and is no small part of their spot in the NAtional Championship game.
Goalkeepers, I watched Hartley play, but I never really know how to judge keepers properly.
And of course the player I have the most experience with is Josh Rogers. I don't think he was the single most talented player on our squad this year, but he's been ever-present at center back and is our captain. He also took our penalty kicks this year with a 100% success rate. At his position, he's certainly qualified to be in this team.
Fort Pitt's center back is the one that's a little baffling to me. Their defense didn't really impress me that much when we played them. They got absolutely sliced apart in the second half. Not sure if he was with the team that day or not though, since the game was in Detroit.
Others, I haven't seen, I wasn't able to watch the Chattanooga-Sacramento Gold game live and I didn't go back to watch it. But NYRB and Gold both won their region, so I assume they were fully deserved.
TL;DR : Picks seem fairly solid to me.
| NPSL | t5_2ve14 | cjcopog | Players I've seen play: Matt Brown, Russell Cicerone, and Luke Winter fully deserve their slots. Matt Brown is an undeniably talented player who scored a lot of goals for Lansing. Without him, they would not have won the GLW division. Cicerone was so nice, he had 6th City Syndicate raving about him. For Cleveland supporters to rave about the talent of a Buffalo player... you know he's pretty damn good. Winter was great for Chattanooga this year, and is no small part of their spot in the NAtional Championship game.
Goalkeepers, I watched Hartley play, but I never really know how to judge keepers properly.
And of course the player I have the most experience with is Josh Rogers. I don't think he was the single most talented player on our squad this year, but he's been ever-present at center back and is our captain. He also took our penalty kicks this year with a 100% success rate. At his position, he's certainly qualified to be in this team.
Fort Pitt's center back is the one that's a little baffling to me. Their defense didn't really impress me that much when we played them. They got absolutely sliced apart in the second half. Not sure if he was with the team that day or not though, since the game was in Detroit.
Others, I haven't seen, I wasn't able to watch the Chattanooga-Sacramento Gold game live and I didn't go back to watch it. But NYRB and Gold both won their region, so I assume they were fully deserved. | Picks seem fairly solid to me. |
ProjectThoth | Few things to note here:
One, there's about a 5% error in my calculations, as the mass of the payload faring wasn't taken into account. If you're using this for mission planning, build that into your calculations.
Two, I had to assume a few things (even though this is a fairly close representation of what the real numbers should be). My logic behind everything was as follows:
* I derived the formula e^(delta-v/effective exhaust velocity) = m(sub)0/m(sub)1 from the rocket equation. A specific impulse of 345 seconds was assumed based off of a few sources. Delta-v for orbital insertion - 2.5 km/s - was derived as described in a technical report I posted here a few days ago.
* Total delta-v came from the sum of the maneuver and the orbital insertion value mentioned before. These were as follows: 4.94 km/s (GTO), 6.41 km/s (GEO), 5.65 km/s (TLI), and 5.74 km/s (escape). The mass fractions were derived from these numbers after being run through the previous equation.
* The payload mass was derived through the following equation, with "m" representing the mass fraction: (94900 - 4900m)/(m - 1). This, in turn, came from the propellant and dry masses of the FH second stage, and was derived from m(sub)0/m(sub)1, which would look something like (94900 + x)/(4900 + x) if it hadn't been cleaned up a little.
* The second stage is assumed to be disposable. This is a necessary evil, and is assumed because it would be difficult to return an FH upper stage from escape velocity while still maintaining a meaningful payload.
TL;DR: Here you go, /u/EchoLogic, and I hope this satisfies some portion of your challenge. | Few things to note here:
One, there's about a 5% error in my calculations, as the mass of the payload faring wasn't taken into account. If you're using this for mission planning, build that into your calculations.
Two, I had to assume a few things (even though this is a fairly close representation of what the real numbers should be). My logic behind everything was as follows:
I derived the formula e^(delta-v/effective exhaust velocity) = m(sub)0/m(sub)1 from the rocket equation. A specific impulse of 345 seconds was assumed based off of a few sources. Delta-v for orbital insertion - 2.5 km/s - was derived as described in a technical report I posted here a few days ago.
Total delta-v came from the sum of the maneuver and the orbital insertion value mentioned before. These were as follows: 4.94 km/s (GTO), 6.41 km/s (GEO), 5.65 km/s (TLI), and 5.74 km/s (escape). The mass fractions were derived from these numbers after being run through the previous equation.
The payload mass was derived through the following equation, with "m" representing the mass fraction: (94900 - 4900m)/(m - 1). This, in turn, came from the propellant and dry masses of the FH second stage, and was derived from m(sub)0/m(sub)1, which would look something like (94900 + x)/(4900 + x) if it hadn't been cleaned up a little.
The second stage is assumed to be disposable. This is a necessary evil, and is assumed because it would be difficult to return an FH upper stage from escape velocity while still maintaining a meaningful payload.
TL;DR: Here you go, /u/EchoLogic, and I hope this satisfies some portion of your challenge.
| spacex | t5_2srow | cjctj1x | Few things to note here:
One, there's about a 5% error in my calculations, as the mass of the payload faring wasn't taken into account. If you're using this for mission planning, build that into your calculations.
Two, I had to assume a few things (even though this is a fairly close representation of what the real numbers should be). My logic behind everything was as follows:
I derived the formula e^(delta-v/effective exhaust velocity) = m(sub)0/m(sub)1 from the rocket equation. A specific impulse of 345 seconds was assumed based off of a few sources. Delta-v for orbital insertion - 2.5 km/s - was derived as described in a technical report I posted here a few days ago.
Total delta-v came from the sum of the maneuver and the orbital insertion value mentioned before. These were as follows: 4.94 km/s (GTO), 6.41 km/s (GEO), 5.65 km/s (TLI), and 5.74 km/s (escape). The mass fractions were derived from these numbers after being run through the previous equation.
The payload mass was derived through the following equation, with "m" representing the mass fraction: (94900 - 4900m)/(m - 1). This, in turn, came from the propellant and dry masses of the FH second stage, and was derived from m(sub)0/m(sub)1, which would look something like (94900 + x)/(4900 + x) if it hadn't been cleaned up a little.
The second stage is assumed to be disposable. This is a necessary evil, and is assumed because it would be difficult to return an FH upper stage from escape velocity while still maintaining a meaningful payload. | Here you go, /u/EchoLogic, and I hope this satisfies some portion of your challenge. |
overstimulated_NOW | I generally take the same route as you just did. I make the arguably too long of posts that include a large amount of thought. Often times the critical looks at posts on this website just make people annoyed because they just want TL;DR's.
I have however got a black lab husky with blue eyes and ears that stand straight up. Karma plz
I am glad to know this is not rocket surgery; thank you /u/essenceoferlenmeyer for the information about fiending for karma. | I generally take the same route as you just did. I make the arguably too long of posts that include a large amount of thought. Often times the critical looks at posts on this website just make people annoyed because they just want TL;DR's.
I have however got a black lab husky with blue eyes and ears that stand straight up. Karma plz
I am glad to know this is not rocket surgery; thank you /u/essenceoferlenmeyer for the information about fiending for karma.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjcydab | I generally take the same route as you just did. I make the arguably too long of posts that include a large amount of thought. Often times the critical looks at posts on this website just make people annoyed because they just want | s.
I have however got a black lab husky with blue eyes and ears that stand straight up. Karma plz
I am glad to know this is not rocket surgery; thank you /u/essenceoferlenmeyer for the information about fiending for karma. |
_boring_username_ | [Link for those who don't get the reference.] (
TL;DR /u/Unidan/ was banned because of vote manipulation | [Link for those who don't get the reference.] (
TL;DR /u/Unidan/ was banned because of vote manipulation
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjcy86o | Link for those who don't get the reference.] ( | u/Unidan/ was banned because of vote manipulation |
Lokaji | I know I will never be completely healthy again. All I am going to have are good days and bad days. I just hope there are more good days than bad.
TLDR- Chronic illness is a motherfucker. | I know I will never be completely healthy again. All I am going to have are good days and bad days. I just hope there are more good days than bad.
TLDR- Chronic illness is a motherfucker.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjd18n7 | I know I will never be completely healthy again. All I am going to have are good days and bad days. I just hope there are more good days than bad. | Chronic illness is a motherfucker. |
i_h8_spiders2 | Look at all the unhappy people in broken marriages. Finding a "soul mate" or someone to put up with you (and you put up with them) for life is hard.
If your sole purpose of happiness relies on somebody else, you're doing it wrong. I used to be a guy that would have to be in relationships and if I wasn't I was the most unhappy mother fucker on this planet. I'm talking just staying in bed every night while my friends invited me out and just looking at my phone waiting for the ex to call.
I was in a dark place all because I relied on somebody else for my happiness.
Then one day it clicked. I was crying my eyes out the day before and then the next day I stopped crying. I asked myself.. "What the fuck are you sad for?" Then told myself "stop being a little bitch". No matter how lonely or sad or whatever you are... The world keeps turning. Your friends may listen and act like they care (and some genuinely do), but after the convo is over they go on to their happy lives whether they're single married or whatever... And if you're still there being lonely / unhappy (not saying you are) no one else loses but you.
Because I was sad and lonely I would do stupid shit and date people I wouldn't normally date just because I didn't want to be alone. The result? I'd end up sad and alone anyway.
The trick is to do whatever it takes to make yourself happy. You have to realize life is too short to worry about marriage or being alone etc. If you have yourself in the right order all that other shit will fall into place.
Don't base your happiness on others. You'll be let down most of the time. But let's say you do find happiness... And some crazy event happens that takes that person away from you... Then you're back to being crushed and sad and alone.
If you're in a dark sad place... Figure out the cause of it. Once I realized that I don't need a girlfriend or someone else to make me happy.. Mannnn I've been enjoying life so much more. Ever since my epiphany on how I can be happy I've had 2 relationships... I got fucked over pretty bad on the first one, but only was sad for a couple of days (would have been shorter had she not owed me $1,500 plus for a trip we took), and the 2nd went up in flames cause she was a total diva.. I wasn't even sad. Why? Because my happiness doesn't depend on others. I just see relationships as a perk. Do I love them? Fuck yeah. Will I die or be unhappy if I'm not in one? Fuck no.
TL;DR - Don't base your happiness on whether you're in a relationship, married, or not.
Take some time to clear your head and figure out what makes you happy at your core, and then work from there. | Look at all the unhappy people in broken marriages. Finding a "soul mate" or someone to put up with you (and you put up with them) for life is hard.
If your sole purpose of happiness relies on somebody else, you're doing it wrong. I used to be a guy that would have to be in relationships and if I wasn't I was the most unhappy mother fucker on this planet. I'm talking just staying in bed every night while my friends invited me out and just looking at my phone waiting for the ex to call.
I was in a dark place all because I relied on somebody else for my happiness.
Then one day it clicked. I was crying my eyes out the day before and then the next day I stopped crying. I asked myself.. "What the fuck are you sad for?" Then told myself "stop being a little bitch". No matter how lonely or sad or whatever you are... The world keeps turning. Your friends may listen and act like they care (and some genuinely do), but after the convo is over they go on to their happy lives whether they're single married or whatever... And if you're still there being lonely / unhappy (not saying you are) no one else loses but you.
Because I was sad and lonely I would do stupid shit and date people I wouldn't normally date just because I didn't want to be alone. The result? I'd end up sad and alone anyway.
The trick is to do whatever it takes to make yourself happy. You have to realize life is too short to worry about marriage or being alone etc. If you have yourself in the right order all that other shit will fall into place.
Don't base your happiness on others. You'll be let down most of the time. But let's say you do find happiness... And some crazy event happens that takes that person away from you... Then you're back to being crushed and sad and alone.
If you're in a dark sad place... Figure out the cause of it. Once I realized that I don't need a girlfriend or someone else to make me happy.. Mannnn I've been enjoying life so much more. Ever since my epiphany on how I can be happy I've had 2 relationships... I got fucked over pretty bad on the first one, but only was sad for a couple of days (would have been shorter had she not owed me $1,500 plus for a trip we took), and the 2nd went up in flames cause she was a total diva.. I wasn't even sad. Why? Because my happiness doesn't depend on others. I just see relationships as a perk. Do I love them? Fuck yeah. Will I die or be unhappy if I'm not in one? Fuck no.
TL;DR - Don't base your happiness on whether you're in a relationship, married, or not.
Take some time to clear your head and figure out what makes you happy at your core, and then work from there.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjd1nqh | Look at all the unhappy people in broken marriages. Finding a "soul mate" or someone to put up with you (and you put up with them) for life is hard.
If your sole purpose of happiness relies on somebody else, you're doing it wrong. I used to be a guy that would have to be in relationships and if I wasn't I was the most unhappy mother fucker on this planet. I'm talking just staying in bed every night while my friends invited me out and just looking at my phone waiting for the ex to call.
I was in a dark place all because I relied on somebody else for my happiness.
Then one day it clicked. I was crying my eyes out the day before and then the next day I stopped crying. I asked myself.. "What the fuck are you sad for?" Then told myself "stop being a little bitch". No matter how lonely or sad or whatever you are... The world keeps turning. Your friends may listen and act like they care (and some genuinely do), but after the convo is over they go on to their happy lives whether they're single married or whatever... And if you're still there being lonely / unhappy (not saying you are) no one else loses but you.
Because I was sad and lonely I would do stupid shit and date people I wouldn't normally date just because I didn't want to be alone. The result? I'd end up sad and alone anyway.
The trick is to do whatever it takes to make yourself happy. You have to realize life is too short to worry about marriage or being alone etc. If you have yourself in the right order all that other shit will fall into place.
Don't base your happiness on others. You'll be let down most of the time. But let's say you do find happiness... And some crazy event happens that takes that person away from you... Then you're back to being crushed and sad and alone.
If you're in a dark sad place... Figure out the cause of it. Once I realized that I don't need a girlfriend or someone else to make me happy.. Mannnn I've been enjoying life so much more. Ever since my epiphany on how I can be happy I've had 2 relationships... I got fucked over pretty bad on the first one, but only was sad for a couple of days (would have been shorter had she not owed me $1,500 plus for a trip we took), and the 2nd went up in flames cause she was a total diva.. I wasn't even sad. Why? Because my happiness doesn't depend on others. I just see relationships as a perk. Do I love them? Fuck yeah. Will I die or be unhappy if I'm not in one? Fuck no. | Don't base your happiness on whether you're in a relationship, married, or not.
Take some time to clear your head and figure out what makes you happy at your core, and then work from there. |
BootRecognition | As someone who has done a bit of online dating (now with an amazing girlfriend whom I met through OKCupid a few months ago), I found that the best approach was to NEVER go into a date **expecting** to have sex. I always carried condoms in case things went in that direction, but I never went in with the mindset that I expected the girl to sleep with me right away. Instead I just focused on having a fun time and getting to know my date. Funnily enough, I found that this actually increased my chances of having sex on the first date since girls wouldn't feel pressured and would feel more comfortable with me. While the vast majority of those dates didn't go much farther than a few follow up dates, I am lucky enough now to be dating the aforementioned lovely girlfriend.
TL;DR: Guys, girls can tell when you go into a first date expecting to have sex. It's usually a put off and rightly makes them feel uncomfortable. You'll actually get laid more often if you don't go into a date looking for anything more than enjoying the process of getting to know your date. More importantly, you'll be a better person. | As someone who has done a bit of online dating (now with an amazing girlfriend whom I met through OKCupid a few months ago), I found that the best approach was to NEVER go into a date expecting to have sex. I always carried condoms in case things went in that direction, but I never went in with the mindset that I expected the girl to sleep with me right away. Instead I just focused on having a fun time and getting to know my date. Funnily enough, I found that this actually increased my chances of having sex on the first date since girls wouldn't feel pressured and would feel more comfortable with me. While the vast majority of those dates didn't go much farther than a few follow up dates, I am lucky enough now to be dating the aforementioned lovely girlfriend.
TL;DR: Guys, girls can tell when you go into a first date expecting to have sex. It's usually a put off and rightly makes them feel uncomfortable. You'll actually get laid more often if you don't go into a date looking for anything more than enjoying the process of getting to know your date. More importantly, you'll be a better person.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjd3xgq | As someone who has done a bit of online dating (now with an amazing girlfriend whom I met through OKCupid a few months ago), I found that the best approach was to NEVER go into a date expecting to have sex. I always carried condoms in case things went in that direction, but I never went in with the mindset that I expected the girl to sleep with me right away. Instead I just focused on having a fun time and getting to know my date. Funnily enough, I found that this actually increased my chances of having sex on the first date since girls wouldn't feel pressured and would feel more comfortable with me. While the vast majority of those dates didn't go much farther than a few follow up dates, I am lucky enough now to be dating the aforementioned lovely girlfriend. | Guys, girls can tell when you go into a first date expecting to have sex. It's usually a put off and rightly makes them feel uncomfortable. You'll actually get laid more often if you don't go into a date looking for anything more than enjoying the process of getting to know your date. More importantly, you'll be a better person. |
lankygeek | Dating sucks no matter what you're looking for. If you're a straight guy who just wants to find a nice looking lady to knock boots with for a while, you'll wade through 20-odd women who just want to find someone to spend the rest of their lives with. Even when you find someone who wants the same things out of the relationship, most people break up after a while because they just weren't quite compatible enough.
TL;DR Dating is awful no matter who or what you're looking for, don't expect much if you want to keep your sanity. | Dating sucks no matter what you're looking for. If you're a straight guy who just wants to find a nice looking lady to knock boots with for a while, you'll wade through 20-odd women who just want to find someone to spend the rest of their lives with. Even when you find someone who wants the same things out of the relationship, most people break up after a while because they just weren't quite compatible enough.
TL;DR Dating is awful no matter who or what you're looking for, don't expect much if you want to keep your sanity.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjd62o1 | Dating sucks no matter what you're looking for. If you're a straight guy who just wants to find a nice looking lady to knock boots with for a while, you'll wade through 20-odd women who just want to find someone to spend the rest of their lives with. Even when you find someone who wants the same things out of the relationship, most people break up after a while because they just weren't quite compatible enough. | Dating is awful no matter who or what you're looking for, don't expect much if you want to keep your sanity. |
SamsquamtchHunter | What do you want to do with a degree in economics? You can choose a minor that will compliment your degree and make you more employable in that specific field. A math minor would seem to compliment a degree in economics, while a minor in earth sciences seems more disconnected.
Are you wanting to use the minor to make you more employable? On a resume it will show you have done extra work, show a specific interest in an area of study, an can demonstrate a certain level of diversity in your education.
It can also be a step towards a masters in a different field. If you plan to pursue a Masters in something other than Economics, a minor can help you get some of the undergrad requirements out of the way for a different field.
You'll end up taking on extra classes, and depending on your ability to manage the extra workload, could extend your time at college, thus increasing your cost of the education, so unless its going to positively benefit you career wise, it might not be the best choice.
Or you could just do a minor for fun. I was 1 class away from a minor in philosophy, and I wish I would have finished it, but I would have had to stay an extra semester, and it wasn't worth it to at the time.
TL;DR - Whats your end goal (job), decide if a minor will help you achieve that goal or not... | What do you want to do with a degree in economics? You can choose a minor that will compliment your degree and make you more employable in that specific field. A math minor would seem to compliment a degree in economics, while a minor in earth sciences seems more disconnected.
Are you wanting to use the minor to make you more employable? On a resume it will show you have done extra work, show a specific interest in an area of study, an can demonstrate a certain level of diversity in your education.
It can also be a step towards a masters in a different field. If you plan to pursue a Masters in something other than Economics, a minor can help you get some of the undergrad requirements out of the way for a different field.
You'll end up taking on extra classes, and depending on your ability to manage the extra workload, could extend your time at college, thus increasing your cost of the education, so unless its going to positively benefit you career wise, it might not be the best choice.
Or you could just do a minor for fun. I was 1 class away from a minor in philosophy, and I wish I would have finished it, but I would have had to stay an extra semester, and it wasn't worth it to at the time.
TL;DR - Whats your end goal (job), decide if a minor will help you achieve that goal or not...
| findapath | t5_2wqq6 | cjcyzkw | What do you want to do with a degree in economics? You can choose a minor that will compliment your degree and make you more employable in that specific field. A math minor would seem to compliment a degree in economics, while a minor in earth sciences seems more disconnected.
Are you wanting to use the minor to make you more employable? On a resume it will show you have done extra work, show a specific interest in an area of study, an can demonstrate a certain level of diversity in your education.
It can also be a step towards a masters in a different field. If you plan to pursue a Masters in something other than Economics, a minor can help you get some of the undergrad requirements out of the way for a different field.
You'll end up taking on extra classes, and depending on your ability to manage the extra workload, could extend your time at college, thus increasing your cost of the education, so unless its going to positively benefit you career wise, it might not be the best choice.
Or you could just do a minor for fun. I was 1 class away from a minor in philosophy, and I wish I would have finished it, but I would have had to stay an extra semester, and it wasn't worth it to at the time. | Whats your end goal (job), decide if a minor will help you achieve that goal or not... |
chickchick87 | She was roommates with an acquaintance, who was hell-bent on trying to get out of her lease so she could move into an apartment with her boyfriend. So the roommate started writing notes, sending emails, sending texts to my sister telling her all the things she was annoyed with as far as being roommates go. She was documenting things - she was apparently building a case. My sister did NOT know that.
Then, she wrote in lipstick on the bathroom mirror one morning: "You bitch I know what you did." My sister saw that after waking up and had no idea what she was referring to. So when she went to ask her, the roommate said something like "I know you tried to poison me. I could smell the chemicals on my toothbrush." So she thought my sister was trying to poison her by putting cleaning chemicals on her toothbrush. When my sister asked to see/smell the said toothbrush - she said she "threw it away."
Anyway...this little fight between them continued for a month or so. So they agreed to stop using each other's things - even shared things. Like furniture and kitchen stuff (pots/pans). So my sister came home to find her pans in the sink one day, meaning her roommate had used them (after making a huge deal about not using each other's things). So my sister wrote a note and left it on the kitchen counter that said:
"You probably shouldn't use my pots and pans, like we agreed. Besides, I poison all of my stuff anyway!"
Eventually, the roommate called the cops on my sister, saying her life was endangered, using this note as evidence. The cops showed up to my sister's job and told her that a complaint was being filed against her, that they had the note, etc. Didn't seem like a big deal at the time.
Then, the roommate sued my sister to get out of the lease, under the "threat to her life" clause in their contract. The ONLY evidence she had was the note. That's it. And she won. She got out of the lease, and my sister was stuck paying for the rest of the FULL lease (6-months) PLUS the 3 months before that the roommate had already paid (to the time that the note was written).
TLDR: Don't write notes, they can be used as evidence in court, and sarcasm doesn't count. My sister did & she got screwed. | She was roommates with an acquaintance, who was hell-bent on trying to get out of her lease so she could move into an apartment with her boyfriend. So the roommate started writing notes, sending emails, sending texts to my sister telling her all the things she was annoyed with as far as being roommates go. She was documenting things - she was apparently building a case. My sister did NOT know that.
Then, she wrote in lipstick on the bathroom mirror one morning: "You bitch I know what you did." My sister saw that after waking up and had no idea what she was referring to. So when she went to ask her, the roommate said something like "I know you tried to poison me. I could smell the chemicals on my toothbrush." So she thought my sister was trying to poison her by putting cleaning chemicals on her toothbrush. When my sister asked to see/smell the said toothbrush - she said she "threw it away."
Anyway...this little fight between them continued for a month or so. So they agreed to stop using each other's things - even shared things. Like furniture and kitchen stuff (pots/pans). So my sister came home to find her pans in the sink one day, meaning her roommate had used them (after making a huge deal about not using each other's things). So my sister wrote a note and left it on the kitchen counter that said:
"You probably shouldn't use my pots and pans, like we agreed. Besides, I poison all of my stuff anyway!"
Eventually, the roommate called the cops on my sister, saying her life was endangered, using this note as evidence. The cops showed up to my sister's job and told her that a complaint was being filed against her, that they had the note, etc. Didn't seem like a big deal at the time.
Then, the roommate sued my sister to get out of the lease, under the "threat to her life" clause in their contract. The ONLY evidence she had was the note. That's it. And she won. She got out of the lease, and my sister was stuck paying for the rest of the FULL lease (6-months) PLUS the 3 months before that the roommate had already paid (to the time that the note was written).
TLDR: Don't write notes, they can be used as evidence in court, and sarcasm doesn't count. My sister did & she got screwed.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cje6pid | She was roommates with an acquaintance, who was hell-bent on trying to get out of her lease so she could move into an apartment with her boyfriend. So the roommate started writing notes, sending emails, sending texts to my sister telling her all the things she was annoyed with as far as being roommates go. She was documenting things - she was apparently building a case. My sister did NOT know that.
Then, she wrote in lipstick on the bathroom mirror one morning: "You bitch I know what you did." My sister saw that after waking up and had no idea what she was referring to. So when she went to ask her, the roommate said something like "I know you tried to poison me. I could smell the chemicals on my toothbrush." So she thought my sister was trying to poison her by putting cleaning chemicals on her toothbrush. When my sister asked to see/smell the said toothbrush - she said she "threw it away."
Anyway...this little fight between them continued for a month or so. So they agreed to stop using each other's things - even shared things. Like furniture and kitchen stuff (pots/pans). So my sister came home to find her pans in the sink one day, meaning her roommate had used them (after making a huge deal about not using each other's things). So my sister wrote a note and left it on the kitchen counter that said:
"You probably shouldn't use my pots and pans, like we agreed. Besides, I poison all of my stuff anyway!"
Eventually, the roommate called the cops on my sister, saying her life was endangered, using this note as evidence. The cops showed up to my sister's job and told her that a complaint was being filed against her, that they had the note, etc. Didn't seem like a big deal at the time.
Then, the roommate sued my sister to get out of the lease, under the "threat to her life" clause in their contract. The ONLY evidence she had was the note. That's it. And she won. She got out of the lease, and my sister was stuck paying for the rest of the FULL lease (6-months) PLUS the 3 months before that the roommate had already paid (to the time that the note was written). | Don't write notes, they can be used as evidence in court, and sarcasm doesn't count. My sister did & she got screwed. |
SwiftStriker00 | People need to stop linking hulu videos, their banners are so annoying.
tl;dr 9-11
| People need to stop linking hulu videos, their banners are so annoying.
tl;dr 9-11
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cjddjyg | People need to stop linking hulu videos, their banners are so annoying. | 9-11 |
JohnPenguin | Phantom Assassin. She's unoriginal, she's boring to play, and she's frustrating to play against. There are at least 4 other assassins ingame already, and she doesn't really bring anything different to the table except being off the minimap but by then you practically see her anyway. She's RNG with blur and Crits and can 1 shot a support or like 3 shot a carry. Not to mention she has a slow, AND a blink. You can TP out unless she gets basher or just instagibs you. Her face is smug and annoying, and the fact that she's getting an arcana makes me mad. Honestly the arcana can barely even change much aside from her 2 spells that aren't that flashy to begin with. Maybe change the blood splat on ult but it just seems like a waste of time to me.
TLDR: PA is boring, instagibs everyone and doesn't need an arcana. | Phantom Assassin. She's unoriginal, she's boring to play, and she's frustrating to play against. There are at least 4 other assassins ingame already, and she doesn't really bring anything different to the table except being off the minimap but by then you practically see her anyway. She's RNG with blur and Crits and can 1 shot a support or like 3 shot a carry. Not to mention she has a slow, AND a blink. You can TP out unless she gets basher or just instagibs you. Her face is smug and annoying, and the fact that she's getting an arcana makes me mad. Honestly the arcana can barely even change much aside from her 2 spells that aren't that flashy to begin with. Maybe change the blood splat on ult but it just seems like a waste of time to me.
TLDR: PA is boring, instagibs everyone and doesn't need an arcana.
| DotA2 | t5_2s580 | cjdbp05 | Phantom Assassin. She's unoriginal, she's boring to play, and she's frustrating to play against. There are at least 4 other assassins ingame already, and she doesn't really bring anything different to the table except being off the minimap but by then you practically see her anyway. She's RNG with blur and Crits and can 1 shot a support or like 3 shot a carry. Not to mention she has a slow, AND a blink. You can TP out unless she gets basher or just instagibs you. Her face is smug and annoying, and the fact that she's getting an arcana makes me mad. Honestly the arcana can barely even change much aside from her 2 spells that aren't that flashy to begin with. Maybe change the blood splat on ult but it just seems like a waste of time to me. | PA is boring, instagibs everyone and doesn't need an arcana. |
mechanicalkeyboarder | I had a keyboard just like the one in OP's photo (sans chia) that died. I'd used rubber dome keyboards all my life and decided I wanted to see what mechanical keyboards were all about. I bought a Corsair K95, which comes with the Cherry MX Red keys and it is just awesome. It feels really nice to type with and I like the sound. It's not too loud or too quiet, yet it can be both loud or quiet depending on how you type. The key presses are very light and smooth, and it feels very sturdy and well-made. Of course, it cost over 100 bucks, so it damn well better be good.
I think a lot of folks get into mechanical keyboards because of the different types of keys they offer. Blues, Greens, Browns, Whites, Reds, Blacks, etc and so forth. They all have differences and you can pick what you like. Some folks have them all. I got a little key tester that had the different types of Cherry MX keys and found that reds were what I thought I would like. After getting my K95 I have no regrets. The reds are great. The blues seem nice as well, but they're just too damn loud for me to use with any sort of regularity, so they were a no-go for me.
tl;dr I like my mech keyboard better than my old non-mech one because it feels and sounds better to me. | I had a keyboard just like the one in OP's photo (sans chia) that died. I'd used rubber dome keyboards all my life and decided I wanted to see what mechanical keyboards were all about. I bought a Corsair K95, which comes with the Cherry MX Red keys and it is just awesome. It feels really nice to type with and I like the sound. It's not too loud or too quiet, yet it can be both loud or quiet depending on how you type. The key presses are very light and smooth, and it feels very sturdy and well-made. Of course, it cost over 100 bucks, so it damn well better be good.
I think a lot of folks get into mechanical keyboards because of the different types of keys they offer. Blues, Greens, Browns, Whites, Reds, Blacks, etc and so forth. They all have differences and you can pick what you like. Some folks have them all. I got a little key tester that had the different types of Cherry MX keys and found that reds were what I thought I would like. After getting my K95 I have no regrets. The reds are great. The blues seem nice as well, but they're just too damn loud for me to use with any sort of regularity, so they were a no-go for me.
tl;dr I like my mech keyboard better than my old non-mech one because it feels and sounds better to me.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cjdogqr | I had a keyboard just like the one in OP's photo (sans chia) that died. I'd used rubber dome keyboards all my life and decided I wanted to see what mechanical keyboards were all about. I bought a Corsair K95, which comes with the Cherry MX Red keys and it is just awesome. It feels really nice to type with and I like the sound. It's not too loud or too quiet, yet it can be both loud or quiet depending on how you type. The key presses are very light and smooth, and it feels very sturdy and well-made. Of course, it cost over 100 bucks, so it damn well better be good.
I think a lot of folks get into mechanical keyboards because of the different types of keys they offer. Blues, Greens, Browns, Whites, Reds, Blacks, etc and so forth. They all have differences and you can pick what you like. Some folks have them all. I got a little key tester that had the different types of Cherry MX keys and found that reds were what I thought I would like. After getting my K95 I have no regrets. The reds are great. The blues seem nice as well, but they're just too damn loud for me to use with any sort of regularity, so they were a no-go for me. | I like my mech keyboard better than my old non-mech one because it feels and sounds better to me. |
sjj342 | >Are their board rentals nearby?
I have no idea about that area specifically, but I would take boards. From my experience, it's too hard to find a good board when you travel, and you will want a good board if the waves are good (which they probably will be). I've tried to travel and rent a few times in more popular destinations, and trying to find a good board SUCKED every single time, AND ends up costing you water time. Example worst case scenario hypothetical: you get to where you're staying, check the waves and it's offshore and barreling, and it's at least a couple hours to a half-day trip to track down a good board.
TL;DR - board fees suck, but it's better to spend more and know you'll have something to ride that works. | >Are their board rentals nearby?
I have no idea about that area specifically, but I would take boards. From my experience, it's too hard to find a good board when you travel, and you will want a good board if the waves are good (which they probably will be). I've tried to travel and rent a few times in more popular destinations, and trying to find a good board SUCKED every single time, AND ends up costing you water time. Example worst case scenario hypothetical: you get to where you're staying, check the waves and it's offshore and barreling, and it's at least a couple hours to a half-day trip to track down a good board.
TL;DR - board fees suck, but it's better to spend more and know you'll have something to ride that works.
| surfing | t5_2qmde | cjd7ysn | Are their board rentals nearby?
I have no idea about that area specifically, but I would take boards. From my experience, it's too hard to find a good board when you travel, and you will want a good board if the waves are good (which they probably will be). I've tried to travel and rent a few times in more popular destinations, and trying to find a good board SUCKED every single time, AND ends up costing you water time. Example worst case scenario hypothetical: you get to where you're staying, check the waves and it's offshore and barreling, and it's at least a couple hours to a half-day trip to track down a good board. | board fees suck, but it's better to spend more and know you'll have something to ride that works. |
otp1144 | You're in for a very rude awakening...
The only fish you can really keep in something that size are goldfish.
You're going to need a filter by way of external canister or a skimmer/waterfall box with media in it. This would mean you're also going to need a pump.
Look up the nitrogen cycle
A heater is not needed.
You're going to need at minimum water dechlorinator to make the water safe for the fish.
The amount of sun and location are completely up to you, but the more sun it has, the more likely it will have algae problems.
TL;DR treat it like an aquarium. | You're in for a very rude awakening...
The only fish you can really keep in something that size are goldfish.
You're going to need a filter by way of external canister or a skimmer/waterfall box with media in it. This would mean you're also going to need a pump.
Look up the nitrogen cycle
A heater is not needed.
You're going to need at minimum water dechlorinator to make the water safe for the fish.
The amount of sun and location are completely up to you, but the more sun it has, the more likely it will have algae problems.
TL;DR treat it like an aquarium.
| Aquariums | t5_2rc6i | cjdid2s | You're in for a very rude awakening...
The only fish you can really keep in something that size are goldfish.
You're going to need a filter by way of external canister or a skimmer/waterfall box with media in it. This would mean you're also going to need a pump.
Look up the nitrogen cycle
A heater is not needed.
You're going to need at minimum water dechlorinator to make the water safe for the fish.
The amount of sun and location are completely up to you, but the more sun it has, the more likely it will have algae problems. | treat it like an aquarium. |
RamboMarino | Someone on the other team is about to cap because your OD was out of position so you start to say "pls", but then a random someball comes flying out of left screen and gets the return before you lose, and you cannot contain your joy.
TL;DR plyiss | Someone on the other team is about to cap because your OD was out of position so you start to say "pls", but then a random someball comes flying out of left screen and gets the return before you lose, and you cannot contain your joy.
TL;DR plyiss
| TagPro | t5_2w7hh | cje445v | Someone on the other team is about to cap because your OD was out of position so you start to say "pls", but then a random someball comes flying out of left screen and gets the return before you lose, and you cannot contain your joy. | plyiss |
TheDarkHorse83 | I drank lots and lots of water, walked home (or called a cab, depending on the night in question), and slept in my own bed. Sober me woke up without a hangover (or a very small one) and was well-rested.
**tldr;** Drunk me is responsible and awesome. | I drank lots and lots of water, walked home (or called a cab, depending on the night in question), and slept in my own bed. Sober me woke up without a hangover (or a very small one) and was well-rested.
tldr; Drunk me is responsible and awesome.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | cjdzgvg | I drank lots and lots of water, walked home (or called a cab, depending on the night in question), and slept in my own bed. Sober me woke up without a hangover (or a very small one) and was well-rested. | Drunk me is responsible and awesome. |
tipshishat | When you're alone with them and in what seems like an intimate moment just slowly get closer to their face and make eye contact. If they start to lean in too that's kinda a confirmation to give it a shot. Gather some courage or just tell yourself "fuck it". And swiftly press your lips onto theirs as you close your eyes. Just go for a peck at first and then pull back a bit and look at their eyes again for a response. If they seem to be into it go in for another. Make this a longer peck and if your nervous just let them lead any sort of making out. It's like a dance. If you're not confident let them lead and you'll catch on just fine.
TL;DR Don't think about it. | When you're alone with them and in what seems like an intimate moment just slowly get closer to their face and make eye contact. If they start to lean in too that's kinda a confirmation to give it a shot. Gather some courage or just tell yourself "fuck it". And swiftly press your lips onto theirs as you close your eyes. Just go for a peck at first and then pull back a bit and look at their eyes again for a response. If they seem to be into it go in for another. Make this a longer peck and if your nervous just let them lead any sort of making out. It's like a dance. If you're not confident let them lead and you'll catch on just fine.
TL;DR Don't think about it.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cje09v6 | When you're alone with them and in what seems like an intimate moment just slowly get closer to their face and make eye contact. If they start to lean in too that's kinda a confirmation to give it a shot. Gather some courage or just tell yourself "fuck it". And swiftly press your lips onto theirs as you close your eyes. Just go for a peck at first and then pull back a bit and look at their eyes again for a response. If they seem to be into it go in for another. Make this a longer peck and if your nervous just let them lead any sort of making out. It's like a dance. If you're not confident let them lead and you'll catch on just fine. | Don't think about it. |
nofappist | False confidence can work for a short time, giving you some of the benfits of confidence. But if your confidence is built on a shaky foundation (lack of merit justifying your confidence) it's likely that you'll lose it sooner or later.
TL;DR; Unless you want to fall flat confidence-wise one day, improve yourself. | False confidence can work for a short time, giving you some of the benfits of confidence. But if your confidence is built on a shaky foundation (lack of merit justifying your confidence) it's likely that you'll lose it sooner or later.
TL;DR; Unless you want to fall flat confidence-wise one day, improve yourself.
| asktrp | t5_2y2sm | cjf6w9y | False confidence can work for a short time, giving you some of the benfits of confidence. But if your confidence is built on a shaky foundation (lack of merit justifying your confidence) it's likely that you'll lose it sooner or later. | Unless you want to fall flat confidence-wise one day, improve yourself. |
anyd | I'm currently sitting on my shitty OEM ROM because for some ridiculous reason I can't get my Windows 8(.1) PC to recognize my phone while it's in the bootstrap. Sounds like I'm doing something wrong, but it looks like it's a common, and un-patched issue.
Why does this matter? Because up until now creating a complete install for the 3rd party software required bypassing the OEM software's built in security, thus violating the DMCA and exposing yourself to legal liability. Instead of exploiting a glitch to gain root access on your phone, reflashing the bootstrap, then installing the ROM, we may be able to install Cyanogenmod installer on your PC and just plug your phone in.
Edit:
TL;DR Hopefully this makes it easier for 3rd parties to make your phone better.
Also I'm a Lehman, this may be flat out wrong. | I'm currently sitting on my shitty OEM ROM because for some ridiculous reason I can't get my Windows 8(.1) PC to recognize my phone while it's in the bootstrap. Sounds like I'm doing something wrong, but it looks like it's a common, and un-patched issue.
Why does this matter? Because up until now creating a complete install for the 3rd party software required bypassing the OEM software's built in security, thus violating the DMCA and exposing yourself to legal liability. Instead of exploiting a glitch to gain root access on your phone, reflashing the bootstrap, then installing the ROM, we may be able to install Cyanogenmod installer on your PC and just plug your phone in.
Edit:
TL;DR Hopefully this makes it easier for 3rd parties to make your phone better.
Also I'm a Lehman, this may be flat out wrong.
| Android | t5_2qlqh | cjerndo | I'm currently sitting on my shitty OEM ROM because for some ridiculous reason I can't get my Windows 8(.1) PC to recognize my phone while it's in the bootstrap. Sounds like I'm doing something wrong, but it looks like it's a common, and un-patched issue.
Why does this matter? Because up until now creating a complete install for the 3rd party software required bypassing the OEM software's built in security, thus violating the DMCA and exposing yourself to legal liability. Instead of exploiting a glitch to gain root access on your phone, reflashing the bootstrap, then installing the ROM, we may be able to install Cyanogenmod installer on your PC and just plug your phone in.
Edit: | Hopefully this makes it easier for 3rd parties to make your phone better.
Also I'm a Lehman, this may be flat out wrong. |
-Argih | La base de toda criptomoneda es la descentralización, si una organización centrica controlará (avalandola) esta moneda o si dependerá de el peso físico entonces pierde todo sentido.
Además el modelo economico que mantiene el valor de las criptomonedas es totalmente diferente al de las divisas físicas. Otra cosa es que algoritmo utilizarían si es que es "POW" SHA-256 para sufir un ataque 51% "for the lulz" y que además nadie con una inversión menor a 10 mil pesos pueda minarlo, scrypt que pasará lo mismo a finales de año o x11 y que el "trabajo" por obtener la moneda al ser mas facil haga que no cobre mucho valor tampoco le veo mucho sentido al proff of stake si será centralizada la moneda, pues en teoría los supernodos podrán hacer lo que quieran y/o limitar el numero de monedas que reciben los nodos normales.
TL;DR : Si una criptomoneda es centralizada pierde la razón de ser y los algoritmos no son
viables, así que es una muy mala idea.
BTW +/u/dogetipbot 100 doge verify | La base de toda criptomoneda es la descentralización, si una organización centrica controlará (avalandola) esta moneda o si dependerá de el peso físico entonces pierde todo sentido.
Además el modelo economico que mantiene el valor de las criptomonedas es totalmente diferente al de las divisas físicas. Otra cosa es que algoritmo utilizarían si es que es "POW" SHA-256 para sufir un ataque 51% "for the lulz" y que además nadie con una inversión menor a 10 mil pesos pueda minarlo, scrypt que pasará lo mismo a finales de año o x11 y que el "trabajo" por obtener la moneda al ser mas facil haga que no cobre mucho valor tampoco le veo mucho sentido al proff of stake si será centralizada la moneda, pues en teoría los supernodos podrán hacer lo que quieran y/o limitar el numero de monedas que reciben los nodos normales.
TL;DR : Si una criptomoneda es centralizada pierde la razón de ser y los algoritmos no son
viables, así que es una muy mala idea.
BTW +/u/dogetipbot 100 doge verify
| mexico | t5_2qhv7 | cjfcop8 | La base de toda criptomoneda es la descentralización, si una organización centrica controlará (avalandola) esta moneda o si dependerá de el peso físico entonces pierde todo sentido.
Además el modelo economico que mantiene el valor de las criptomonedas es totalmente diferente al de las divisas físicas. Otra cosa es que algoritmo utilizarían si es que es "POW" SHA-256 para sufir un ataque 51% "for the lulz" y que además nadie con una inversión menor a 10 mil pesos pueda minarlo, scrypt que pasará lo mismo a finales de año o x11 y que el "trabajo" por obtener la moneda al ser mas facil haga que no cobre mucho valor tampoco le veo mucho sentido al proff of stake si será centralizada la moneda, pues en teoría los supernodos podrán hacer lo que quieran y/o limitar el numero de monedas que reciben los nodos normales. | Si una criptomoneda es centralizada pierde la razón de ser y los algoritmos no son
viables, así que es una muy mala idea.
BTW +/u/dogetipbot 100 doge verify |
komatius | Only two famous tourist destinations we visited as far as I can remember was the huge market in Marrakesh it was something entirely different from anything I've seen in Europe, so big, so many people and shops and street artists.
Also went to Essaouira, the city that inspired Cardamom Town. It was like being taken back 70 years in time. Men wore jedi robes which was pretty badass, hardly any women in the street, hardly anything with a combustion engine to be seen. Was pretty cool to see the inspiration for Cardamom Town since it's such a known tale here, and seeing really old stuff is almost always fun.
TLDR; The tourist destinations were pretty cool, I am glad I got visit and experience them. | Only two famous tourist destinations we visited as far as I can remember was the huge market in Marrakesh it was something entirely different from anything I've seen in Europe, so big, so many people and shops and street artists.
Also went to Essaouira, the city that inspired Cardamom Town. It was like being taken back 70 years in time. Men wore jedi robes which was pretty badass, hardly any women in the street, hardly anything with a combustion engine to be seen. Was pretty cool to see the inspiration for Cardamom Town since it's such a known tale here, and seeing really old stuff is almost always fun.
TLDR; The tourist destinations were pretty cool, I am glad I got visit and experience them.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjf2ej4 | Only two famous tourist destinations we visited as far as I can remember was the huge market in Marrakesh it was something entirely different from anything I've seen in Europe, so big, so many people and shops and street artists.
Also went to Essaouira, the city that inspired Cardamom Town. It was like being taken back 70 years in time. Men wore jedi robes which was pretty badass, hardly any women in the street, hardly anything with a combustion engine to be seen. Was pretty cool to see the inspiration for Cardamom Town since it's such a known tale here, and seeing really old stuff is almost always fun. | The tourist destinations were pretty cool, I am glad I got visit and experience them. |
GetOutOfBox | This is actually a life saver when having dating/crush worries. Oftentimes I'll find myself obsessing over something that really doesn't need it ("WHY ISN'T SHE REPLYING HOLY SHIT SHE MUST HATE ME"), masturbating helps get rid of that tension and lets me look at the situation in a clear manner.
What's going on is it relieves the immense pressure of the sexual desire component of attraction; the instinctual drive to mate translates into obsessing over winning the person romantically. Take that out of the equation and you still are attracted to the person, but it's no longer an all consuming drive. That drive can be great when you're actually interacting with the person, making you more confident and less reserved, but when you're apart and therefore can't advance things further it just makes you extremely frustrated.
Woo, TL;DR :D I think the obsessing component of the early stage of dating is dependent on the person's overall sexual drive, as most people seem to get past this as they age. | This is actually a life saver when having dating/crush worries. Oftentimes I'll find myself obsessing over something that really doesn't need it ("WHY ISN'T SHE REPLYING HOLY SHIT SHE MUST HATE ME"), masturbating helps get rid of that tension and lets me look at the situation in a clear manner.
What's going on is it relieves the immense pressure of the sexual desire component of attraction; the instinctual drive to mate translates into obsessing over winning the person romantically. Take that out of the equation and you still are attracted to the person, but it's no longer an all consuming drive. That drive can be great when you're actually interacting with the person, making you more confident and less reserved, but when you're apart and therefore can't advance things further it just makes you extremely frustrated.
Woo, TL;DR :D I think the obsessing component of the early stage of dating is dependent on the person's overall sexual drive, as most people seem to get past this as they age.
| LifeProTips | t5_2s5oq | cjf9u2g | This is actually a life saver when having dating/crush worries. Oftentimes I'll find myself obsessing over something that really doesn't need it ("WHY ISN'T SHE REPLYING HOLY SHIT SHE MUST HATE ME"), masturbating helps get rid of that tension and lets me look at the situation in a clear manner.
What's going on is it relieves the immense pressure of the sexual desire component of attraction; the instinctual drive to mate translates into obsessing over winning the person romantically. Take that out of the equation and you still are attracted to the person, but it's no longer an all consuming drive. That drive can be great when you're actually interacting with the person, making you more confident and less reserved, but when you're apart and therefore can't advance things further it just makes you extremely frustrated.
Woo, | D I think the obsessing component of the early stage of dating is dependent on the person's overall sexual drive, as most people seem to get past this as they age. |
NathanielWeber | Blue doesn't seem as noobish as people are making him out to be. It's a classic case of Tank vs. DPS. The tank just has to withstand a few blows and get in a couple good ones, DPS has to hithithit, and he could've done much better if it wasn't for that unfortunate Disarm attack early in the fight. However just before the finishing move from Red, he pulls off a fantastic Leg Sweep+Shield Bash combo. You can then tell that after that Red pulls off an impressive attack which gives Blue a few seconds of Disorientation, which Red then foolishly chooses not to take advantage of by attacking, and Blue then goes in for another Shield Bash, nearly shoving Red out of the rink.
TLDR: Blue has skills. | Blue doesn't seem as noobish as people are making him out to be. It's a classic case of Tank vs. DPS. The tank just has to withstand a few blows and get in a couple good ones, DPS has to hithithit, and he could've done much better if it wasn't for that unfortunate Disarm attack early in the fight. However just before the finishing move from Red, he pulls off a fantastic Leg Sweep+Shield Bash combo. You can then tell that after that Red pulls off an impressive attack which gives Blue a few seconds of Disorientation, which Red then foolishly chooses not to take advantage of by attacking, and Blue then goes in for another Shield Bash, nearly shoving Red out of the rink.
TLDR: Blue has skills.
| outside | t5_2r3f3 | cjgxfbl | Blue doesn't seem as noobish as people are making him out to be. It's a classic case of Tank vs. DPS. The tank just has to withstand a few blows and get in a couple good ones, DPS has to hithithit, and he could've done much better if it wasn't for that unfortunate Disarm attack early in the fight. However just before the finishing move from Red, he pulls off a fantastic Leg Sweep+Shield Bash combo. You can then tell that after that Red pulls off an impressive attack which gives Blue a few seconds of Disorientation, which Red then foolishly chooses not to take advantage of by attacking, and Blue then goes in for another Shield Bash, nearly shoving Red out of the rink. | Blue has skills. |
CouldBeMoreBetter | As a guy who has both his bachelors and masters in software engineering (and a minor in computer science), I'd like to put in my two cents. Software engineering is an extremely broad term to cover the many disciplines of creating software - NOT just programming. I like to compare the entire field to a restaurant; first, the waiter will take your order (requirements engineering), and sends the order to the kitchen for them to figure out how to produce it (design engineering). The kitchen will produce the food (software development/programming), and the waiter will deliver the food and make sure the customer stays happy (software testing and maintenance). There's many other divisions that don't fit my little analogy such as configuration management, human computer interaction, and quality management, but you get the idea.
Computer science focuses in depth on the actual programmatically aspects of developing software. You'll learn a variety of programming languages (java seems to be the latest "basic" language they start you on), the fundamental building blocks of programming (object oriented design), and the theory and mathematics behind algorithms. You'll learn this in software engineering too, just at a slightly higher level.
In my school software engineers took their own separate classes from computer science majors, but for programming classes (c++ and java), the two majors were together.
In the real world, companies tend to use computer scientists and software engineers interchangeably. I've seen many jobs where software engineers were expected to be full time programmers, and computer scientist jobs which focused on configuration management and quality control. My first job was as a computer scientist running small software maintenance and testing for big time applications, and have since moved on to be an enterprise architect. Good money if you can find the work!
**tl;dr Computer science focuses on programming, software engineering focuses on the entire business of software development. In the real world though, these two terms get used interchangeably.** | As a guy who has both his bachelors and masters in software engineering (and a minor in computer science), I'd like to put in my two cents. Software engineering is an extremely broad term to cover the many disciplines of creating software - NOT just programming. I like to compare the entire field to a restaurant; first, the waiter will take your order (requirements engineering), and sends the order to the kitchen for them to figure out how to produce it (design engineering). The kitchen will produce the food (software development/programming), and the waiter will deliver the food and make sure the customer stays happy (software testing and maintenance). There's many other divisions that don't fit my little analogy such as configuration management, human computer interaction, and quality management, but you get the idea.
Computer science focuses in depth on the actual programmatically aspects of developing software. You'll learn a variety of programming languages (java seems to be the latest "basic" language they start you on), the fundamental building blocks of programming (object oriented design), and the theory and mathematics behind algorithms. You'll learn this in software engineering too, just at a slightly higher level.
In my school software engineers took their own separate classes from computer science majors, but for programming classes (c++ and java), the two majors were together.
In the real world, companies tend to use computer scientists and software engineers interchangeably. I've seen many jobs where software engineers were expected to be full time programmers, and computer scientist jobs which focused on configuration management and quality control. My first job was as a computer scientist running small software maintenance and testing for big time applications, and have since moved on to be an enterprise architect. Good money if you can find the work!
tl;dr Computer science focuses on programming, software engineering focuses on the entire business of software development. In the real world though, these two terms get used interchangeably.
| learnprogramming | t5_2r7yd | cjf9ci8 | As a guy who has both his bachelors and masters in software engineering (and a minor in computer science), I'd like to put in my two cents. Software engineering is an extremely broad term to cover the many disciplines of creating software - NOT just programming. I like to compare the entire field to a restaurant; first, the waiter will take your order (requirements engineering), and sends the order to the kitchen for them to figure out how to produce it (design engineering). The kitchen will produce the food (software development/programming), and the waiter will deliver the food and make sure the customer stays happy (software testing and maintenance). There's many other divisions that don't fit my little analogy such as configuration management, human computer interaction, and quality management, but you get the idea.
Computer science focuses in depth on the actual programmatically aspects of developing software. You'll learn a variety of programming languages (java seems to be the latest "basic" language they start you on), the fundamental building blocks of programming (object oriented design), and the theory and mathematics behind algorithms. You'll learn this in software engineering too, just at a slightly higher level.
In my school software engineers took their own separate classes from computer science majors, but for programming classes (c++ and java), the two majors were together.
In the real world, companies tend to use computer scientists and software engineers interchangeably. I've seen many jobs where software engineers were expected to be full time programmers, and computer scientist jobs which focused on configuration management and quality control. My first job was as a computer scientist running small software maintenance and testing for big time applications, and have since moved on to be an enterprise architect. Good money if you can find the work! | Computer science focuses on programming, software engineering focuses on the entire business of software development. In the real world though, these two terms get used interchangeably. |
6thCourier | That was some fun shit. Wished we could have gotten more people to come but it was definitely a fun gaming session.
tl;dr of event: Conga Lines, Conga Lines, Conga Lines | That was some fun shit. Wished we could have gotten more people to come but it was definitely a fun gaming session.
tl;dr of event: Conga Lines, Conga Lines, Conga Lines
| streamtown | t5_3112g | cjfdy0b | That was some fun shit. Wished we could have gotten more people to come but it was definitely a fun gaming session. | of event: Conga Lines, Conga Lines, Conga Lines |
LunarVelocity | All I'm seeing is excuses. :/
OpTic lost it on their own. In Strikezone Dom, the Pro spawn was blocked, so he spawned C. Good spawn but it definitely wasn't Epsilon screwing OpTic.
I understand the momentum, but a round one loss isn't enough to bring down the Epsilon crew to where you get a different result. Maybe, if Epsilon wasn't destroying OpTic it could have made a difference, but that wasn't the case. Nade found Swanny and lost the gunfight he needed to win, so technically you still can't blame the glitch.
So TL;DR: Blame yourselves. You lost the game, and the game didn't make you lose. | All I'm seeing is excuses. :/
OpTic lost it on their own. In Strikezone Dom, the Pro spawn was blocked, so he spawned C. Good spawn but it definitely wasn't Epsilon screwing OpTic.
I understand the momentum, but a round one loss isn't enough to bring down the Epsilon crew to where you get a different result. Maybe, if Epsilon wasn't destroying OpTic it could have made a difference, but that wasn't the case. Nade found Swanny and lost the gunfight he needed to win, so technically you still can't blame the glitch.
So TL;DR: Blame yourselves. You lost the game, and the game didn't make you lose.
| CoDCompetitive | t5_2tvg8 | cjflesv | All I'm seeing is excuses. :/
OpTic lost it on their own. In Strikezone Dom, the Pro spawn was blocked, so he spawned C. Good spawn but it definitely wasn't Epsilon screwing OpTic.
I understand the momentum, but a round one loss isn't enough to bring down the Epsilon crew to where you get a different result. Maybe, if Epsilon wasn't destroying OpTic it could have made a difference, but that wasn't the case. Nade found Swanny and lost the gunfight he needed to win, so technically you still can't blame the glitch.
So | Blame yourselves. You lost the game, and the game didn't make you lose. |
teenagesmokerthrow | Bruh Indianents represent!!!
As said below, the using weed as a reward thing is a good system for getting everything done and smoking responsibly.
I was a freshman at a certain college in Cambridge, Mass last year and have to say it was really a lot more than I expected. The workload seemed so much easier if I studied hard and put a lot of effort in and then took bong rips with my roommates afterward.
TL;DR Don't smoke all the time, get shit done, enjoy yourself! | Bruh Indianents represent!!!
As said below, the using weed as a reward thing is a good system for getting everything done and smoking responsibly.
I was a freshman at a certain college in Cambridge, Mass last year and have to say it was really a lot more than I expected. The workload seemed so much easier if I studied hard and put a lot of effort in and then took bong rips with my roommates afterward.
TL;DR Don't smoke all the time, get shit done, enjoy yourself!
| trees | t5_2r9vp | cjgdyy6 | Bruh Indianents represent!!!
As said below, the using weed as a reward thing is a good system for getting everything done and smoking responsibly.
I was a freshman at a certain college in Cambridge, Mass last year and have to say it was really a lot more than I expected. The workload seemed so much easier if I studied hard and put a lot of effort in and then took bong rips with my roommates afterward. | Don't smoke all the time, get shit done, enjoy yourself! |
Beersmoker420 | tinker is fine, he's not even that successful in pro games. He's easy to gank and kill early. Late game as well if you catch him he falls over
He gets strong and can insta kill alot of supports late game. So can almost every carry with 1/10 the effort and 10x the survivability.
He's just good at delaying games from behind. I just dont understand why people have this obsession with nerfing him because he's popular. People like a challenge. It's not like he's simple to play. Subpar winrates in both pro and pubs. He's not Mirana who has a bigger impact on every game without needing gold yet she's everybodies most played hero that complains about other heroes.
NOW, if he's going to get nerfed it should be something along the lines of granting vision of him in trees when his spells hit enemy heroes. That way he can still farm creeps with march from the trees but if he is hitting a hero itll reveal him. Anything else would essentially cripple the hero.
TL;dr people think Tinker is OP because he can tp around the map and the way he kills people is flashy. Let's just forget just how simple it is to kill him, and how hard it actually is to be efficient on the hero.
Let me guess? Nerf meepo too?
- Nobody said a word about Tinker until excalibur had 2 good games on Tinker (WHILE FEEDING IN ANOTHER 2) . It's as if the other games didnt happen. "hero farms too fast" at the expense of the rest of your teammates farm. (not only that but in the fnatic games they spent the entire early game stacking everything for him) | tinker is fine, he's not even that successful in pro games. He's easy to gank and kill early. Late game as well if you catch him he falls over
He gets strong and can insta kill alot of supports late game. So can almost every carry with 1/10 the effort and 10x the survivability.
He's just good at delaying games from behind. I just dont understand why people have this obsession with nerfing him because he's popular. People like a challenge. It's not like he's simple to play. Subpar winrates in both pro and pubs. He's not Mirana who has a bigger impact on every game without needing gold yet she's everybodies most played hero that complains about other heroes.
NOW, if he's going to get nerfed it should be something along the lines of granting vision of him in trees when his spells hit enemy heroes. That way he can still farm creeps with march from the trees but if he is hitting a hero itll reveal him. Anything else would essentially cripple the hero.
TL;dr people think Tinker is OP because he can tp around the map and the way he kills people is flashy. Let's just forget just how simple it is to kill him, and how hard it actually is to be efficient on the hero.
Let me guess? Nerf meepo too?
Nobody said a word about Tinker until excalibur had 2 good games on Tinker (WHILE FEEDING IN ANOTHER 2) . It's as if the other games didnt happen. "hero farms too fast" at the expense of the rest of your teammates farm. (not only that but in the fnatic games they spent the entire early game stacking everything for him)
| DotA2 | t5_2s580 | cjg8vv9 | tinker is fine, he's not even that successful in pro games. He's easy to gank and kill early. Late game as well if you catch him he falls over
He gets strong and can insta kill alot of supports late game. So can almost every carry with 1/10 the effort and 10x the survivability.
He's just good at delaying games from behind. I just dont understand why people have this obsession with nerfing him because he's popular. People like a challenge. It's not like he's simple to play. Subpar winrates in both pro and pubs. He's not Mirana who has a bigger impact on every game without needing gold yet she's everybodies most played hero that complains about other heroes.
NOW, if he's going to get nerfed it should be something along the lines of granting vision of him in trees when his spells hit enemy heroes. That way he can still farm creeps with march from the trees but if he is hitting a hero itll reveal him. Anything else would essentially cripple the hero. | people think Tinker is OP because he can tp around the map and the way he kills people is flashy. Let's just forget just how simple it is to kill him, and how hard it actually is to be efficient on the hero.
Let me guess? Nerf meepo too?
Nobody said a word about Tinker until excalibur had 2 good games on Tinker (WHILE FEEDING IN ANOTHER 2) . It's as if the other games didnt happen. "hero farms too fast" at the expense of the rest of your teammates farm. (not only that but in the fnatic games they spent the entire early game stacking everything for him) |
ReneOz | From the license agreement:
License Grant — Any Service, Content or Software supplied by NCSOFT is licensed, not sold, by NCSOFT. All title and rights not expressly granted in this agreement, including but not limited to any IP right and the display thereof, are retained by NCSOFT and/or third-parties under agreement with NCSOFT. NCSOFT hereby grants You a **revocable, non-exclusive, license for personal and non-commercial use of Service, Content and Software that is non-transferable** except as permitted under Section 9(c). YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANY SUCH LICENSE TERMINATES IMMEDIATELY IF YOU BREACH, VIOLATE, OR OTHERWISE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH EACH AND EVERY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE HAD TO NOTICE OF TERMINATION FROM NCSOFT. IN THE EVENT OF TERMINATION OF ANY SUCH LICENSE NCSOFT MAY, IN ITS SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION, MODIFY OR DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT, ALL RELATED CONTENT, AND ANY CHARACTER ID.
9(c) deals with adults that can allow access to minors age 13-17.
TLDR: It's against NCSOFT terms. | From the license agreement:
License Grant — Any Service, Content or Software supplied by NCSOFT is licensed, not sold, by NCSOFT. All title and rights not expressly granted in this agreement, including but not limited to any IP right and the display thereof, are retained by NCSOFT and/or third-parties under agreement with NCSOFT. NCSOFT hereby grants You a revocable, non-exclusive, license for personal and non-commercial use of Service, Content and Software that is non-transferable except as permitted under Section 9(c). YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANY SUCH LICENSE TERMINATES IMMEDIATELY IF YOU BREACH, VIOLATE, OR OTHERWISE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH EACH AND EVERY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE HAD TO NOTICE OF TERMINATION FROM NCSOFT. IN THE EVENT OF TERMINATION OF ANY SUCH LICENSE NCSOFT MAY, IN ITS SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION, MODIFY OR DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT, ALL RELATED CONTENT, AND ANY CHARACTER ID.
9(c) deals with adults that can allow access to minors age 13-17.
TLDR: It's against NCSOFT terms.
| Guildwars2 | t5_2r9po | cjh3wxe | From the license agreement:
License Grant — Any Service, Content or Software supplied by NCSOFT is licensed, not sold, by NCSOFT. All title and rights not expressly granted in this agreement, including but not limited to any IP right and the display thereof, are retained by NCSOFT and/or third-parties under agreement with NCSOFT. NCSOFT hereby grants You a revocable, non-exclusive, license for personal and non-commercial use of Service, Content and Software that is non-transferable except as permitted under Section 9(c). YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANY SUCH LICENSE TERMINATES IMMEDIATELY IF YOU BREACH, VIOLATE, OR OTHERWISE FAIL TO COMPLY WITH EACH AND EVERY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE HAD TO NOTICE OF TERMINATION FROM NCSOFT. IN THE EVENT OF TERMINATION OF ANY SUCH LICENSE NCSOFT MAY, IN ITS SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION, MODIFY OR DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT, ALL RELATED CONTENT, AND ANY CHARACTER ID.
9(c) deals with adults that can allow access to minors age 13-17. | It's against NCSOFT terms. |
pandroidgaxie | pretty much not your business unless you find mom crying a lot or dad being an unusually real shit to her. Two signs of cheating are lots of work "overtime" and meetings, taking phone to another room to talk ... not many signs that a non-spouse would see.
.
I do wonder how he would get private time for cybersex unless you and mom have very consistent bedtimes, lol. Or maybe he is just cruising websites with no real intention of following through - it's an ego boost when someone compliments you, even if you never write back.
. tl;dr try to pretend it never happened | pretty much not your business unless you find mom crying a lot or dad being an unusually real shit to her. Two signs of cheating are lots of work "overtime" and meetings, taking phone to another room to talk ... not many signs that a non-spouse would see.
.
I do wonder how he would get private time for cybersex unless you and mom have very consistent bedtimes, lol. Or maybe he is just cruising websites with no real intention of following through - it's an ego boost when someone compliments you, even if you never write back.
. tl;dr try to pretend it never happened
| tifu | t5_2to41 | cjgywqf | pretty much not your business unless you find mom crying a lot or dad being an unusually real shit to her. Two signs of cheating are lots of work "overtime" and meetings, taking phone to another room to talk ... not many signs that a non-spouse would see.
.
I do wonder how he would get private time for cybersex unless you and mom have very consistent bedtimes, lol. Or maybe he is just cruising websites with no real intention of following through - it's an ego boost when someone compliments you, even if you never write back.
. | try to pretend it never happened |
cherryjuicej | Couldn't disagree more about Ghosts being a good game. In my opinion it's one of the worst yet, vector melts with the ridiculous ttk and the online play is garbage, some of the worst lag comp/host advantage I've ever seen in the entire COD series. The maps on the whole are atrocious too, barely any of them are any good imo - Sovereign, Strikezone, Warhawk (actually a great map) are passable, Freight is dodgy especially with offense on S&D and Octane is a joke. The main thing that gets me though is the lack of League Play and IW's terrible support in fixing bugs i.e. defuse timers, bomb glitch. Clan V Clan is flawed as people rage quit with minimal penalty after dying once fucking (excuse my french) the rest of the team over for the rest of the match.
Ultimately matches come down to connection unless you possess the godliest of shots to counter 2 shot vector melts. Aaaaannd by removing Hardpoint and CTF the only game modes worth playing are S&D and Dom, but even the spawns are fucked so Dom is worthless.
TL;DR cba to type anymore | Couldn't disagree more about Ghosts being a good game. In my opinion it's one of the worst yet, vector melts with the ridiculous ttk and the online play is garbage, some of the worst lag comp/host advantage I've ever seen in the entire COD series. The maps on the whole are atrocious too, barely any of them are any good imo - Sovereign, Strikezone, Warhawk (actually a great map) are passable, Freight is dodgy especially with offense on S&D and Octane is a joke. The main thing that gets me though is the lack of League Play and IW's terrible support in fixing bugs i.e. defuse timers, bomb glitch. Clan V Clan is flawed as people rage quit with minimal penalty after dying once fucking (excuse my french) the rest of the team over for the rest of the match.
Ultimately matches come down to connection unless you possess the godliest of shots to counter 2 shot vector melts. Aaaaannd by removing Hardpoint and CTF the only game modes worth playing are S&D and Dom, but even the spawns are fucked so Dom is worthless.
TL;DR cba to type anymore
| CoDCompetitive | t5_2tvg8 | cjh2ma5 | Couldn't disagree more about Ghosts being a good game. In my opinion it's one of the worst yet, vector melts with the ridiculous ttk and the online play is garbage, some of the worst lag comp/host advantage I've ever seen in the entire COD series. The maps on the whole are atrocious too, barely any of them are any good imo - Sovereign, Strikezone, Warhawk (actually a great map) are passable, Freight is dodgy especially with offense on S&D and Octane is a joke. The main thing that gets me though is the lack of League Play and IW's terrible support in fixing bugs i.e. defuse timers, bomb glitch. Clan V Clan is flawed as people rage quit with minimal penalty after dying once fucking (excuse my french) the rest of the team over for the rest of the match.
Ultimately matches come down to connection unless you possess the godliest of shots to counter 2 shot vector melts. Aaaaannd by removing Hardpoint and CTF the only game modes worth playing are S&D and Dom, but even the spawns are fucked so Dom is worthless. | cba to type anymore |
some_random_nick | This movie is going to suck.
(Sorry, this is going to be a bit long. Just bear with me here)
The movie is going to suck because it's a money grab. Megan Fox just said so herself - the only thing that's important is how much the movie is going to make. "Fuck off if you're not going to give us money"? OK, a bit rude but fair enough. you're not buying their product so they have no interest in you. Oh, you already gave them money, but didn't like the movie? fuck do they care if you liked it or not, they already have your money.
"Hay, let's give the turtles nostrils and lips, so it'll be cheaper to animate them using motion capture", "Donnie is a nerd, right? to show that, let's give him big nerd glasses with the thingy taped on the bridge", "April O'Neill is an annoying character that doesn't do anything and people tolerate her only because she had boobs*? Let's get Megan Fox to play her"
Well, OK, the last one was pretty spot on. But otherwise it's just about the cheapest easiest things to do, so let's not waste more time or money with making a good movie, and just have the bear minimum to get asses into seats.
And I was actually pretty optimistic lately. The first trailer was dumb, but then we saw a bit more, especially of Mickey, and I was thinking "Well, he's cheesy, but the Micky of the TV show was also cheesy, so I'll try to keep an open mind and hope the movie will be good". But this quote convinced me that the only people who care whether the movie is good or not are the fans. Michel Bay doesn't care. The director doesn't care. The 5 script writers don't care (BTW, anyone notice there's an inverse correlation between how good a scrips is and how many writer it had?). Megan Fox sure as hell doesn't care.
Basically, this is the same attitude some large corporations have - They know people are going to buy their product, so why put any effort in it?
Here's an idea - Want some TMNT this weekend? watch the 80s show, the 2003 show, the movie, Turtles Forever, read the original comics, the Archie one, the IDW series**... There's a ton of great TMNT stuff out there, where the creators actually gave a shit.
Want to go to the movies? Watch Guardians of the Galaxy. It has all the thing TMNT should have had - great humor, nice action and characters that are treated with respect. The people who made it clearly deserve your money more than Megan Fox dose.
**TL:DR**: The guys who made the new movie don't care about the movie. They care about getting your money. Don't give it to them.
_________________________________
* Referring only to the old cartoon.
** Seriously, the IDW comics is great. Go read it if you haven't already. | This movie is going to suck.
(Sorry, this is going to be a bit long. Just bear with me here)
The movie is going to suck because it's a money grab. Megan Fox just said so herself - the only thing that's important is how much the movie is going to make. "Fuck off if you're not going to give us money"? OK, a bit rude but fair enough. you're not buying their product so they have no interest in you. Oh, you already gave them money, but didn't like the movie? fuck do they care if you liked it or not, they already have your money.
"Hay, let's give the turtles nostrils and lips, so it'll be cheaper to animate them using motion capture", "Donnie is a nerd, right? to show that, let's give him big nerd glasses with the thingy taped on the bridge", "April O'Neill is an annoying character that doesn't do anything and people tolerate her only because she had boobs*? Let's get Megan Fox to play her"
Well, OK, the last one was pretty spot on. But otherwise it's just about the cheapest easiest things to do, so let's not waste more time or money with making a good movie, and just have the bear minimum to get asses into seats.
And I was actually pretty optimistic lately. The first trailer was dumb, but then we saw a bit more, especially of Mickey, and I was thinking "Well, he's cheesy, but the Micky of the TV show was also cheesy, so I'll try to keep an open mind and hope the movie will be good". But this quote convinced me that the only people who care whether the movie is good or not are the fans. Michel Bay doesn't care. The director doesn't care. The 5 script writers don't care (BTW, anyone notice there's an inverse correlation between how good a scrips is and how many writer it had?). Megan Fox sure as hell doesn't care.
Basically, this is the same attitude some large corporations have - They know people are going to buy their product, so why put any effort in it?
Here's an idea - Want some TMNT this weekend? watch the 80s show, the 2003 show, the movie, Turtles Forever, read the original comics, the Archie one, the IDW series**... There's a ton of great TMNT stuff out there, where the creators actually gave a shit.
Want to go to the movies? Watch Guardians of the Galaxy. It has all the thing TMNT should have had - great humor, nice action and characters that are treated with respect. The people who made it clearly deserve your money more than Megan Fox dose.
TL:DR : The guys who made the new movie don't care about the movie. They care about getting your money. Don't give it to them.
Referring only to the old cartoon.
** Seriously, the IDW comics is great. Go read it if you haven't already.
| TMNT | t5_2scgh | cjhnkbq | This movie is going to suck.
(Sorry, this is going to be a bit long. Just bear with me here)
The movie is going to suck because it's a money grab. Megan Fox just said so herself - the only thing that's important is how much the movie is going to make. "Fuck off if you're not going to give us money"? OK, a bit rude but fair enough. you're not buying their product so they have no interest in you. Oh, you already gave them money, but didn't like the movie? fuck do they care if you liked it or not, they already have your money.
"Hay, let's give the turtles nostrils and lips, so it'll be cheaper to animate them using motion capture", "Donnie is a nerd, right? to show that, let's give him big nerd glasses with the thingy taped on the bridge", "April O'Neill is an annoying character that doesn't do anything and people tolerate her only because she had boobs*? Let's get Megan Fox to play her"
Well, OK, the last one was pretty spot on. But otherwise it's just about the cheapest easiest things to do, so let's not waste more time or money with making a good movie, and just have the bear minimum to get asses into seats.
And I was actually pretty optimistic lately. The first trailer was dumb, but then we saw a bit more, especially of Mickey, and I was thinking "Well, he's cheesy, but the Micky of the TV show was also cheesy, so I'll try to keep an open mind and hope the movie will be good". But this quote convinced me that the only people who care whether the movie is good or not are the fans. Michel Bay doesn't care. The director doesn't care. The 5 script writers don't care (BTW, anyone notice there's an inverse correlation between how good a scrips is and how many writer it had?). Megan Fox sure as hell doesn't care.
Basically, this is the same attitude some large corporations have - They know people are going to buy their product, so why put any effort in it?
Here's an idea - Want some TMNT this weekend? watch the 80s show, the 2003 show, the movie, Turtles Forever, read the original comics, the Archie one, the IDW series**... There's a ton of great TMNT stuff out there, where the creators actually gave a shit.
Want to go to the movies? Watch Guardians of the Galaxy. It has all the thing TMNT should have had - great humor, nice action and characters that are treated with respect. The people who made it clearly deserve your money more than Megan Fox dose. | The guys who made the new movie don't care about the movie. They care about getting your money. Don't give it to them.
Referring only to the old cartoon.
** Seriously, the IDW comics is great. Go read it if you haven't already. |
cromemako83 | [Reuben](
The Sandwich is representative of all things I love, it also isn't too worried about being healthy and just wants to indulge your dark side >:)
I love Sauerkraut and Kim-chi I've actually make kraut before (will be making Kim-chi soon once I get a fermentation crock.
Love cured/pickled beef (Corned beef) I actually have raised beef in the past. Sadly haven't cured beef before with salt but this would be fun (if dangerous compared to pickling veggies, gotta be a lot more careful curing meets).
That sauce isn't bad either (Thousand island)
I'm 1/4 Swiss - So i guess that's why the cheese is there.
**TLDR**: I am Reuben | [Reuben](
The Sandwich is representative of all things I love, it also isn't too worried about being healthy and just wants to indulge your dark side >:)
I love Sauerkraut and Kim-chi I've actually make kraut before (will be making Kim-chi soon once I get a fermentation crock.
Love cured/pickled beef (Corned beef) I actually have raised beef in the past. Sadly haven't cured beef before with salt but this would be fun (if dangerous compared to pickling veggies, gotta be a lot more careful curing meets).
That sauce isn't bad either (Thousand island)
I'm 1/4 Swiss - So i guess that's why the cheese is there.
TLDR : I am Reuben
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjhku3h | Reuben](
The Sandwich is representative of all things I love, it also isn't too worried about being healthy and just wants to indulge your dark side >:)
I love Sauerkraut and Kim-chi I've actually make kraut before (will be making Kim-chi soon once I get a fermentation crock.
Love cured/pickled beef (Corned beef) I actually have raised beef in the past. Sadly haven't cured beef before with salt but this would be fun (if dangerous compared to pickling veggies, gotta be a lot more careful curing meets).
That sauce isn't bad either (Thousand island)
I'm 1/4 Swiss - So i guess that's why the cheese is there. | I am Reuben |
greywolfau | So here is the weirdest fix I think I've ever seen.
I had my PS4 controller in the bedroom. I had been using it the last few days with Marvel Lego on the PC instead of the Xbox 360 controller because. I have a program that emulates the PS4 controller into a 360 controller. I finally get off my arse, and walk into the bedroom and get the controller after 2 hours of trying.
Plug it, fire up the program and start Dead Rising 2 again. Hip hip hooray, it works ! I can use the menu in the PC settings menu to switch from disabled to enabled.
Here is where it gets weird. It wasn't the PS4 controller that I was now able to use, it was the wireless Xbox 360 controller ??????
TL;DR : Emulate Xbox 360 controller with PS4 controller so my Xbox 360 controller will work with Dead Rising 2. | So here is the weirdest fix I think I've ever seen.
I had my PS4 controller in the bedroom. I had been using it the last few days with Marvel Lego on the PC instead of the Xbox 360 controller because. I have a program that emulates the PS4 controller into a 360 controller. I finally get off my arse, and walk into the bedroom and get the controller after 2 hours of trying.
Plug it, fire up the program and start Dead Rising 2 again. Hip hip hooray, it works ! I can use the menu in the PC settings menu to switch from disabled to enabled.
Here is where it gets weird. It wasn't the PS4 controller that I was now able to use, it was the wireless Xbox 360 controller ??????
TL;DR : Emulate Xbox 360 controller with PS4 controller so my Xbox 360 controller will work with Dead Rising 2.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | cjikblv | So here is the weirdest fix I think I've ever seen.
I had my PS4 controller in the bedroom. I had been using it the last few days with Marvel Lego on the PC instead of the Xbox 360 controller because. I have a program that emulates the PS4 controller into a 360 controller. I finally get off my arse, and walk into the bedroom and get the controller after 2 hours of trying.
Plug it, fire up the program and start Dead Rising 2 again. Hip hip hooray, it works ! I can use the menu in the PC settings menu to switch from disabled to enabled.
Here is where it gets weird. It wasn't the PS4 controller that I was now able to use, it was the wireless Xbox 360 controller ?????? | Emulate Xbox 360 controller with PS4 controller so my Xbox 360 controller will work with Dead Rising 2. |
Grenshen4px | Every country prefers to have its own domestic oil company to prevent supply being shut down in times of war had ownership belonged to another country far away.
Also native oil companies are preferred for oil contracts since if another countries company's control the export of your resources then you get money less back then had the resources been controlled by a domestic company. Such is the case for Saudi aramco which was brought totally by the saudi government years ago from american co-investors, because the saudi's wanted the full value of its oil exports and nowadays foreign oil companies can act as the buyer for oil drilled by saudi aramco but are mostly forbidden from fully controlling any saudi oil field.
In the meantime because those domestic oil companies drill for oil then might as well sell it in the home country.
TLDR: domestic concerns about getting 100% of value of exports, and conflict concerns. | Every country prefers to have its own domestic oil company to prevent supply being shut down in times of war had ownership belonged to another country far away.
Also native oil companies are preferred for oil contracts since if another countries company's control the export of your resources then you get money less back then had the resources been controlled by a domestic company. Such is the case for Saudi aramco which was brought totally by the saudi government years ago from american co-investors, because the saudi's wanted the full value of its oil exports and nowadays foreign oil companies can act as the buyer for oil drilled by saudi aramco but are mostly forbidden from fully controlling any saudi oil field.
In the meantime because those domestic oil companies drill for oil then might as well sell it in the home country.
TLDR: domestic concerns about getting 100% of value of exports, and conflict concerns.
| MapPorn | t5_2si92 | cjhyyci | Every country prefers to have its own domestic oil company to prevent supply being shut down in times of war had ownership belonged to another country far away.
Also native oil companies are preferred for oil contracts since if another countries company's control the export of your resources then you get money less back then had the resources been controlled by a domestic company. Such is the case for Saudi aramco which was brought totally by the saudi government years ago from american co-investors, because the saudi's wanted the full value of its oil exports and nowadays foreign oil companies can act as the buyer for oil drilled by saudi aramco but are mostly forbidden from fully controlling any saudi oil field.
In the meantime because those domestic oil companies drill for oil then might as well sell it in the home country. | domestic concerns about getting 100% of value of exports, and conflict concerns. |
Woxan | Kills me that people keep scanning regions that are already (90%<) known. Sure some new R64s were sprinkled around but a swath of nullsec, the Drone Regions in particular, are relatively unknown to the public.
The narrative is that the Drone Regions are R32/R64 moon poor. Compared to Fountain/Delve yes, but the there is a sizable crop of money moons that just toil away, and PL/N3 must certainly enjoy that narrative to discourage siphon spammers. When SOLAR resurged last summer they took/sieged dozens of R32s/R64s (esp from CoW and WHYSO).
TL;DR: People need to scan the drone regions. It's more useful than scanning Fountain every 3 months. | Kills me that people keep scanning regions that are already (90%<) known. Sure some new R64s were sprinkled around but a swath of nullsec, the Drone Regions in particular, are relatively unknown to the public.
The narrative is that the Drone Regions are R32/R64 moon poor. Compared to Fountain/Delve yes, but the there is a sizable crop of money moons that just toil away, and PL/N3 must certainly enjoy that narrative to discourage siphon spammers. When SOLAR resurged last summer they took/sieged dozens of R32s/R64s (esp from CoW and WHYSO).
TL;DR: People need to scan the drone regions. It's more useful than scanning Fountain every 3 months.
| Eve | t5_2qil9 | cjhto7n | Kills me that people keep scanning regions that are already (90%<) known. Sure some new R64s were sprinkled around but a swath of nullsec, the Drone Regions in particular, are relatively unknown to the public.
The narrative is that the Drone Regions are R32/R64 moon poor. Compared to Fountain/Delve yes, but the there is a sizable crop of money moons that just toil away, and PL/N3 must certainly enjoy that narrative to discourage siphon spammers. When SOLAR resurged last summer they took/sieged dozens of R32s/R64s (esp from CoW and WHYSO). | People need to scan the drone regions. It's more useful than scanning Fountain every 3 months. |
Im_Wearing_Pants | For any website where a search by location matters, I'd like to be able to define my own search area instead of a central location and simple radius. For example, I live in Victoria BC Canada. It's on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. Any search large enough to get some of the cities further north also get cities in Washington state. And if I search far enough to include Nanaimo I also get hits from Vancouver. Although 4 hours commuting to Nanaimo everyday would be horrible, it's impossible to deal with 2 hours driving plus 4 hours of riding the ferry because I'm on an island and Vancouver is not.
TLDR; a user definable polygon based location search instead of a simple radius and circle would be great. Feel free to develop and sell this idea the pof.com | For any website where a search by location matters, I'd like to be able to define my own search area instead of a central location and simple radius. For example, I live in Victoria BC Canada. It's on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. Any search large enough to get some of the cities further north also get cities in Washington state. And if I search far enough to include Nanaimo I also get hits from Vancouver. Although 4 hours commuting to Nanaimo everyday would be horrible, it's impossible to deal with 2 hours driving plus 4 hours of riding the ferry because I'm on an island and Vancouver is not.
TLDR; a user definable polygon based location search instead of a simple radius and circle would be great. Feel free to develop and sell this idea the pof.com
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cji19cl | For any website where a search by location matters, I'd like to be able to define my own search area instead of a central location and simple radius. For example, I live in Victoria BC Canada. It's on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. Any search large enough to get some of the cities further north also get cities in Washington state. And if I search far enough to include Nanaimo I also get hits from Vancouver. Although 4 hours commuting to Nanaimo everyday would be horrible, it's impossible to deal with 2 hours driving plus 4 hours of riding the ferry because I'm on an island and Vancouver is not. | a user definable polygon based location search instead of a simple radius and circle would be great. Feel free to develop and sell this idea the pof.com |
ogwalt | That's definitely an interesting storyline to explore, but I always thought that the end to IM3 was more thematically significant than just a plot development. His statement "I am Iron Man" shows how his character has changed and how his perception of who he is is broader than what it was in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. In the first film, Iron Man is his alter ego - it's the suit, its this 'super hero' that he has to put on. It takes him four movies to realize that, in escaping from the Ten Rings, he built himself a new prison every bit as limiting as the one he was held in. Just as his handicap became his means of escape (the arc reactor), his means of escape became his handicap itself (the Iron Man Armor). He wants to be Iron Man, at the end of the film he tells the world that he is, but he's talking about the suit - he's saying "I was the one in there, that's why I am Iron Man." He's saying that the suit makes him Iron Man. But it doesn't.
In Iron Man 2, the suit has become a parasite in more ways that one - the arc reactor is leeching his health away, the fame and attention that the suit has reignited is throwing Tony's life into chaos, the world is getting bigger and more dangerous than he can control, and the role of "Iron Man" has painted a technological and criminal target on his back. The suit is killing him, but he doesn't understand why. He thinks its just a problem to fix (which, with his father's help, he does fix the issue with the Arc Reactor), but he still feels that he needs the suit. He calls it a "high tech prosthesis," and that's exactly what it is. At the end of the movie, when Fury debriefs Stark, Natasha's reports says that Tony should not be recruited, but Iron Man should be. This shocks Stark, because he doesn't think of himself separately from the suit. The suit is him, that's why he's Iron Man, right?
The Avengers hints at this as well, in the exchange between Stark and Captain America. Steve says "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that off, what are you?" Tony give a snappy reply, but doesn't really even seriously consider that question before now. Think back to Iron Man 1 - the slideshow that is shown before Rhodey presents Tony's award to Obediah. This montage of Tony's accomplishments and abilities is like the introduction to a super hero. We were shown how extraordinary Tony is before the suit is even a thought in his mind.
When Iron Man 3 comes out, we see Tony more dependent on the suit than ever before. It has literally become a prosthesis, he depends on it for security. He develops panic attacks after the battle of New York, and we really see how dependent he has become in two seemingly small scenes that are some of the smartest in the movie: first, when he bolts out of dinner with Rhodey and has to get into the suit because of his panic attack. He literally needed the suit to feel like he wouldn't die. Second, the scene where he is driving and the kid tells him that the suit doesn't seem to be charging. He slams the breaks, and this news alone is almost enough to send him into another panic attack. Until the kid tells him to build something. He spends a lot of the rest of the movie without the suit, relying only on his own ingenuity and determination to carry him through.
At the end of Iron Man 3, says that the truth is "I am Iron Man." But he also says that he realizes now that the suit was a cocoon, it was a crutch. It didn't make him Iron Man, it actually held him back from realizing that he was *always* Iron Man. Extremis would be cool, but it seems to me that the clear theme being developed is that the suit doesn't make him Iron Man, he makes himself Iron Man. He created the suit, but then became obsessed with it, dependent on it. It was a parasite that drained his ingenuity and innovation. He had to destroy all his suits and start over, because now he's been reforged and realizes that he is the hero. He doesn't think of himself as having an alter-ego anymore, he knows that he has always been Iron Man, he just needed the right stimulus to develop into the persona.
I feel like having it just be a nod to a new suit that is part of him would be taking a step backwards from that. It may be the case that he gets Extremis armor, but it would be even more interesting to see what he can come up with now that he no longer even feels hindered by the concept of armor, no longer feels like just a man in a suit. He's back to where he started - an inventor, the man who we saw the slideshow of accomplishments for - but with a new focus. What wonders will this Iron Man be able to accomplish now that he isn't just tinkering with Mark 43? Now that he is free from captivity, free from the prison that he made for himself when he escaped from the Ten Rings. Now that the limits of the Iron Man suit are gone, and its just Tony, just the persona of this mechanic. What can he accomplish?
TL;DR: Iron Man isn't a suit, even Extremis. It's Tony, and it's always been Tony. Sacrificing his suits was the necessary catalyst to free him from the limitations of his dependency on them. | That's definitely an interesting storyline to explore, but I always thought that the end to IM3 was more thematically significant than just a plot development. His statement "I am Iron Man" shows how his character has changed and how his perception of who he is is broader than what it was in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. In the first film, Iron Man is his alter ego - it's the suit, its this 'super hero' that he has to put on. It takes him four movies to realize that, in escaping from the Ten Rings, he built himself a new prison every bit as limiting as the one he was held in. Just as his handicap became his means of escape (the arc reactor), his means of escape became his handicap itself (the Iron Man Armor). He wants to be Iron Man, at the end of the film he tells the world that he is, but he's talking about the suit - he's saying "I was the one in there, that's why I am Iron Man." He's saying that the suit makes him Iron Man. But it doesn't.
In Iron Man 2, the suit has become a parasite in more ways that one - the arc reactor is leeching his health away, the fame and attention that the suit has reignited is throwing Tony's life into chaos, the world is getting bigger and more dangerous than he can control, and the role of "Iron Man" has painted a technological and criminal target on his back. The suit is killing him, but he doesn't understand why. He thinks its just a problem to fix (which, with his father's help, he does fix the issue with the Arc Reactor), but he still feels that he needs the suit. He calls it a "high tech prosthesis," and that's exactly what it is. At the end of the movie, when Fury debriefs Stark, Natasha's reports says that Tony should not be recruited, but Iron Man should be. This shocks Stark, because he doesn't think of himself separately from the suit. The suit is him, that's why he's Iron Man, right?
The Avengers hints at this as well, in the exchange between Stark and Captain America. Steve says "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that off, what are you?" Tony give a snappy reply, but doesn't really even seriously consider that question before now. Think back to Iron Man 1 - the slideshow that is shown before Rhodey presents Tony's award to Obediah. This montage of Tony's accomplishments and abilities is like the introduction to a super hero. We were shown how extraordinary Tony is before the suit is even a thought in his mind.
When Iron Man 3 comes out, we see Tony more dependent on the suit than ever before. It has literally become a prosthesis, he depends on it for security. He develops panic attacks after the battle of New York, and we really see how dependent he has become in two seemingly small scenes that are some of the smartest in the movie: first, when he bolts out of dinner with Rhodey and has to get into the suit because of his panic attack. He literally needed the suit to feel like he wouldn't die. Second, the scene where he is driving and the kid tells him that the suit doesn't seem to be charging. He slams the breaks, and this news alone is almost enough to send him into another panic attack. Until the kid tells him to build something. He spends a lot of the rest of the movie without the suit, relying only on his own ingenuity and determination to carry him through.
At the end of Iron Man 3, says that the truth is "I am Iron Man." But he also says that he realizes now that the suit was a cocoon, it was a crutch. It didn't make him Iron Man, it actually held him back from realizing that he was always Iron Man. Extremis would be cool, but it seems to me that the clear theme being developed is that the suit doesn't make him Iron Man, he makes himself Iron Man. He created the suit, but then became obsessed with it, dependent on it. It was a parasite that drained his ingenuity and innovation. He had to destroy all his suits and start over, because now he's been reforged and realizes that he is the hero. He doesn't think of himself as having an alter-ego anymore, he knows that he has always been Iron Man, he just needed the right stimulus to develop into the persona.
I feel like having it just be a nod to a new suit that is part of him would be taking a step backwards from that. It may be the case that he gets Extremis armor, but it would be even more interesting to see what he can come up with now that he no longer even feels hindered by the concept of armor, no longer feels like just a man in a suit. He's back to where he started - an inventor, the man who we saw the slideshow of accomplishments for - but with a new focus. What wonders will this Iron Man be able to accomplish now that he isn't just tinkering with Mark 43? Now that he is free from captivity, free from the prison that he made for himself when he escaped from the Ten Rings. Now that the limits of the Iron Man suit are gone, and its just Tony, just the persona of this mechanic. What can he accomplish?
TL;DR: Iron Man isn't a suit, even Extremis. It's Tony, and it's always been Tony. Sacrificing his suits was the necessary catalyst to free him from the limitations of his dependency on them.
| FanTheories | t5_2u6rc | cjifs5v | That's definitely an interesting storyline to explore, but I always thought that the end to IM3 was more thematically significant than just a plot development. His statement "I am Iron Man" shows how his character has changed and how his perception of who he is is broader than what it was in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. In the first film, Iron Man is his alter ego - it's the suit, its this 'super hero' that he has to put on. It takes him four movies to realize that, in escaping from the Ten Rings, he built himself a new prison every bit as limiting as the one he was held in. Just as his handicap became his means of escape (the arc reactor), his means of escape became his handicap itself (the Iron Man Armor). He wants to be Iron Man, at the end of the film he tells the world that he is, but he's talking about the suit - he's saying "I was the one in there, that's why I am Iron Man." He's saying that the suit makes him Iron Man. But it doesn't.
In Iron Man 2, the suit has become a parasite in more ways that one - the arc reactor is leeching his health away, the fame and attention that the suit has reignited is throwing Tony's life into chaos, the world is getting bigger and more dangerous than he can control, and the role of "Iron Man" has painted a technological and criminal target on his back. The suit is killing him, but he doesn't understand why. He thinks its just a problem to fix (which, with his father's help, he does fix the issue with the Arc Reactor), but he still feels that he needs the suit. He calls it a "high tech prosthesis," and that's exactly what it is. At the end of the movie, when Fury debriefs Stark, Natasha's reports says that Tony should not be recruited, but Iron Man should be. This shocks Stark, because he doesn't think of himself separately from the suit. The suit is him, that's why he's Iron Man, right?
The Avengers hints at this as well, in the exchange between Stark and Captain America. Steve says "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that off, what are you?" Tony give a snappy reply, but doesn't really even seriously consider that question before now. Think back to Iron Man 1 - the slideshow that is shown before Rhodey presents Tony's award to Obediah. This montage of Tony's accomplishments and abilities is like the introduction to a super hero. We were shown how extraordinary Tony is before the suit is even a thought in his mind.
When Iron Man 3 comes out, we see Tony more dependent on the suit than ever before. It has literally become a prosthesis, he depends on it for security. He develops panic attacks after the battle of New York, and we really see how dependent he has become in two seemingly small scenes that are some of the smartest in the movie: first, when he bolts out of dinner with Rhodey and has to get into the suit because of his panic attack. He literally needed the suit to feel like he wouldn't die. Second, the scene where he is driving and the kid tells him that the suit doesn't seem to be charging. He slams the breaks, and this news alone is almost enough to send him into another panic attack. Until the kid tells him to build something. He spends a lot of the rest of the movie without the suit, relying only on his own ingenuity and determination to carry him through.
At the end of Iron Man 3, says that the truth is "I am Iron Man." But he also says that he realizes now that the suit was a cocoon, it was a crutch. It didn't make him Iron Man, it actually held him back from realizing that he was always Iron Man. Extremis would be cool, but it seems to me that the clear theme being developed is that the suit doesn't make him Iron Man, he makes himself Iron Man. He created the suit, but then became obsessed with it, dependent on it. It was a parasite that drained his ingenuity and innovation. He had to destroy all his suits and start over, because now he's been reforged and realizes that he is the hero. He doesn't think of himself as having an alter-ego anymore, he knows that he has always been Iron Man, he just needed the right stimulus to develop into the persona.
I feel like having it just be a nod to a new suit that is part of him would be taking a step backwards from that. It may be the case that he gets Extremis armor, but it would be even more interesting to see what he can come up with now that he no longer even feels hindered by the concept of armor, no longer feels like just a man in a suit. He's back to where he started - an inventor, the man who we saw the slideshow of accomplishments for - but with a new focus. What wonders will this Iron Man be able to accomplish now that he isn't just tinkering with Mark 43? Now that he is free from captivity, free from the prison that he made for himself when he escaped from the Ten Rings. Now that the limits of the Iron Man suit are gone, and its just Tony, just the persona of this mechanic. What can he accomplish? | Iron Man isn't a suit, even Extremis. It's Tony, and it's always been Tony. Sacrificing his suits was the necessary catalyst to free him from the limitations of his dependency on them. |
adamcharming | He does try to engineer around that though. In Captain America 2 he redesigns the Hellecarriers. I seriously doubt that it was only the propulsion system he re-engineered i suspect he tried to fix a lot more than that. In the final scene when the carriers are starting to crash they take ages. In Avengers it takes all of 2 seconds for them to fall several hundred feet, with 3 engines online. Three are out on the IN-3 Carrier and it takes about the same time.
TLDR; Tony Stark tried to help shield in the best capacity he could in redesigning the Hellecarriers.
Prediction: He'll create Ultron to help shield with missions and crime prevention. (Similar to the Mandroid program Hammer Industries attempted AND also the crime prediction software of Cap 2)
| He does try to engineer around that though. In Captain America 2 he redesigns the Hellecarriers. I seriously doubt that it was only the propulsion system he re-engineered i suspect he tried to fix a lot more than that. In the final scene when the carriers are starting to crash they take ages. In Avengers it takes all of 2 seconds for them to fall several hundred feet, with 3 engines online. Three are out on the IN-3 Carrier and it takes about the same time.
TLDR; Tony Stark tried to help shield in the best capacity he could in redesigning the Hellecarriers.
Prediction: He'll create Ultron to help shield with missions and crime prevention. (Similar to the Mandroid program Hammer Industries attempted AND also the crime prediction software of Cap 2)
| FanTheories | t5_2u6rc | cjycsml | He does try to engineer around that though. In Captain America 2 he redesigns the Hellecarriers. I seriously doubt that it was only the propulsion system he re-engineered i suspect he tried to fix a lot more than that. In the final scene when the carriers are starting to crash they take ages. In Avengers it takes all of 2 seconds for them to fall several hundred feet, with 3 engines online. Three are out on the IN-3 Carrier and it takes about the same time. | Tony Stark tried to help shield in the best capacity he could in redesigning the Hellecarriers.
Prediction: He'll create Ultron to help shield with missions and crime prevention. (Similar to the Mandroid program Hammer Industries attempted AND also the crime prediction software of Cap 2) |
scy1192 | Assuming you didn't do what that post is about and wipe out download mode...
Fastboot is perfectly safe and won't affect anything or even work on a stock LG G3. It might be useful down the road so I recommend keeping it.
What it is is basically ADB but for the bootloader; your LG G3 can't get into a mode that works with Fastboot without doing some modifications (which is what that main post is about).
tl;dr: it's perfectly safe and can't do anything with your phone regardless | Assuming you didn't do what that post is about and wipe out download mode...
Fastboot is perfectly safe and won't affect anything or even work on a stock LG G3. It might be useful down the road so I recommend keeping it.
What it is is basically ADB but for the bootloader; your LG G3 can't get into a mode that works with Fastboot without doing some modifications (which is what that main post is about).
tl;dr: it's perfectly safe and can't do anything with your phone regardless
| LGG3 | t5_2ypp1 | cji6tz3 | Assuming you didn't do what that post is about and wipe out download mode...
Fastboot is perfectly safe and won't affect anything or even work on a stock LG G3. It might be useful down the road so I recommend keeping it.
What it is is basically ADB but for the bootloader; your LG G3 can't get into a mode that works with Fastboot without doing some modifications (which is what that main post is about). | it's perfectly safe and can't do anything with your phone regardless |
yournoodle | My best friend killed herself the year earlier, a lot of our mutual friends did so too, or just stopped talking to me. I had already been self harming for five years.. And it was the first time living away from my parents. My "good friend" took advance of me twice (sex) by using my fear of disappointing people against me and just general coercion... I was living in an apartment I hated (I realised that if I killed myself, nobody would realise until my body started rotting...). I had called the help-line for this kind of thing and the lady who answered made fun of me for being a stupid little girl and being dramatic.
I felt isolated and alone, and I just gave up.
I took a lot of pills and slit my wrist. I woke up really confused about a day and a half later. There was vomit and blood all over my bed. I kept throwing up for another day - the throw up felt really painful and like pure bile. I've explained it as feeling like I was directly vomiting from my liver. I never went to the hospital. *Fun fact: Now I can't swallow any pills bigger than birth control, and when I HAVE to, I have to psych myself up and usually the psych-ing up ends in me vomiting.*
I was eighteen when that happened, I'm twenty one now. I cut the "good friend" out of my life, I moved away (from my hometown) and got anti-depressants. I stayed pretty sad/anxious for a couple more months, moved back to my hometown, and my newborn brother died. It was really sad, everyone was sad, I saw how sad everyone was and thought about the fact that I've been around much longer than the baby and the baby made everyone **very** sad so me dying - and dying of my own accord - would logically make everyone very **very** sad.
I also happened to meet my boyfriend while I was dealing with my newborn brother dying, and my self-realisation. I honestly think I only could come to that realisation because I was on anti-depressants. It allowed for me to think logically, instead of emotionally. Plus, I got a healthy support system (my boyfriend) which definitely helped. I'm still mentally ill, but I'm getting help for it in baby steps and I don't hurt myself any more.
**tl;dr - things happened, I checked out, survived.** | My best friend killed herself the year earlier, a lot of our mutual friends did so too, or just stopped talking to me. I had already been self harming for five years.. And it was the first time living away from my parents. My "good friend" took advance of me twice (sex) by using my fear of disappointing people against me and just general coercion... I was living in an apartment I hated (I realised that if I killed myself, nobody would realise until my body started rotting...). I had called the help-line for this kind of thing and the lady who answered made fun of me for being a stupid little girl and being dramatic.
I felt isolated and alone, and I just gave up.
I took a lot of pills and slit my wrist. I woke up really confused about a day and a half later. There was vomit and blood all over my bed. I kept throwing up for another day - the throw up felt really painful and like pure bile. I've explained it as feeling like I was directly vomiting from my liver. I never went to the hospital. Fun fact: Now I can't swallow any pills bigger than birth control, and when I HAVE to, I have to psych myself up and usually the psych-ing up ends in me vomiting.
I was eighteen when that happened, I'm twenty one now. I cut the "good friend" out of my life, I moved away (from my hometown) and got anti-depressants. I stayed pretty sad/anxious for a couple more months, moved back to my hometown, and my newborn brother died. It was really sad, everyone was sad, I saw how sad everyone was and thought about the fact that I've been around much longer than the baby and the baby made everyone very sad so me dying - and dying of my own accord - would logically make everyone very very sad.
I also happened to meet my boyfriend while I was dealing with my newborn brother dying, and my self-realisation. I honestly think I only could come to that realisation because I was on anti-depressants. It allowed for me to think logically, instead of emotionally. Plus, I got a healthy support system (my boyfriend) which definitely helped. I'm still mentally ill, but I'm getting help for it in baby steps and I don't hurt myself any more.
tl;dr - things happened, I checked out, survived.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cjihd1e | My best friend killed herself the year earlier, a lot of our mutual friends did so too, or just stopped talking to me. I had already been self harming for five years.. And it was the first time living away from my parents. My "good friend" took advance of me twice (sex) by using my fear of disappointing people against me and just general coercion... I was living in an apartment I hated (I realised that if I killed myself, nobody would realise until my body started rotting...). I had called the help-line for this kind of thing and the lady who answered made fun of me for being a stupid little girl and being dramatic.
I felt isolated and alone, and I just gave up.
I took a lot of pills and slit my wrist. I woke up really confused about a day and a half later. There was vomit and blood all over my bed. I kept throwing up for another day - the throw up felt really painful and like pure bile. I've explained it as feeling like I was directly vomiting from my liver. I never went to the hospital. Fun fact: Now I can't swallow any pills bigger than birth control, and when I HAVE to, I have to psych myself up and usually the psych-ing up ends in me vomiting.
I was eighteen when that happened, I'm twenty one now. I cut the "good friend" out of my life, I moved away (from my hometown) and got anti-depressants. I stayed pretty sad/anxious for a couple more months, moved back to my hometown, and my newborn brother died. It was really sad, everyone was sad, I saw how sad everyone was and thought about the fact that I've been around much longer than the baby and the baby made everyone very sad so me dying - and dying of my own accord - would logically make everyone very very sad.
I also happened to meet my boyfriend while I was dealing with my newborn brother dying, and my self-realisation. I honestly think I only could come to that realisation because I was on anti-depressants. It allowed for me to think logically, instead of emotionally. Plus, I got a healthy support system (my boyfriend) which definitely helped. I'm still mentally ill, but I'm getting help for it in baby steps and I don't hurt myself any more. | things happened, I checked out, survived. |
R4vendarksky | Relevant link:
I may get it so I can finally use my own control scheme but also play with console people. There hasn't been an official tetris game worth VSing on seriously since Tetris of japan shut down. (Tetris friends has random lag which makes it impossible to be consistent at high speed... no idea how some people do it).
It seems like you can heavily customise the controls to a fine level and not being web based means it is unlikely to be laggy.
Playing with console players + customisable controls will mean I shall definitely buy this. It remains to see if it will beat out Nullpomino for my Hardcore tetris fix or Tetrisfriends for when I come home drunk and just want to tspin suckas.
Edit: OH GOD! It looks like they are actually trying to make a competitive tetris scene AND listening to the community for development suggestions/feedback. I expect this to be awesome!
TL;DR: O.M.G! An official, non web based, no microtransactions, cross platform tetris game with a focus on customisation, competitive play and listening to the feedback of the tetris community? TAKE ALL OF MY MONIES.
| Relevant link:
I may get it so I can finally use my own control scheme but also play with console people. There hasn't been an official tetris game worth VSing on seriously since Tetris of japan shut down. (Tetris friends has random lag which makes it impossible to be consistent at high speed... no idea how some people do it).
It seems like you can heavily customise the controls to a fine level and not being web based means it is unlikely to be laggy.
Playing with console players + customisable controls will mean I shall definitely buy this. It remains to see if it will beat out Nullpomino for my Hardcore tetris fix or Tetrisfriends for when I come home drunk and just want to tspin suckas.
Edit: OH GOD! It looks like they are actually trying to make a competitive tetris scene AND listening to the community for development suggestions/feedback. I expect this to be awesome!
TL;DR: O.M.G! An official, non web based, no microtransactions, cross platform tetris game with a focus on customisation, competitive play and listening to the feedback of the tetris community? TAKE ALL OF MY MONIES.
| Tetris | t5_2r133 | cjihzod | Relevant link:
I may get it so I can finally use my own control scheme but also play with console people. There hasn't been an official tetris game worth VSing on seriously since Tetris of japan shut down. (Tetris friends has random lag which makes it impossible to be consistent at high speed... no idea how some people do it).
It seems like you can heavily customise the controls to a fine level and not being web based means it is unlikely to be laggy.
Playing with console players + customisable controls will mean I shall definitely buy this. It remains to see if it will beat out Nullpomino for my Hardcore tetris fix or Tetrisfriends for when I come home drunk and just want to tspin suckas.
Edit: OH GOD! It looks like they are actually trying to make a competitive tetris scene AND listening to the community for development suggestions/feedback. I expect this to be awesome! | O.M.G! An official, non web based, no microtransactions, cross platform tetris game with a focus on customisation, competitive play and listening to the feedback of the tetris community? TAKE ALL OF MY MONIES. |
cliffahead | finally i have a chance to recount my life!
background: CS 1.6 (post bhop version), 11 years ago IIRC. Singapore.
joined an online CS clan, played matches online, purely amateur; clan eventually expanded to have 10+ members, so we decided to meet for LAN sessions for better communication (this was before the time when VoIP was prevalent, communication in matches were confined to keybinds "say_team BLAH BLAH")
so, a LAN session is basically a place where we get to sit beside each other and play together. kinda like a gaming house, only we get charged by the hour.
Point 1: it's vastly different comparing [online play](at home) to [offline play](anywhere else) it could be the com specs, the chair, the temperature, humidity; heck it could be the way the moon tilts just slightly different compared to home - if you're planning to take this offline, just know that it'll be different.
so, we started training in LAN games. Printed out maps of dust2, cobble, dust, nuke, inferno etc. discussing strats and who should go where, diversion/decoy tactics. camping spots. all of 'em.
Point 2: depending on the maturity and level of communication of your players, this discussion can be frustrating or awesome. my group had an age gap of 4-5 years, so... it wasn't the best per say. but damn, it was fun. all the members had the same thought of improving in a competitive level, not just personal player skill, so i'd say that worked in my favour.
anyhow, i was in the 1st team of the clan, but after discussion with my clan leader, it was decided that i would head the 2nd team to coach them, basically everything from tactics to strats to member/conflict management. (Team 2 lacked a "leader" of sorts, and i had proven myself to the clan that i could be a good one.)
Point 3: leading a team is a thanksless job. of cos, by that statement, i'm assuming that most of your players are not pro-active. this means that you'll be in charge of organising everything. training times, strategies, tactics, research and trying out whatever you have planned, after-game reviews, etc. this might seem easy, but you have to remember, at the end of the day, you're getting a group of 5 people, with absolutely no obligation to sit through a "training camp", and subjecting them, to some extent, to do things that they might not wanna do.
protip: you mentioned that you're playing with close friends. can i assume that all of you stay near and is OK with training in LAN sessions? one thing i found out that really works in my experience, is to let the group play a match, and you're just standing behind, literally like a basketball coach. this allows you to look at all 5 players' screen and what they're doing. from this position, you can call plays, share info with them (ok player 1 has taken down 1 opponent at this location, what should you do next?), basically provide real-time coaching. i realise that this helped my team improve ALOT just over 1 match. They learnt the importance of real-time info sharing, calling out their plays, and ultimately listening to a central voice and not to question it (as brought up by other redditors in the thread)
TL:DR
1. there's a difference between playing in your home environment and anywhere else, and it will show.
2. maturity, level of committment should be understood among all players before you really take this seriously.
3. leading a team, prepare for shit and headaches.
4. coaching the team like a real sports in real-time helped me loads, might work for you. | finally i have a chance to recount my life!
background: CS 1.6 (post bhop version), 11 years ago IIRC. Singapore.
joined an online CS clan, played matches online, purely amateur; clan eventually expanded to have 10+ members, so we decided to meet for LAN sessions for better communication (this was before the time when VoIP was prevalent, communication in matches were confined to keybinds "say_team BLAH BLAH")
so, a LAN session is basically a place where we get to sit beside each other and play together. kinda like a gaming house, only we get charged by the hour.
Point 1: it's vastly different comparing online play to offline play it could be the com specs, the chair, the temperature, humidity; heck it could be the way the moon tilts just slightly different compared to home - if you're planning to take this offline, just know that it'll be different.
so, we started training in LAN games. Printed out maps of dust2, cobble, dust, nuke, inferno etc. discussing strats and who should go where, diversion/decoy tactics. camping spots. all of 'em.
Point 2: depending on the maturity and level of communication of your players, this discussion can be frustrating or awesome. my group had an age gap of 4-5 years, so... it wasn't the best per say. but damn, it was fun. all the members had the same thought of improving in a competitive level, not just personal player skill, so i'd say that worked in my favour.
anyhow, i was in the 1st team of the clan, but after discussion with my clan leader, it was decided that i would head the 2nd team to coach them, basically everything from tactics to strats to member/conflict management. (Team 2 lacked a "leader" of sorts, and i had proven myself to the clan that i could be a good one.)
Point 3: leading a team is a thanksless job. of cos, by that statement, i'm assuming that most of your players are not pro-active. this means that you'll be in charge of organising everything. training times, strategies, tactics, research and trying out whatever you have planned, after-game reviews, etc. this might seem easy, but you have to remember, at the end of the day, you're getting a group of 5 people, with absolutely no obligation to sit through a "training camp", and subjecting them, to some extent, to do things that they might not wanna do.
protip: you mentioned that you're playing with close friends. can i assume that all of you stay near and is OK with training in LAN sessions? one thing i found out that really works in my experience, is to let the group play a match, and you're just standing behind, literally like a basketball coach. this allows you to look at all 5 players' screen and what they're doing. from this position, you can call plays, share info with them (ok player 1 has taken down 1 opponent at this location, what should you do next?), basically provide real-time coaching. i realise that this helped my team improve ALOT just over 1 match. They learnt the importance of real-time info sharing, calling out their plays, and ultimately listening to a central voice and not to question it (as brought up by other redditors in the thread)
TL:DR
there's a difference between playing in your home environment and anywhere else, and it will show.
maturity, level of committment should be understood among all players before you really take this seriously.
leading a team, prepare for shit and headaches.
coaching the team like a real sports in real-time helped me loads, might work for you.
| GlobalOffensive | t5_2sqho | cjj3qwp | finally i have a chance to recount my life!
background: CS 1.6 (post bhop version), 11 years ago IIRC. Singapore.
joined an online CS clan, played matches online, purely amateur; clan eventually expanded to have 10+ members, so we decided to meet for LAN sessions for better communication (this was before the time when VoIP was prevalent, communication in matches were confined to keybinds "say_team BLAH BLAH")
so, a LAN session is basically a place where we get to sit beside each other and play together. kinda like a gaming house, only we get charged by the hour.
Point 1: it's vastly different comparing online play to offline play it could be the com specs, the chair, the temperature, humidity; heck it could be the way the moon tilts just slightly different compared to home - if you're planning to take this offline, just know that it'll be different.
so, we started training in LAN games. Printed out maps of dust2, cobble, dust, nuke, inferno etc. discussing strats and who should go where, diversion/decoy tactics. camping spots. all of 'em.
Point 2: depending on the maturity and level of communication of your players, this discussion can be frustrating or awesome. my group had an age gap of 4-5 years, so... it wasn't the best per say. but damn, it was fun. all the members had the same thought of improving in a competitive level, not just personal player skill, so i'd say that worked in my favour.
anyhow, i was in the 1st team of the clan, but after discussion with my clan leader, it was decided that i would head the 2nd team to coach them, basically everything from tactics to strats to member/conflict management. (Team 2 lacked a "leader" of sorts, and i had proven myself to the clan that i could be a good one.)
Point 3: leading a team is a thanksless job. of cos, by that statement, i'm assuming that most of your players are not pro-active. this means that you'll be in charge of organising everything. training times, strategies, tactics, research and trying out whatever you have planned, after-game reviews, etc. this might seem easy, but you have to remember, at the end of the day, you're getting a group of 5 people, with absolutely no obligation to sit through a "training camp", and subjecting them, to some extent, to do things that they might not wanna do.
protip: you mentioned that you're playing with close friends. can i assume that all of you stay near and is OK with training in LAN sessions? one thing i found out that really works in my experience, is to let the group play a match, and you're just standing behind, literally like a basketball coach. this allows you to look at all 5 players' screen and what they're doing. from this position, you can call plays, share info with them (ok player 1 has taken down 1 opponent at this location, what should you do next?), basically provide real-time coaching. i realise that this helped my team improve ALOT just over 1 match. They learnt the importance of real-time info sharing, calling out their plays, and ultimately listening to a central voice and not to question it (as brought up by other redditors in the thread) | there's a difference between playing in your home environment and anywhere else, and it will show.
maturity, level of committment should be understood among all players before you really take this seriously.
leading a team, prepare for shit and headaches.
coaching the team like a real sports in real-time helped me loads, might work for you. |
RamsesThePigeon | Let's pretend, for the moment, that you had dedicated your life to researching and hopefully finding a cure (or even just a more effective treatment) for a given disease. Although it's a noble calling, you still need money to fund your pursuit.
Further suppose that there was an allegedly helpful organization out there with the appearance of being willing to assist you with that financial issue. After all, they market themselves to the public as being concerned with nothing more than finding a cure.
Here's the problem, though: That organization doesn't *want* to find a cure. Their entire business model focuses on "raising awareness" for the disease by way of selling officially licensed merchandise (and blocking anyone else from using it, or even using *the color associated with it*) and holding pointless "walks" that trick people into thinking that they're doing something productive. The organization gives very, very little to actual research... and since their brand name is so ubiquitous, *your* little laboratory doesn't receive any kind of funding, because people keep giving the organization money (rather than the people who might actually put it to good use).
To make matters worse, this organization - when it *does* offer financial assistance - chooses what it wants to support via a set of questionable morals, speculated to be centered around how they can most effectively increase their standing in the public eye.
**TL;DR: The Susan G. Komen Foundation is a self-serving parasite that hinders actual breast cancer research and occasionally behaves like a copyright troll.** | Let's pretend, for the moment, that you had dedicated your life to researching and hopefully finding a cure (or even just a more effective treatment) for a given disease. Although it's a noble calling, you still need money to fund your pursuit.
Further suppose that there was an allegedly helpful organization out there with the appearance of being willing to assist you with that financial issue. After all, they market themselves to the public as being concerned with nothing more than finding a cure.
Here's the problem, though: That organization doesn't want to find a cure. Their entire business model focuses on "raising awareness" for the disease by way of selling officially licensed merchandise (and blocking anyone else from using it, or even using the color associated with it ) and holding pointless "walks" that trick people into thinking that they're doing something productive. The organization gives very, very little to actual research... and since their brand name is so ubiquitous, your little laboratory doesn't receive any kind of funding, because people keep giving the organization money (rather than the people who might actually put it to good use).
To make matters worse, this organization - when it does offer financial assistance - chooses what it wants to support via a set of questionable morals, speculated to be centered around how they can most effectively increase their standing in the public eye.
TL;DR: The Susan G. Komen Foundation is a self-serving parasite that hinders actual breast cancer research and occasionally behaves like a copyright troll.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cjinu9f | Let's pretend, for the moment, that you had dedicated your life to researching and hopefully finding a cure (or even just a more effective treatment) for a given disease. Although it's a noble calling, you still need money to fund your pursuit.
Further suppose that there was an allegedly helpful organization out there with the appearance of being willing to assist you with that financial issue. After all, they market themselves to the public as being concerned with nothing more than finding a cure.
Here's the problem, though: That organization doesn't want to find a cure. Their entire business model focuses on "raising awareness" for the disease by way of selling officially licensed merchandise (and blocking anyone else from using it, or even using the color associated with it ) and holding pointless "walks" that trick people into thinking that they're doing something productive. The organization gives very, very little to actual research... and since their brand name is so ubiquitous, your little laboratory doesn't receive any kind of funding, because people keep giving the organization money (rather than the people who might actually put it to good use).
To make matters worse, this organization - when it does offer financial assistance - chooses what it wants to support via a set of questionable morals, speculated to be centered around how they can most effectively increase their standing in the public eye. | The Susan G. Komen Foundation is a self-serving parasite that hinders actual breast cancer research and occasionally behaves like a copyright troll. |
TheGreatGabeN | An r9 290 at stock speeds gets an average of (at 1440p, ultra settings):
* Battlefield 4: 45 fps
* Bioshock Infinite: 59 fps
* Metro Last Light: 48 fps
* Rome 2: 40 fps (its more cpu intensive though)
* Hitman Absolution: 74 fps
* Grid 2: 80 fps
TL;DR: Yes, it is more than OK | An r9 290 at stock speeds gets an average of (at 1440p, ultra settings):
Battlefield 4: 45 fps
Bioshock Infinite: 59 fps
Metro Last Light: 48 fps
Rome 2: 40 fps (its more cpu intensive though)
Hitman Absolution: 74 fps
Grid 2: 80 fps
TL;DR: Yes, it is more than OK
| buildapc | t5_2rnve | cjiu35d | An r9 290 at stock speeds gets an average of (at 1440p, ultra settings):
Battlefield 4: 45 fps
Bioshock Infinite: 59 fps
Metro Last Light: 48 fps
Rome 2: 40 fps (its more cpu intensive though)
Hitman Absolution: 74 fps
Grid 2: 80 fps | Yes, it is more than OK |
p2p_editor | AFAIK, it's not the *building* of the wells that's a problem. It's maintenance.
Churches, aid organizations, et cetera, will swoop into these villages. They'll put on their humanitarian white-guy savior hats, dig a well, collect the accolades of the villagers, feel good about themselves, and leave.
Along the way, they will put no thought into how this well is going to fit into the structure of the village as a whole, who's going to be responsible for it, who's going to fix it when it breaks, where that person is going to get the training to fix it or spare parts, et cetera.
So for a little while, the village has water but then not, until the next aid organization swoops in to repeat this performance all over again. Usually in complete ignorance that there had ever been a well there in the first place. Sometimes villages end up with several eventually-defunct wells, and still no sustainable, reliable water source.
[Related video](
TL;DR: aid organizations can be short sighted, and end up solving the wrong problems, leading to only short-term benefit for the people they're trying to help. | AFAIK, it's not the building of the wells that's a problem. It's maintenance.
Churches, aid organizations, et cetera, will swoop into these villages. They'll put on their humanitarian white-guy savior hats, dig a well, collect the accolades of the villagers, feel good about themselves, and leave.
Along the way, they will put no thought into how this well is going to fit into the structure of the village as a whole, who's going to be responsible for it, who's going to fix it when it breaks, where that person is going to get the training to fix it or spare parts, et cetera.
So for a little while, the village has water but then not, until the next aid organization swoops in to repeat this performance all over again. Usually in complete ignorance that there had ever been a well there in the first place. Sometimes villages end up with several eventually-defunct wells, and still no sustainable, reliable water source.
[Related video](
TL;DR: aid organizations can be short sighted, and end up solving the wrong problems, leading to only short-term benefit for the people they're trying to help.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cjixeqw | AFAIK, it's not the building of the wells that's a problem. It's maintenance.
Churches, aid organizations, et cetera, will swoop into these villages. They'll put on their humanitarian white-guy savior hats, dig a well, collect the accolades of the villagers, feel good about themselves, and leave.
Along the way, they will put no thought into how this well is going to fit into the structure of the village as a whole, who's going to be responsible for it, who's going to fix it when it breaks, where that person is going to get the training to fix it or spare parts, et cetera.
So for a little while, the village has water but then not, until the next aid organization swoops in to repeat this performance all over again. Usually in complete ignorance that there had ever been a well there in the first place. Sometimes villages end up with several eventually-defunct wells, and still no sustainable, reliable water source.
[Related video]( | aid organizations can be short sighted, and end up solving the wrong problems, leading to only short-term benefit for the people they're trying to help. |
kuvter | Reminds me or /r/Ultralight; they love merino wool over there.
Most all my clothes are from the thrift store, many free from volunteering there too, and when they rip, break, or get paint on them I don't care, because I can get another for $4. Plus the new clothes add variety. The price tag of this stuff is what's holding me back from getting it. I'm slowly working towards this though.
I think I'm ready to try something new again. Last time I did this I got some merino wool socks and I love them. I started with 4 pairs of heavy socks and now I have 2 pairs of heavy (gave 2 away) and 4 pairs of light Smart Wool Merino Wool socks. Please name one thing you think I should get next; what's the most loved and used, besides socks?
**TL:DR** If I could only afford one piece of what you have, what would you get? | Reminds me or /r/Ultralight; they love merino wool over there.
Most all my clothes are from the thrift store, many free from volunteering there too, and when they rip, break, or get paint on them I don't care, because I can get another for $4. Plus the new clothes add variety. The price tag of this stuff is what's holding me back from getting it. I'm slowly working towards this though.
I think I'm ready to try something new again. Last time I did this I got some merino wool socks and I love them. I started with 4 pairs of heavy socks and now I have 2 pairs of heavy (gave 2 away) and 4 pairs of light Smart Wool Merino Wool socks. Please name one thing you think I should get next; what's the most loved and used, besides socks?
TL:DR If I could only afford one piece of what you have, what would you get?
| simpleliving | t5_2r0za | cjj7drk | Reminds me or /r/Ultralight; they love merino wool over there.
Most all my clothes are from the thrift store, many free from volunteering there too, and when they rip, break, or get paint on them I don't care, because I can get another for $4. Plus the new clothes add variety. The price tag of this stuff is what's holding me back from getting it. I'm slowly working towards this though.
I think I'm ready to try something new again. Last time I did this I got some merino wool socks and I love them. I started with 4 pairs of heavy socks and now I have 2 pairs of heavy (gave 2 away) and 4 pairs of light Smart Wool Merino Wool socks. Please name one thing you think I should get next; what's the most loved and used, besides socks? | If I could only afford one piece of what you have, what would you get? |
MCRemedial | I can't believe you are the only one in this thread saying this. Whilst I agree that there should be equality and people should be able to represent their religious beliefs freely. People should also be respectful and not abuse a system, as that can be more detrimental towards a fight for equality than helpful. There are other ways to raise awareness of these issues.
TLDR; thanks for bringing a balanced opinion to this thread | I can't believe you are the only one in this thread saying this. Whilst I agree that there should be equality and people should be able to represent their religious beliefs freely. People should also be respectful and not abuse a system, as that can be more detrimental towards a fight for equality than helpful. There are other ways to raise awareness of these issues.
TLDR; thanks for bringing a balanced opinion to this thread
| atheism | t5_2qh2p | cjjdhr0 | I can't believe you are the only one in this thread saying this. Whilst I agree that there should be equality and people should be able to represent their religious beliefs freely. People should also be respectful and not abuse a system, as that can be more detrimental towards a fight for equality than helpful. There are other ways to raise awareness of these issues. | thanks for bringing a balanced opinion to this thread |
Dented | I get the point you are making, but I still think it's insencitive. For some of us, the bombing of Nagasaki is a piece of history that happened a lifetime away. Though I don't have a personal connection to 9/11 other than it happened in my place of birth, I don't take offense, but I also don't think it's funny at all. It's honestly just cringeworthy for me to watch, and to imagine that someone thought that it'd be funny to use.
EDIT: TL;DR - I'm not going to get up in arms about it, but it's not funny. It's just a real bummer. | I get the point you are making, but I still think it's insencitive. For some of us, the bombing of Nagasaki is a piece of history that happened a lifetime away. Though I don't have a personal connection to 9/11 other than it happened in my place of birth, I don't take offense, but I also don't think it's funny at all. It's honestly just cringeworthy for me to watch, and to imagine that someone thought that it'd be funny to use.
EDIT: TL;DR - I'm not going to get up in arms about it, but it's not funny. It's just a real bummer.
| combinedgifs | t5_2viuz | cjk2smt | I get the point you are making, but I still think it's insencitive. For some of us, the bombing of Nagasaki is a piece of history that happened a lifetime away. Though I don't have a personal connection to 9/11 other than it happened in my place of birth, I don't take offense, but I also don't think it's funny at all. It's honestly just cringeworthy for me to watch, and to imagine that someone thought that it'd be funny to use.
EDIT: | I'm not going to get up in arms about it, but it's not funny. It's just a real bummer. |
MasterGrok | These kinds of studies control for potential confounds like the crime rates of the places people live in. Moreover, people WITHOUT guns are compared to the people with guns in those areas. That is the way this kind of analysis works.
TLDR: we can control for that and we do. After controlling for that we see that owning a gun makes you less safe overall. | These kinds of studies control for potential confounds like the crime rates of the places people live in. Moreover, people WITHOUT guns are compared to the people with guns in those areas. That is the way this kind of analysis works.
TLDR: we can control for that and we do. After controlling for that we see that owning a gun makes you less safe overall.
| skeptic | t5_2qj8f | cjn6reo | These kinds of studies control for potential confounds like the crime rates of the places people live in. Moreover, people WITHOUT guns are compared to the people with guns in those areas. That is the way this kind of analysis works. | we can control for that and we do. After controlling for that we see that owning a gun makes you less safe overall. |
giact | As a non-American, I have never understood the (seemingly arbitrary) fixation many Americans have with wanting to carry guns but not less technological or more technological weapons.
It's as if their "desire for the right to carry weapon" is frozen at a certain point in history.
TL;DR: why not swords? or crossbows? or rockets? or mini drones shooting poisonous darts? | As a non-American, I have never understood the (seemingly arbitrary) fixation many Americans have with wanting to carry guns but not less technological or more technological weapons.
It's as if their "desire for the right to carry weapon" is frozen at a certain point in history.
TL;DR: why not swords? or crossbows? or rockets? or mini drones shooting poisonous darts?
| skeptic | t5_2qj8f | cjjslsj | As a non-American, I have never understood the (seemingly arbitrary) fixation many Americans have with wanting to carry guns but not less technological or more technological weapons.
It's as if their "desire for the right to carry weapon" is frozen at a certain point in history. | why not swords? or crossbows? or rockets? or mini drones shooting poisonous darts? |
whereisthecake | Since the others have addressed the more "historical" perspectives, I'll throw in my hat on what I consider the practical perspective - self defense.
What do you want in a good self-defense weapon? It should be effective against a threatening opponent, easy to carry and operate, and minimize the risk to the carrier. A reduced risk of harm to passersby would also be nice.
Now let's consider your suggested alternatives:
Sword - Swords are cumbersome to carry, particularly in the modern world. They're often heavy, and don't fit well in places we frequent, like cars. Swords are short range weapons - you can't really use one until an opponent is within a few feet. True, a sword can probably be effective against an opponent, but that's going to be a function of your training and physical ability. It's unlikely that an elderly man in a wheelchair will be able to do much with a sword when confronted with a younger, physically fit opponent. Further, swordsmanship is a skill that requires considerable time to acquire and maintain, and even then you're likely to be injured in a fight using a sword. Lastly, consider this - would you bring a sword to a gunfight?
Crossbows - Crossbows fix some of the problems of the sword. After all, you can now engage a threat at a distance. However, crossbos tend to be much heavier than swords (pistol-style crossbows excluded). They have more mobility, and a lower training and skill threshold; however, you still need a certain amount of strength to load a bolt. The other major limitation of the crossbow (in any form) is that it takes time to load bolts. Storing a crossbow in a "ready to fire" state is a great way to break a crossbow. So, when faced with a threat, you must stop to load before you can defend yourself. If you miss, if your shot doesn't incapacitate the opponent, or if you have multiple attackers, you must reload for each shot. This is a significant limitation.
Rockets - This is broad category, so I'll assume you're talking about some sort of RPG-type weapon. First, the pros - if your threat can take an RPG hit and keep coming, then you should probably just give up. RPG's are meant to be used at range, which is good; however if the opponent is standing ten feet away then an RPG is suicide. As with the crossbow, you have to load between shots, which is a potential problem. If you happen to be Iron Man and have semi-automatic wrist rockets, then I guess you can overlook that issue. However, you still have to recognize the problem of collateral damage - whether or not you hit your opponent, you're going to cause significant damage to your nearby surroundings and threaten the welfare of everyone in the area - much more so than the risk of harm that comes with a rifle, pistol, crossbow, or sword.
Mini Drones Shooting Poisonous Darts - Again, I must make some assumptions. I'll assume that this drone is artificially intelligent and can determine whether or not a target is a threat without me telling it so, and is similarly programmed to have fantastic accuracy against multiple targets. We'll also assume that it has some sort of infinite power source, so that we don't need to worry about things like battery charges. We'll even give it movie-tastic night and thermal vision, so that it can always see what's happening. Even with all of this, there are major drawbacks. Poison darts are unlikely to stop an opponent immediately. Depending on where the opponent is hit and the poison in question, we could be talking minutes, hours, or days. While it may be assuring to know that the person assaulting you will eventually die, it's not going to help you in the moment. Aside from that, I honestly don't have any complaints here.
Phasers (ala Star Trek) - Ok, you didn't suggest this and it's not an option right now, but why not. Let's say that you and I release phasers (set to stun, of course), which are 100% effective at nonlethally incapactitating any opponent, operate on a "semi-automatic" capacity, and are lightweight and easy to use. This would fit the criteria quite well, and I'm quite certain that you'd have a very vocal group supporting the right to own and use it. In fact, sign me up.
...
So, why guns? Guns are easy to carry, effective against most threats, and can be used effectively regardless of an individual's level of physical strength or mobility. Modern semi-automatic weapons can be used quickly against multiple opponents at close and medium ranges, and only pose a threat to the area immediately behind the target. Short of stupidity (which does happen), the risk of unintentional harm when using a gun is relatively low.
----
All that aside, I think you've oversimplified your characterisation of modern guns and the goals of carry movements. Guns have changed over time - we're not talking about the right to carry flintlock pistols. The carry movements also have pushed for rights regarding non-firearms - in particular, the right to carry knives, batons, and various nonlethals are often part of the "right to carry a weapon" legislation. They don't get the press guns do, but they're definitely regulated.
TL:DR - Rockets are messy, but phasers are cool. | Since the others have addressed the more "historical" perspectives, I'll throw in my hat on what I consider the practical perspective - self defense.
What do you want in a good self-defense weapon? It should be effective against a threatening opponent, easy to carry and operate, and minimize the risk to the carrier. A reduced risk of harm to passersby would also be nice.
Now let's consider your suggested alternatives:
Sword - Swords are cumbersome to carry, particularly in the modern world. They're often heavy, and don't fit well in places we frequent, like cars. Swords are short range weapons - you can't really use one until an opponent is within a few feet. True, a sword can probably be effective against an opponent, but that's going to be a function of your training and physical ability. It's unlikely that an elderly man in a wheelchair will be able to do much with a sword when confronted with a younger, physically fit opponent. Further, swordsmanship is a skill that requires considerable time to acquire and maintain, and even then you're likely to be injured in a fight using a sword. Lastly, consider this - would you bring a sword to a gunfight?
Crossbows - Crossbows fix some of the problems of the sword. After all, you can now engage a threat at a distance. However, crossbos tend to be much heavier than swords (pistol-style crossbows excluded). They have more mobility, and a lower training and skill threshold; however, you still need a certain amount of strength to load a bolt. The other major limitation of the crossbow (in any form) is that it takes time to load bolts. Storing a crossbow in a "ready to fire" state is a great way to break a crossbow. So, when faced with a threat, you must stop to load before you can defend yourself. If you miss, if your shot doesn't incapacitate the opponent, or if you have multiple attackers, you must reload for each shot. This is a significant limitation.
Rockets - This is broad category, so I'll assume you're talking about some sort of RPG-type weapon. First, the pros - if your threat can take an RPG hit and keep coming, then you should probably just give up. RPG's are meant to be used at range, which is good; however if the opponent is standing ten feet away then an RPG is suicide. As with the crossbow, you have to load between shots, which is a potential problem. If you happen to be Iron Man and have semi-automatic wrist rockets, then I guess you can overlook that issue. However, you still have to recognize the problem of collateral damage - whether or not you hit your opponent, you're going to cause significant damage to your nearby surroundings and threaten the welfare of everyone in the area - much more so than the risk of harm that comes with a rifle, pistol, crossbow, or sword.
Mini Drones Shooting Poisonous Darts - Again, I must make some assumptions. I'll assume that this drone is artificially intelligent and can determine whether or not a target is a threat without me telling it so, and is similarly programmed to have fantastic accuracy against multiple targets. We'll also assume that it has some sort of infinite power source, so that we don't need to worry about things like battery charges. We'll even give it movie-tastic night and thermal vision, so that it can always see what's happening. Even with all of this, there are major drawbacks. Poison darts are unlikely to stop an opponent immediately. Depending on where the opponent is hit and the poison in question, we could be talking minutes, hours, or days. While it may be assuring to know that the person assaulting you will eventually die, it's not going to help you in the moment. Aside from that, I honestly don't have any complaints here.
Phasers (ala Star Trek) - Ok, you didn't suggest this and it's not an option right now, but why not. Let's say that you and I release phasers (set to stun, of course), which are 100% effective at nonlethally incapactitating any opponent, operate on a "semi-automatic" capacity, and are lightweight and easy to use. This would fit the criteria quite well, and I'm quite certain that you'd have a very vocal group supporting the right to own and use it. In fact, sign me up.
...
So, why guns? Guns are easy to carry, effective against most threats, and can be used effectively regardless of an individual's level of physical strength or mobility. Modern semi-automatic weapons can be used quickly against multiple opponents at close and medium ranges, and only pose a threat to the area immediately behind the target. Short of stupidity (which does happen), the risk of unintentional harm when using a gun is relatively low.
All that aside, I think you've oversimplified your characterisation of modern guns and the goals of carry movements. Guns have changed over time - we're not talking about the right to carry flintlock pistols. The carry movements also have pushed for rights regarding non-firearms - in particular, the right to carry knives, batons, and various nonlethals are often part of the "right to carry a weapon" legislation. They don't get the press guns do, but they're definitely regulated.
TL:DR - Rockets are messy, but phasers are cool.
| skeptic | t5_2qj8f | cjjw9o5 | Since the others have addressed the more "historical" perspectives, I'll throw in my hat on what I consider the practical perspective - self defense.
What do you want in a good self-defense weapon? It should be effective against a threatening opponent, easy to carry and operate, and minimize the risk to the carrier. A reduced risk of harm to passersby would also be nice.
Now let's consider your suggested alternatives:
Sword - Swords are cumbersome to carry, particularly in the modern world. They're often heavy, and don't fit well in places we frequent, like cars. Swords are short range weapons - you can't really use one until an opponent is within a few feet. True, a sword can probably be effective against an opponent, but that's going to be a function of your training and physical ability. It's unlikely that an elderly man in a wheelchair will be able to do much with a sword when confronted with a younger, physically fit opponent. Further, swordsmanship is a skill that requires considerable time to acquire and maintain, and even then you're likely to be injured in a fight using a sword. Lastly, consider this - would you bring a sword to a gunfight?
Crossbows - Crossbows fix some of the problems of the sword. After all, you can now engage a threat at a distance. However, crossbos tend to be much heavier than swords (pistol-style crossbows excluded). They have more mobility, and a lower training and skill threshold; however, you still need a certain amount of strength to load a bolt. The other major limitation of the crossbow (in any form) is that it takes time to load bolts. Storing a crossbow in a "ready to fire" state is a great way to break a crossbow. So, when faced with a threat, you must stop to load before you can defend yourself. If you miss, if your shot doesn't incapacitate the opponent, or if you have multiple attackers, you must reload for each shot. This is a significant limitation.
Rockets - This is broad category, so I'll assume you're talking about some sort of RPG-type weapon. First, the pros - if your threat can take an RPG hit and keep coming, then you should probably just give up. RPG's are meant to be used at range, which is good; however if the opponent is standing ten feet away then an RPG is suicide. As with the crossbow, you have to load between shots, which is a potential problem. If you happen to be Iron Man and have semi-automatic wrist rockets, then I guess you can overlook that issue. However, you still have to recognize the problem of collateral damage - whether or not you hit your opponent, you're going to cause significant damage to your nearby surroundings and threaten the welfare of everyone in the area - much more so than the risk of harm that comes with a rifle, pistol, crossbow, or sword.
Mini Drones Shooting Poisonous Darts - Again, I must make some assumptions. I'll assume that this drone is artificially intelligent and can determine whether or not a target is a threat without me telling it so, and is similarly programmed to have fantastic accuracy against multiple targets. We'll also assume that it has some sort of infinite power source, so that we don't need to worry about things like battery charges. We'll even give it movie-tastic night and thermal vision, so that it can always see what's happening. Even with all of this, there are major drawbacks. Poison darts are unlikely to stop an opponent immediately. Depending on where the opponent is hit and the poison in question, we could be talking minutes, hours, or days. While it may be assuring to know that the person assaulting you will eventually die, it's not going to help you in the moment. Aside from that, I honestly don't have any complaints here.
Phasers (ala Star Trek) - Ok, you didn't suggest this and it's not an option right now, but why not. Let's say that you and I release phasers (set to stun, of course), which are 100% effective at nonlethally incapactitating any opponent, operate on a "semi-automatic" capacity, and are lightweight and easy to use. This would fit the criteria quite well, and I'm quite certain that you'd have a very vocal group supporting the right to own and use it. In fact, sign me up.
...
So, why guns? Guns are easy to carry, effective against most threats, and can be used effectively regardless of an individual's level of physical strength or mobility. Modern semi-automatic weapons can be used quickly against multiple opponents at close and medium ranges, and only pose a threat to the area immediately behind the target. Short of stupidity (which does happen), the risk of unintentional harm when using a gun is relatively low.
All that aside, I think you've oversimplified your characterisation of modern guns and the goals of carry movements. Guns have changed over time - we're not talking about the right to carry flintlock pistols. The carry movements also have pushed for rights regarding non-firearms - in particular, the right to carry knives, batons, and various nonlethals are often part of the "right to carry a weapon" legislation. They don't get the press guns do, but they're definitely regulated. | Rockets are messy, but phasers are cool. |
adrianmonk | I have a favorite one from the old (classic) Palm OS days.
For a long time, there were 3 or 4 fixed "system" sounds your app could play, and that was it. You may have been able to make beeps at various pitches too, but no sampled sound was supported.
Then along about Palm OS 4.0 or 5.0, support for sampled sound was introduced with the function SndPlayResource(). This meant you could play any arbitrary sound out of a WAV file. So, embed a WAV file in your app, and suddenly your app or game can have custom sound effects. Pretty awesome. Until you try to use it.
Looking more closely at the method signature, it's this:
Err SndPlayResource (SndPtr sound, Int32 ampScale, UInt32 flags)
`ampScale` is pretty straightforward: bigger numbers mean to play louder. `SndPtr` is straightforward, too: a pointer to an array of bytes that contain the WAV file. `flags` lets you choose between `sndFlagSync` and `sndFlagAsync`.
So let's examine the sync vs. async option first. The sync flag says the method should block until your entire sound has played. This is obviously the most straightforward approach. However, there's a problem: Palm OS did not allow multiple threads. The OS itself had the occasional background thread that mysteriously did things in the background, but user programs (i.e. apps) weren't allowed to create threads at all. So, you want to play a 2-second sound when the user presses a button? Hope you like your whole app freezing while the sound plays.
Well, I'm sure you don't, so now let's look at the async alternative. The [docs]( (see p. 884) say this causes "the function to return immediately while playback continues in a separate thread". Perfect! Just what we want.
But wait, the first argument is a `SndPtr`, the pointer to the raw bytes. I can allocate that array and put WAV-format data there, but how am I supposed to know when to free it? Obviously since Palm devices had *very* limited RAM (many of them in the range of 256K of heap), this function isn't going to be copying the audio data before it returns, so I'll need to keep those bytes allocated as long as the sound is playing. Otherwise, the system will be reading invalid memory that could be overwritten.
So the next step is to figure out how the OS tells you when the sound is finished playing so you can free the buffer then. After reading through the docs carefully, I concluded that the docs don't describe a way to do this.
Now, if you are familiar with Palm OS programming, you may say, "Well, the function *does* say 'Resource' in its name, so obviously you're intended to use resources." OK, fair point, so let's talk about resources. Palm allowed you to build "resources" into your app. Basically, they were blobs that were accessible by resource ids (essentially, a pair of integers) and a lot of functions (for example, the function to draw a bitmap) took resource ids as arguments, retrieved the blob themselves, and did whatever automatically.
But `SndPlayResource()` doesn't take a resource id as an argument. It takes a byte pointer. That means you're going to have to do two things:
* Call `DmGetResource()` with the resource id. This will give you a `MemHandle`. The docs say that as soon as you're done using the resource, you should call `DmReleaseResource()`.
* Now you have a `MemHandle`, since a handle isn't a pointer, you need to call `MemHandleLock()` to get the pointer. As you might expect, the docs also say that whenever you do this, you need to call `MemHandleUnlock()` when you're done with it.
This means when you want to include a WAV file in your app and play it in your app (without freezing the UI), you must go through the following steps:
* Include the WAV file into your app binary.
* Call `DmGetResource()` to get a `MemHandle`.
* Call `MemHandleLock()` to get a `MemPtr` (basically a void pointer).
* Pass that pointer to `SndPlayResource()`, along with the `sndFlagAsync` flag.
* *Magically know when the sound has finished playing.*
* Then call `MemHandleUnlock()` and `DmReleaseResource()`.
So, you may say, how about just parsing the WAV file and figuring out how many seconds the sound will play for, add 1 second, and then release the resource then? Hey, that's a great idea, but unfortunately *the only routine that is exposed that can parse a WAV file is `SndPlayResource()`*. So you'll have to roll your own WAV file parsing (or at least WAV file header parsing) and be confident it matches what the system does.
In the end, I think I talked this over with my co-workers and we decided the most practical solution was to just let `SndPlayResource()` occasionally crash (potentially taking down the whole system? or at least playing horrible noises) if it read from memory that was now unallocated. The second best idea I came up with was to have the code guess how long the sound must take to play based on the number of bytes in the WAV file, then wait that long to free the sound. This is actually sort of feasible since the docs say the lowest supported sample rate, bit depth, type of compression, etc., so that you could theoretically computer a reliable upper bound on how long the buffer will be in use. But to get this technically correct you need to sometimes refuse to exit the app while the timer expires. So we decided not to do that.
TL;DR: Palm OS `SndPlayResource()` has an async flag to play sounds in the background, but it's more or less impossible to ever use it correctly. If you don't use the async flag, the function is more or less worthless to have since it locks up the entire device while the sound plays. | I have a favorite one from the old (classic) Palm OS days.
For a long time, there were 3 or 4 fixed "system" sounds your app could play, and that was it. You may have been able to make beeps at various pitches too, but no sampled sound was supported.
Then along about Palm OS 4.0 or 5.0, support for sampled sound was introduced with the function SndPlayResource(). This meant you could play any arbitrary sound out of a WAV file. So, embed a WAV file in your app, and suddenly your app or game can have custom sound effects. Pretty awesome. Until you try to use it.
Looking more closely at the method signature, it's this:
Err SndPlayResource (SndPtr sound, Int32 ampScale, UInt32 flags)
ampScale is pretty straightforward: bigger numbers mean to play louder. SndPtr is straightforward, too: a pointer to an array of bytes that contain the WAV file. flags lets you choose between sndFlagSync and sndFlagAsync .
So let's examine the sync vs. async option first. The sync flag says the method should block until your entire sound has played. This is obviously the most straightforward approach. However, there's a problem: Palm OS did not allow multiple threads. The OS itself had the occasional background thread that mysteriously did things in the background, but user programs (i.e. apps) weren't allowed to create threads at all. So, you want to play a 2-second sound when the user presses a button? Hope you like your whole app freezing while the sound plays.
Well, I'm sure you don't, so now let's look at the async alternative. The docs say this causes "the function to return immediately while playback continues in a separate thread". Perfect! Just what we want.
But wait, the first argument is a SndPtr , the pointer to the raw bytes. I can allocate that array and put WAV-format data there, but how am I supposed to know when to free it? Obviously since Palm devices had very limited RAM (many of them in the range of 256K of heap), this function isn't going to be copying the audio data before it returns, so I'll need to keep those bytes allocated as long as the sound is playing. Otherwise, the system will be reading invalid memory that could be overwritten.
So the next step is to figure out how the OS tells you when the sound is finished playing so you can free the buffer then. After reading through the docs carefully, I concluded that the docs don't describe a way to do this.
Now, if you are familiar with Palm OS programming, you may say, "Well, the function does say 'Resource' in its name, so obviously you're intended to use resources." OK, fair point, so let's talk about resources. Palm allowed you to build "resources" into your app. Basically, they were blobs that were accessible by resource ids (essentially, a pair of integers) and a lot of functions (for example, the function to draw a bitmap) took resource ids as arguments, retrieved the blob themselves, and did whatever automatically.
But SndPlayResource() doesn't take a resource id as an argument. It takes a byte pointer. That means you're going to have to do two things:
Call DmGetResource() with the resource id. This will give you a MemHandle . The docs say that as soon as you're done using the resource, you should call DmReleaseResource() .
Now you have a MemHandle , since a handle isn't a pointer, you need to call MemHandleLock() to get the pointer. As you might expect, the docs also say that whenever you do this, you need to call MemHandleUnlock() when you're done with it.
This means when you want to include a WAV file in your app and play it in your app (without freezing the UI), you must go through the following steps:
Include the WAV file into your app binary.
Call DmGetResource() to get a MemHandle .
Call MemHandleLock() to get a MemPtr (basically a void pointer).
Pass that pointer to SndPlayResource() , along with the sndFlagAsync flag.
Magically know when the sound has finished playing.
Then call MemHandleUnlock() and DmReleaseResource() .
So, you may say, how about just parsing the WAV file and figuring out how many seconds the sound will play for, add 1 second, and then release the resource then? Hey, that's a great idea, but unfortunately the only routine that is exposed that can parse a WAV file is SndPlayResource() . So you'll have to roll your own WAV file parsing (or at least WAV file header parsing) and be confident it matches what the system does.
In the end, I think I talked this over with my co-workers and we decided the most practical solution was to just let SndPlayResource() occasionally crash (potentially taking down the whole system? or at least playing horrible noises) if it read from memory that was now unallocated. The second best idea I came up with was to have the code guess how long the sound must take to play based on the number of bytes in the WAV file, then wait that long to free the sound. This is actually sort of feasible since the docs say the lowest supported sample rate, bit depth, type of compression, etc., so that you could theoretically computer a reliable upper bound on how long the buffer will be in use. But to get this technically correct you need to sometimes refuse to exit the app while the timer expires. So we decided not to do that.
TL;DR: Palm OS SndPlayResource() has an async flag to play sounds in the background, but it's more or less impossible to ever use it correctly. If you don't use the async flag, the function is more or less worthless to have since it locks up the entire device while the sound plays.
| coding | t5_2rb2y | cjke7ha | I have a favorite one from the old (classic) Palm OS days.
For a long time, there were 3 or 4 fixed "system" sounds your app could play, and that was it. You may have been able to make beeps at various pitches too, but no sampled sound was supported.
Then along about Palm OS 4.0 or 5.0, support for sampled sound was introduced with the function SndPlayResource(). This meant you could play any arbitrary sound out of a WAV file. So, embed a WAV file in your app, and suddenly your app or game can have custom sound effects. Pretty awesome. Until you try to use it.
Looking more closely at the method signature, it's this:
Err SndPlayResource (SndPtr sound, Int32 ampScale, UInt32 flags)
ampScale is pretty straightforward: bigger numbers mean to play louder. SndPtr is straightforward, too: a pointer to an array of bytes that contain the WAV file. flags lets you choose between sndFlagSync and sndFlagAsync .
So let's examine the sync vs. async option first. The sync flag says the method should block until your entire sound has played. This is obviously the most straightforward approach. However, there's a problem: Palm OS did not allow multiple threads. The OS itself had the occasional background thread that mysteriously did things in the background, but user programs (i.e. apps) weren't allowed to create threads at all. So, you want to play a 2-second sound when the user presses a button? Hope you like your whole app freezing while the sound plays.
Well, I'm sure you don't, so now let's look at the async alternative. The docs say this causes "the function to return immediately while playback continues in a separate thread". Perfect! Just what we want.
But wait, the first argument is a SndPtr , the pointer to the raw bytes. I can allocate that array and put WAV-format data there, but how am I supposed to know when to free it? Obviously since Palm devices had very limited RAM (many of them in the range of 256K of heap), this function isn't going to be copying the audio data before it returns, so I'll need to keep those bytes allocated as long as the sound is playing. Otherwise, the system will be reading invalid memory that could be overwritten.
So the next step is to figure out how the OS tells you when the sound is finished playing so you can free the buffer then. After reading through the docs carefully, I concluded that the docs don't describe a way to do this.
Now, if you are familiar with Palm OS programming, you may say, "Well, the function does say 'Resource' in its name, so obviously you're intended to use resources." OK, fair point, so let's talk about resources. Palm allowed you to build "resources" into your app. Basically, they were blobs that were accessible by resource ids (essentially, a pair of integers) and a lot of functions (for example, the function to draw a bitmap) took resource ids as arguments, retrieved the blob themselves, and did whatever automatically.
But SndPlayResource() doesn't take a resource id as an argument. It takes a byte pointer. That means you're going to have to do two things:
Call DmGetResource() with the resource id. This will give you a MemHandle . The docs say that as soon as you're done using the resource, you should call DmReleaseResource() .
Now you have a MemHandle , since a handle isn't a pointer, you need to call MemHandleLock() to get the pointer. As you might expect, the docs also say that whenever you do this, you need to call MemHandleUnlock() when you're done with it.
This means when you want to include a WAV file in your app and play it in your app (without freezing the UI), you must go through the following steps:
Include the WAV file into your app binary.
Call DmGetResource() to get a MemHandle .
Call MemHandleLock() to get a MemPtr (basically a void pointer).
Pass that pointer to SndPlayResource() , along with the sndFlagAsync flag.
Magically know when the sound has finished playing.
Then call MemHandleUnlock() and DmReleaseResource() .
So, you may say, how about just parsing the WAV file and figuring out how many seconds the sound will play for, add 1 second, and then release the resource then? Hey, that's a great idea, but unfortunately the only routine that is exposed that can parse a WAV file is SndPlayResource() . So you'll have to roll your own WAV file parsing (or at least WAV file header parsing) and be confident it matches what the system does.
In the end, I think I talked this over with my co-workers and we decided the most practical solution was to just let SndPlayResource() occasionally crash (potentially taking down the whole system? or at least playing horrible noises) if it read from memory that was now unallocated. The second best idea I came up with was to have the code guess how long the sound must take to play based on the number of bytes in the WAV file, then wait that long to free the sound. This is actually sort of feasible since the docs say the lowest supported sample rate, bit depth, type of compression, etc., so that you could theoretically computer a reliable upper bound on how long the buffer will be in use. But to get this technically correct you need to sometimes refuse to exit the app while the timer expires. So we decided not to do that. | Palm OS SndPlayResource() has an async flag to play sounds in the background, but it's more or less impossible to ever use it correctly. If you don't use the async flag, the function is more or less worthless to have since it locks up the entire device while the sound plays. |
strghtflush | >There is an unwritten rule among movie-watchers and people on the internet in general that you don't post spoilers
Bullshit. The internet is not some private club where everyone knows the secret rules, it's a place where almost everyone can voice any opinion. That includes people who want to discuss the great movie they just watched, not just overzealous OMG STOP SPOILING IT FOR PEOPLE guardians of the cinema like yourself. They're free to enjoy talking about a movie, or in this case, referencing it, just as anyone who didn't see it is free to go to any of the other parts of reddit that aren't talking about it. They're even free to, dare I say it, go to other sites on the internet where they won't find the spoilers.
If people who haven't seen the movie see GotG references like one of the *main goddamn characters* pop up in a thread, that should be their signal to stop reading unless they are okay with the potential for spoilers.
TL;DR No. **You** are the one who is wrong. | >There is an unwritten rule among movie-watchers and people on the internet in general that you don't post spoilers
Bullshit. The internet is not some private club where everyone knows the secret rules, it's a place where almost everyone can voice any opinion. That includes people who want to discuss the great movie they just watched, not just overzealous OMG STOP SPOILING IT FOR PEOPLE guardians of the cinema like yourself. They're free to enjoy talking about a movie, or in this case, referencing it, just as anyone who didn't see it is free to go to any of the other parts of reddit that aren't talking about it. They're even free to, dare I say it, go to other sites on the internet where they won't find the spoilers.
If people who haven't seen the movie see GotG references like one of the main goddamn characters pop up in a thread, that should be their signal to stop reading unless they are okay with the potential for spoilers.
TL;DR No. You are the one who is wrong.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cjk2h0q | There is an unwritten rule among movie-watchers and people on the internet in general that you don't post spoilers
Bullshit. The internet is not some private club where everyone knows the secret rules, it's a place where almost everyone can voice any opinion. That includes people who want to discuss the great movie they just watched, not just overzealous OMG STOP SPOILING IT FOR PEOPLE guardians of the cinema like yourself. They're free to enjoy talking about a movie, or in this case, referencing it, just as anyone who didn't see it is free to go to any of the other parts of reddit that aren't talking about it. They're even free to, dare I say it, go to other sites on the internet where they won't find the spoilers.
If people who haven't seen the movie see GotG references like one of the main goddamn characters pop up in a thread, that should be their signal to stop reading unless they are okay with the potential for spoilers. | No. You are the one who is wrong. |
Eitrunix | Teams are looking for talented players that are also willing to stick through everything, if you can stay as a team with all of the changes and insanity that is Alpha/Beta and get through to release, you are already a very solid team IMO. They want to find people that adapt to change easily and playing during an Alpha/Beta big changes can/will happen, sometimes a few times in a month.
Trying to form a team now is the perfect time because the people that are playing /now/, /will/ have an edge on the people that start playing at release regardless as to how you look at it, they want the people with the most experience, they also will need the team "incubation" time to weed out the people "Claiming to be good"/Toxic players, from skilled players.
TL;DR - Recruiting now will give them more experienced/less Toxic players in the long run
Edit: Just wanna throw this out there, Im talking about the teams recruiting, not the players talking themselves up, people who think they are godly at a game still in development need to take a step back and see the real world again for a few minutes.
| Teams are looking for talented players that are also willing to stick through everything, if you can stay as a team with all of the changes and insanity that is Alpha/Beta and get through to release, you are already a very solid team IMO. They want to find people that adapt to change easily and playing during an Alpha/Beta big changes can/will happen, sometimes a few times in a month.
Trying to form a team now is the perfect time because the people that are playing /now/, /will/ have an edge on the people that start playing at release regardless as to how you look at it, they want the people with the most experience, they also will need the team "incubation" time to weed out the people "Claiming to be good"/Toxic players, from skilled players.
TL;DR - Recruiting now will give them more experienced/less Toxic players in the long run
Edit: Just wanna throw this out there, Im talking about the teams recruiting, not the players talking themselves up, people who think they are godly at a game still in development need to take a step back and see the real world again for a few minutes.
| heroesofthestorm | t5_2ym13 | cjjuut1 | Teams are looking for talented players that are also willing to stick through everything, if you can stay as a team with all of the changes and insanity that is Alpha/Beta and get through to release, you are already a very solid team IMO. They want to find people that adapt to change easily and playing during an Alpha/Beta big changes can/will happen, sometimes a few times in a month.
Trying to form a team now is the perfect time because the people that are playing /now/, /will/ have an edge on the people that start playing at release regardless as to how you look at it, they want the people with the most experience, they also will need the team "incubation" time to weed out the people "Claiming to be good"/Toxic players, from skilled players. | Recruiting now will give them more experienced/less Toxic players in the long run
Edit: Just wanna throw this out there, Im talking about the teams recruiting, not the players talking themselves up, people who think they are godly at a game still in development need to take a step back and see the real world again for a few minutes. |
BabalonRising | And a "TL;DR" summary. | And a "TL;DR" summary.
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | cjkmi19 | And a " | summary. |
Gnome_Sane | Obama laid out his Obama doctrine at west point, to the graduates there.
So according to Obama, that is his plan.
Personally, I believe the Obama Doctrine is best defined as the "Non-War" approach that he took in Libya.
In 2011, the US and France and UK bombed Libya for 9 months. They all insisted no one could call it war... it was "Non-War"... just Kinetic Exercises and working as a team to bomb out the gaddafi government from the air and use special forces to direct the militant groups we armed on the ground. The Obama doctrine then called for pretending it was all the militants (Even though it was a US drone that took out Gaddafi's convoy and US and French and UK bombs and missiles destroying Gaddafi's army.) The Obama doctrine then called for abandoning Libya to the militias we armed and acting as if everything there was great.
I go a bit in depth in the link above, and here are some more links;
Libya today looks like a mad max movie:
[Guide to the 1700 militias](
[Libya rebel flees to UK as revolution sours for women](
[“You know that security here is a big joke,” Fathi Baja, a council member, said at the time. With an antiaircraft gun mounted on a pickup truck, he said, “you can do whatever you want — nobody can stop you.](
[The adventures of a Libyan weapons dealer in Syria](
[In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons](
[(French)Embassy attack spreads Libyan instability to capital](
[Libya's disgruntled militiamen are flexing their muscles in the capital, Tripoli.](
[The UK has withdrawn some embassy staff in Libya in response to "ongoing political uncertainty", the Foreign Office says.](
[Though Libya had an estimated 20,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles before the popular uprising began in February, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told ABC News today the government does not have a clear picture of how many missiles they're trying to track down.](
[Benghazi office of Libya Foreign Ministry hit by bomb on anniversary of Sept. 11 attack on U.S. Consulate](
[US tells its citizens to leave Libya amid unrest](
[Libya's embattled government has proposed that parliament go into recess in a bid to stave off a possible descent into renewed civil war.](
[Obama administration knew Islamic State (ISIS) was growing but did little to counter it](
Many of the weapons gained in Libya were then sold to Syria... where a Milita of 10,000+ hardened soldiers (ISIS) carved out their own home base and for 3 years developed a plan to invade Iraq and try to create a single state that stretches all over the middle east.
But for some reason most western media likes to pretend it was an uprising that the US, France, and UK didn't cause and facilitate and win. They prefer the "Non-War" argument Obama used. That is the Obama Doctrine.
TLDR: "Non-War." | Obama laid out his Obama doctrine at west point, to the graduates there.
So according to Obama, that is his plan.
Personally, I believe the Obama Doctrine is best defined as the "Non-War" approach that he took in Libya.
In 2011, the US and France and UK bombed Libya for 9 months. They all insisted no one could call it war... it was "Non-War"... just Kinetic Exercises and working as a team to bomb out the gaddafi government from the air and use special forces to direct the militant groups we armed on the ground. The Obama doctrine then called for pretending it was all the militants (Even though it was a US drone that took out Gaddafi's convoy and US and French and UK bombs and missiles destroying Gaddafi's army.) The Obama doctrine then called for abandoning Libya to the militias we armed and acting as if everything there was great.
I go a bit in depth in the link above, and here are some more links;
Libya today looks like a mad max movie:
[Guide to the 1700 militias](
[Libya rebel flees to UK as revolution sours for women](
[“You know that security here is a big joke,” Fathi Baja, a council member, said at the time. With an antiaircraft gun mounted on a pickup truck, he said, “you can do whatever you want — nobody can stop you.](
[The adventures of a Libyan weapons dealer in Syria](
[In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons](
[(French)Embassy attack spreads Libyan instability to capital](
[Libya's disgruntled militiamen are flexing their muscles in the capital, Tripoli.](
[The UK has withdrawn some embassy staff in Libya in response to "ongoing political uncertainty", the Foreign Office says.](
[Though Libya had an estimated 20,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles before the popular uprising began in February, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told ABC News today the government does not have a clear picture of how many missiles they're trying to track down.](
[Benghazi office of Libya Foreign Ministry hit by bomb on anniversary of Sept. 11 attack on U.S. Consulate](
[US tells its citizens to leave Libya amid unrest](
[Libya's embattled government has proposed that parliament go into recess in a bid to stave off a possible descent into renewed civil war.](
[Obama administration knew Islamic State (ISIS) was growing but did little to counter it](
Many of the weapons gained in Libya were then sold to Syria... where a Milita of 10,000+ hardened soldiers (ISIS) carved out their own home base and for 3 years developed a plan to invade Iraq and try to create a single state that stretches all over the middle east.
But for some reason most western media likes to pretend it was an uprising that the US, France, and UK didn't cause and facilitate and win. They prefer the "Non-War" argument Obama used. That is the Obama Doctrine.
TLDR: "Non-War."
| Ask_Politics | t5_2t160 | cjkns4o | Obama laid out his Obama doctrine at west point, to the graduates there.
So according to Obama, that is his plan.
Personally, I believe the Obama Doctrine is best defined as the "Non-War" approach that he took in Libya.
In 2011, the US and France and UK bombed Libya for 9 months. They all insisted no one could call it war... it was "Non-War"... just Kinetic Exercises and working as a team to bomb out the gaddafi government from the air and use special forces to direct the militant groups we armed on the ground. The Obama doctrine then called for pretending it was all the militants (Even though it was a US drone that took out Gaddafi's convoy and US and French and UK bombs and missiles destroying Gaddafi's army.) The Obama doctrine then called for abandoning Libya to the militias we armed and acting as if everything there was great.
I go a bit in depth in the link above, and here are some more links;
Libya today looks like a mad max movie:
[Guide to the 1700 militias](
[Libya rebel flees to UK as revolution sours for women](
[“You know that security here is a big joke,” Fathi Baja, a council member, said at the time. With an antiaircraft gun mounted on a pickup truck, he said, “you can do whatever you want — nobody can stop you.](
[The adventures of a Libyan weapons dealer in Syria](
[In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons](
[(French)Embassy attack spreads Libyan instability to capital](
[Libya's disgruntled militiamen are flexing their muscles in the capital, Tripoli.](
[The UK has withdrawn some embassy staff in Libya in response to "ongoing political uncertainty", the Foreign Office says.](
[Though Libya had an estimated 20,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles before the popular uprising began in February, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told ABC News today the government does not have a clear picture of how many missiles they're trying to track down.](
[Benghazi office of Libya Foreign Ministry hit by bomb on anniversary of Sept. 11 attack on U.S. Consulate](
[US tells its citizens to leave Libya amid unrest](
[Libya's embattled government has proposed that parliament go into recess in a bid to stave off a possible descent into renewed civil war.](
[Obama administration knew Islamic State (ISIS) was growing but did little to counter it](
Many of the weapons gained in Libya were then sold to Syria... where a Milita of 10,000+ hardened soldiers (ISIS) carved out their own home base and for 3 years developed a plan to invade Iraq and try to create a single state that stretches all over the middle east.
But for some reason most western media likes to pretend it was an uprising that the US, France, and UK didn't cause and facilitate and win. They prefer the "Non-War" argument Obama used. That is the Obama Doctrine. | Non-War." |
oxpoleon | If it's a properly set up internal hub, then the frame will be spaced for either a 110 or 120mm rear axle, which isn't wide enough to fit a wheel with a modern cassette or multi-speed freewheel- you'd need to ask them what the spacing is. That is, if the dropouts even give you the space to fit a derailleur hanger. Obviously, you'd also need a new rear wheel to fit, without the internal hub.
Also, there don't appear to be any braze-ons through which to route the shifter cable, so you'd need to buy a set of (rather hard to obtain) clamps and cable stops, and ones which fit modern oversized frame tubes too. Sturmey Archer make them, but they're like hen's teeth.
Finally, there's a good chance that that's a 1/8 chainring on the cranks, so you'd probably need to buy another one of those that fits a 3/32 dérailleur width chain.
From experience, if you want a bike that takes a dérailleur, it's almost certainly cheaper to buy a bike designed specifically to do so.
Truthfully, you'd need to ask yourself whether you need more gears- unless you live somewhere as hilly as the Alps or SF, a three-speed is more than enough for a town bike such as this. Way more reliable than external gears too.
TL;DR If you want a derailleur it's easier and cheaper to buy a bike designed for one. | If it's a properly set up internal hub, then the frame will be spaced for either a 110 or 120mm rear axle, which isn't wide enough to fit a wheel with a modern cassette or multi-speed freewheel- you'd need to ask them what the spacing is. That is, if the dropouts even give you the space to fit a derailleur hanger. Obviously, you'd also need a new rear wheel to fit, without the internal hub.
Also, there don't appear to be any braze-ons through which to route the shifter cable, so you'd need to buy a set of (rather hard to obtain) clamps and cable stops, and ones which fit modern oversized frame tubes too. Sturmey Archer make them, but they're like hen's teeth.
Finally, there's a good chance that that's a 1/8 chainring on the cranks, so you'd probably need to buy another one of those that fits a 3/32 dérailleur width chain.
From experience, if you want a bike that takes a dérailleur, it's almost certainly cheaper to buy a bike designed specifically to do so.
Truthfully, you'd need to ask yourself whether you need more gears- unless you live somewhere as hilly as the Alps or SF, a three-speed is more than enough for a town bike such as this. Way more reliable than external gears too.
TL;DR If you want a derailleur it's easier and cheaper to buy a bike designed for one.
| bicycling | t5_2qi0s | cjkzvul | If it's a properly set up internal hub, then the frame will be spaced for either a 110 or 120mm rear axle, which isn't wide enough to fit a wheel with a modern cassette or multi-speed freewheel- you'd need to ask them what the spacing is. That is, if the dropouts even give you the space to fit a derailleur hanger. Obviously, you'd also need a new rear wheel to fit, without the internal hub.
Also, there don't appear to be any braze-ons through which to route the shifter cable, so you'd need to buy a set of (rather hard to obtain) clamps and cable stops, and ones which fit modern oversized frame tubes too. Sturmey Archer make them, but they're like hen's teeth.
Finally, there's a good chance that that's a 1/8 chainring on the cranks, so you'd probably need to buy another one of those that fits a 3/32 dérailleur width chain.
From experience, if you want a bike that takes a dérailleur, it's almost certainly cheaper to buy a bike designed specifically to do so.
Truthfully, you'd need to ask yourself whether you need more gears- unless you live somewhere as hilly as the Alps or SF, a three-speed is more than enough for a town bike such as this. Way more reliable than external gears too. | If you want a derailleur it's easier and cheaper to buy a bike designed for one. |
exar420 | This question was asked about a week ago, and while I'm far to lazy to dig it up for you, here is the jist of it.
Car manufactures are typically selling world wide. Speed limits are set by the local governments and not the car manufacturers, and car vary from place to place. Next point, emergencies. They do come up. You may need to escape a tornado or some gunman. They don't know.
Most importantly is people's desire to do what THEY want. If a car company hardlocked a speed limit in their car, not only would that create a loss for sales (Why would I buy Ford when I can only go 50 in it?) but the more industrious individuals will find a way around that, leaving only the "hackers" in this case able to defy speedlimits. The powers that be would not enjoy that much at all.
TLDR; Money, also, more money. | This question was asked about a week ago, and while I'm far to lazy to dig it up for you, here is the jist of it.
Car manufactures are typically selling world wide. Speed limits are set by the local governments and not the car manufacturers, and car vary from place to place. Next point, emergencies. They do come up. You may need to escape a tornado or some gunman. They don't know.
Most importantly is people's desire to do what THEY want. If a car company hardlocked a speed limit in their car, not only would that create a loss for sales (Why would I buy Ford when I can only go 50 in it?) but the more industrious individuals will find a way around that, leaving only the "hackers" in this case able to defy speedlimits. The powers that be would not enjoy that much at all.
TLDR; Money, also, more money.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cjkyzvu | This question was asked about a week ago, and while I'm far to lazy to dig it up for you, here is the jist of it.
Car manufactures are typically selling world wide. Speed limits are set by the local governments and not the car manufacturers, and car vary from place to place. Next point, emergencies. They do come up. You may need to escape a tornado or some gunman. They don't know.
Most importantly is people's desire to do what THEY want. If a car company hardlocked a speed limit in their car, not only would that create a loss for sales (Why would I buy Ford when I can only go 50 in it?) but the more industrious individuals will find a way around that, leaving only the "hackers" in this case able to defy speedlimits. The powers that be would not enjoy that much at all. | Money, also, more money. |
Barn_jacket | A lot of time when you have doors with lock like this there's a blue fire alarm pull station. When you pull the fire alarm current gets cut an electromagnet is disengaged and the door is "unlocked".
TLDR: Magnets | A lot of time when you have doors with lock like this there's a blue fire alarm pull station. When you pull the fire alarm current gets cut an electromagnet is disengaged and the door is "unlocked".
TLDR: Magnets
| lockpicking | t5_2qh7k | cjlai97 | A lot of time when you have doors with lock like this there's a blue fire alarm pull station. When you pull the fire alarm current gets cut an electromagnet is disengaged and the door is "unlocked". | Magnets |
TxBrewed | It's pretty intense, I use it as a reference but wasn't able to make it all the way through. the tl;dr is make a starter, make sure temp is ok, and relax :) | It's pretty intense, I use it as a reference but wasn't able to make it all the way through. the tl;dr is make a starter, make sure temp is ok, and relax :)
| Homebrewing | t5_2qj8u | cjlfjzy | It's pretty intense, I use it as a reference but wasn't able to make it all the way through. the | is make a starter, make sure temp is ok, and relax :) |
Domowoi | Intel recommends not going over 1,5V with the RAM, but only the first generation that had the RAM controller in the CPU had real issues.
If you have not ordered yet, I would switch to 1600 or 1866 MHz RAM anyways, because it is cheaper and there is pretty much no performance difference.
TL;DR: You can do it, but this RAM is not ideal anyways. | Intel recommends not going over 1,5V with the RAM, but only the first generation that had the RAM controller in the CPU had real issues.
If you have not ordered yet, I would switch to 1600 or 1866 MHz RAM anyways, because it is cheaper and there is pretty much no performance difference.
TL;DR: You can do it, but this RAM is not ideal anyways.
| buildapc | t5_2rnve | cjlgjdc | Intel recommends not going over 1,5V with the RAM, but only the first generation that had the RAM controller in the CPU had real issues.
If you have not ordered yet, I would switch to 1600 or 1866 MHz RAM anyways, because it is cheaper and there is pretty much no performance difference. | You can do it, but this RAM is not ideal anyways. |
rob79 | I think there are two sides to every story and Amazon isn't really showing their hand.
They say: it's better for consumers, publishers, and authors!
If that was conclusively the end result I feel that publishers would be on board already. Publishers are businesses, they don't let "personal feeling" (demonstrated here as a reluctance to change just because they're entrenched in their old business model) get in the way of making money.
Both sides are spewing corporate-speak and consumers (and authors) are stuck in the middle.
As a consumer I'd love to see eBook prices drop, but I'm also not in a position to be able to say whether or not that will do long term damage to the publishing industry as a whole or authors at the individual level.
**TL;DR**: I honestly don't know what to think because we're not getting impartial information, we're getting what is the equivalent of press releases from two corporations on opposite sides of the argument.
**EDIT**: So someone asks my opinion, I share my opinion, then I get downvoted with no reply. Fantastic. | I think there are two sides to every story and Amazon isn't really showing their hand.
They say: it's better for consumers, publishers, and authors!
If that was conclusively the end result I feel that publishers would be on board already. Publishers are businesses, they don't let "personal feeling" (demonstrated here as a reluctance to change just because they're entrenched in their old business model) get in the way of making money.
Both sides are spewing corporate-speak and consumers (and authors) are stuck in the middle.
As a consumer I'd love to see eBook prices drop, but I'm also not in a position to be able to say whether or not that will do long term damage to the publishing industry as a whole or authors at the individual level.
TL;DR : I honestly don't know what to think because we're not getting impartial information, we're getting what is the equivalent of press releases from two corporations on opposite sides of the argument.
EDIT : So someone asks my opinion, I share my opinion, then I get downvoted with no reply. Fantastic.
| kindle | t5_2qudz | cjln367 | I think there are two sides to every story and Amazon isn't really showing their hand.
They say: it's better for consumers, publishers, and authors!
If that was conclusively the end result I feel that publishers would be on board already. Publishers are businesses, they don't let "personal feeling" (demonstrated here as a reluctance to change just because they're entrenched in their old business model) get in the way of making money.
Both sides are spewing corporate-speak and consumers (and authors) are stuck in the middle.
As a consumer I'd love to see eBook prices drop, but I'm also not in a position to be able to say whether or not that will do long term damage to the publishing industry as a whole or authors at the individual level. | I honestly don't know what to think because we're not getting impartial information, we're getting what is the equivalent of press releases from two corporations on opposite sides of the argument.
EDIT : So someone asks my opinion, I share my opinion, then I get downvoted with no reply. Fantastic. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.