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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PM_ME_YOUR_TOS | I cancelled my order within the first two weeks when my date got moved up to 11/9-11/27. They're fucking insane, considering I placed my order the within the first 30 minutes the gates opened at midnight.
Needless to say I got my phone at the Apple Store like a month or so later when the hype died down a little bit more. In-store pick up is the greatest thing to ever happen. If you luck out with AT&T, check your local Apple!
TL;DR Fuck AT&T, never dealing with that piece of shit company again. | I cancelled my order within the first two weeks when my date got moved up to 11/9-11/27. They're fucking insane, considering I placed my order the within the first 30 minutes the gates opened at midnight.
Needless to say I got my phone at the Apple Store like a month or so later when the hype died down a little bit more. In-store pick up is the greatest thing to ever happen. If you luck out with AT&T, check your local Apple!
TL;DR Fuck AT&T, never dealing with that piece of shit company again.
| iphone | t5_2qh2b | clvu3mc | I cancelled my order within the first two weeks when my date got moved up to 11/9-11/27. They're fucking insane, considering I placed my order the within the first 30 minutes the gates opened at midnight.
Needless to say I got my phone at the Apple Store like a month or so later when the hype died down a little bit more. In-store pick up is the greatest thing to ever happen. If you luck out with AT&T, check your local Apple! | Fuck AT&T, never dealing with that piece of shit company again. |
self_moderator | Having Christian teachers doesn't mean anything. You can still be objective about other religions. In the UK, Religious Studies/Education (RE or RS in different schools) is compulsory in state schools when education is compulsory (up to 16). The school I was in had the school priest and his wife as part of the RS department, and they were some of the most objective teachers on religion. Being religious doesn't mean you're anti other religions. You just use the line "Christians believe..." "Muslims believe".
TL,DR: Just being religious doesn't mean you can't be objective teaching religions. | Having Christian teachers doesn't mean anything. You can still be objective about other religions. In the UK, Religious Studies/Education (RE or RS in different schools) is compulsory in state schools when education is compulsory (up to 16). The school I was in had the school priest and his wife as part of the RS department, and they were some of the most objective teachers on religion. Being religious doesn't mean you're anti other religions. You just use the line "Christians believe..." "Muslims believe".
TL,DR: Just being religious doesn't mean you can't be objective teaching religions.
| atheism | t5_2qh2p | clw50v3 | Having Christian teachers doesn't mean anything. You can still be objective about other religions. In the UK, Religious Studies/Education (RE or RS in different schools) is compulsory in state schools when education is compulsory (up to 16). The school I was in had the school priest and his wife as part of the RS department, and they were some of the most objective teachers on religion. Being religious doesn't mean you're anti other religions. You just use the line "Christians believe..." "Muslims believe". | Just being religious doesn't mean you can't be objective teaching religions. |
Phreec | Since you insist on not spending it on cosmetics, the AF-4 Cyclone (or you could get the [Golden version and more for 7€](
Here's a previous, more in-depth post of mine regarding NC sidegrades:
TLDR: Get CQC oriented weapons. | Since you insist on not spending it on cosmetics, the AF-4 Cyclone (or you could get the [Golden version and more for 7€](
Here's a previous, more in-depth post of mine regarding NC sidegrades:
TLDR: Get CQC oriented weapons.
| Planetside | t5_2s48x | clwif23 | Since you insist on not spending it on cosmetics, the AF-4 Cyclone (or you could get the [Golden version and more for 7€](
Here's a previous, more in-depth post of mine regarding NC sidegrades: | Get CQC oriented weapons. |
iasonaki | Uh... there was this thing called the Great Schism.
TL; DR Orthodox priests are not Catholic | Uh... there was this thing called the Great Schism.
TL; DR Orthodox priests are not Catholic
| gaybros | t5_2tdzg | clwpahx | Uh... there was this thing called the Great Schism. | Orthodox priests are not Catholic |
LeftFootRightHand | This is what I've been trying to tell you since the initial comment. **They're not going out of their way. The words already sound like that in their head.** Language is symbolic and whenever you learn new ways of expressing the same idea it goes back to the same initial idea. For you the word that expresses the abstract concept of "That" has always been pronunced "That" until you heard someone pronounce it "dat." For them the word has always been "dat." One day someone told them that that wasn't "proper English" so they know that when they come around people like you and other settings "dat" has to be pronounced "that." But in a casual setting they go back to the initial pronunciation.
In a word, **not everyone speaks like you do.**
To answer your question about formality it goes deeper than a few words. Whenever there is a marked difference in language between a speaker and the audience, intentionally or otherwise, its communicates something to the listener. If I'm in a casual setting and use language that would be perceived as formal to the listener it communicates that I am or view myself as different than them. I could be viewed as seeing myself as more proper than them. Which is not what you want to do.
The girl here is allegedly white, although we really don't know for sure. However shes apparently surrounded by black culture. Think about the message that might be conveyed if despite having been immersed in this culture theres a marked effort on her part not to take part in said culture by not speaking anything resembling their casual language? Is she saying shes better than them? Is she saying she wants no part in this culture? Is she saying shes disgusted with the culture?
All of these things go through people's heads so rapidly when we communicate its almost subconscious.
I don't understand why I have to teach you that social interaction is tricky.
TL;DR: Its casual for them and not for you because **not everyone talks like you.** | This is what I've been trying to tell you since the initial comment. They're not going out of their way. The words already sound like that in their head. Language is symbolic and whenever you learn new ways of expressing the same idea it goes back to the same initial idea. For you the word that expresses the abstract concept of "That" has always been pronunced "That" until you heard someone pronounce it "dat." For them the word has always been "dat." One day someone told them that that wasn't "proper English" so they know that when they come around people like you and other settings "dat" has to be pronounced "that." But in a casual setting they go back to the initial pronunciation.
In a word, not everyone speaks like you do.
To answer your question about formality it goes deeper than a few words. Whenever there is a marked difference in language between a speaker and the audience, intentionally or otherwise, its communicates something to the listener. If I'm in a casual setting and use language that would be perceived as formal to the listener it communicates that I am or view myself as different than them. I could be viewed as seeing myself as more proper than them. Which is not what you want to do.
The girl here is allegedly white, although we really don't know for sure. However shes apparently surrounded by black culture. Think about the message that might be conveyed if despite having been immersed in this culture theres a marked effort on her part not to take part in said culture by not speaking anything resembling their casual language? Is she saying shes better than them? Is she saying she wants no part in this culture? Is she saying shes disgusted with the culture?
All of these things go through people's heads so rapidly when we communicate its almost subconscious.
I don't understand why I have to teach you that social interaction is tricky.
TL;DR: Its casual for them and not for you because not everyone talks like you.
| cringepics | t5_2va9w | clxh8m8 | This is what I've been trying to tell you since the initial comment. They're not going out of their way. The words already sound like that in their head. Language is symbolic and whenever you learn new ways of expressing the same idea it goes back to the same initial idea. For you the word that expresses the abstract concept of "That" has always been pronunced "That" until you heard someone pronounce it "dat." For them the word has always been "dat." One day someone told them that that wasn't "proper English" so they know that when they come around people like you and other settings "dat" has to be pronounced "that." But in a casual setting they go back to the initial pronunciation.
In a word, not everyone speaks like you do.
To answer your question about formality it goes deeper than a few words. Whenever there is a marked difference in language between a speaker and the audience, intentionally or otherwise, its communicates something to the listener. If I'm in a casual setting and use language that would be perceived as formal to the listener it communicates that I am or view myself as different than them. I could be viewed as seeing myself as more proper than them. Which is not what you want to do.
The girl here is allegedly white, although we really don't know for sure. However shes apparently surrounded by black culture. Think about the message that might be conveyed if despite having been immersed in this culture theres a marked effort on her part not to take part in said culture by not speaking anything resembling their casual language? Is she saying shes better than them? Is she saying she wants no part in this culture? Is she saying shes disgusted with the culture?
All of these things go through people's heads so rapidly when we communicate its almost subconscious.
I don't understand why I have to teach you that social interaction is tricky. | Its casual for them and not for you because not everyone talks like you. |
SleepyTheOwl | It was actually an eagle-headed man beast that broke through a window and attacked my friends. I wrestled him out the front door and threw him into the front pasture. There he turned into a dachshund and came back, looking thoroughly pitiful while telepathically apologizing to me. My waking mind can't believe my sleeping mind bought it.
TL;DR: It was kind of interesting, actually. | It was actually an eagle-headed man beast that broke through a window and attacked my friends. I wrestled him out the front door and threw him into the front pasture. There he turned into a dachshund and came back, looking thoroughly pitiful while telepathically apologizing to me. My waking mind can't believe my sleeping mind bought it.
TL;DR: It was kind of interesting, actually.
| infp | t5_2qn2o | clwxj7h | It was actually an eagle-headed man beast that broke through a window and attacked my friends. I wrestled him out the front door and threw him into the front pasture. There he turned into a dachshund and came back, looking thoroughly pitiful while telepathically apologizing to me. My waking mind can't believe my sleeping mind bought it. | It was kind of interesting, actually. |
Oysi | For AP Kog'Maw, yes! It gives him a **MUCH** larger mana pool, which in turn allows for more ults. The thing about Kog vs most champs is that his ult will end up costing so much mana, which means that no matter how good your mana regen is, it won't even get close to being able to regen it, which is why you need a good mana pool (as well as mana regen). On top of that, it still gives mana regen, and good ap once you upgrade, plus a shield.
TL;DR: Yes, it's a good item. I would dare say it's a core item, along with Athene's. | For AP Kog'Maw, yes! It gives him a MUCH larger mana pool, which in turn allows for more ults. The thing about Kog vs most champs is that his ult will end up costing so much mana, which means that no matter how good your mana regen is, it won't even get close to being able to regen it, which is why you need a good mana pool (as well as mana regen). On top of that, it still gives mana regen, and good ap once you upgrade, plus a shield.
TL;DR: Yes, it's a good item. I would dare say it's a core item, along with Athene's.
| summonerschool | t5_2t9x3 | clwhzrh | For AP Kog'Maw, yes! It gives him a MUCH larger mana pool, which in turn allows for more ults. The thing about Kog vs most champs is that his ult will end up costing so much mana, which means that no matter how good your mana regen is, it won't even get close to being able to regen it, which is why you need a good mana pool (as well as mana regen). On top of that, it still gives mana regen, and good ap once you upgrade, plus a shield. | Yes, it's a good item. I would dare say it's a core item, along with Athene's. |
daw401 | Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because you are impatient and cant wait 5 minutes for the employee you just talked too to go find someone who is more knowledgeable about the product doesn't mean you should prefer robots over humans. How is that robot going to respond when you need to know some out of the box answer that doesn't logically make sense.
Hopefully there are more people out there who realize that the expansion of this into other superstores would result in millions of jobs vanishing into thin air. Most people have worked retail in their lives, and if they haven't then they sure need too. You meet a lot of good, hardworking people who need the jobs that they have. Who rely on their job to help feed their family, or rely on their job as a lowly sales associate to make connections that will lead to furthering their careers within the company.
I work at a hardware store and I seriously doubt that that robot could interpret the mumbling, southern drawl, and mispronunciation that I hear daily from contractors. Not to mention the people who don't even know what they are looking for in the first place. That robot would just be another step that 90% customers would have to go through to get to a real person to find out what they are talking about.
DID I MENTION THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT WOULD BECOME OBSOLETE?!?!?!?! JUST TO "CUT COSTS"?
TL;DR: Yes. | Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because you are impatient and cant wait 5 minutes for the employee you just talked too to go find someone who is more knowledgeable about the product doesn't mean you should prefer robots over humans. How is that robot going to respond when you need to know some out of the box answer that doesn't logically make sense.
Hopefully there are more people out there who realize that the expansion of this into other superstores would result in millions of jobs vanishing into thin air. Most people have worked retail in their lives, and if they haven't then they sure need too. You meet a lot of good, hardworking people who need the jobs that they have. Who rely on their job to help feed their family, or rely on their job as a lowly sales associate to make connections that will lead to furthering their careers within the company.
I work at a hardware store and I seriously doubt that that robot could interpret the mumbling, southern drawl, and mispronunciation that I hear daily from contractors. Not to mention the people who don't even know what they are looking for in the first place. That robot would just be another step that 90% customers would have to go through to get to a real person to find out what they are talking about.
DID I MENTION THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT WOULD BECOME OBSOLETE?!?!?!?! JUST TO "CUT COSTS"?
TL;DR: Yes.
| gadgets | t5_2qgzt | clx3bea | Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because you are impatient and cant wait 5 minutes for the employee you just talked too to go find someone who is more knowledgeable about the product doesn't mean you should prefer robots over humans. How is that robot going to respond when you need to know some out of the box answer that doesn't logically make sense.
Hopefully there are more people out there who realize that the expansion of this into other superstores would result in millions of jobs vanishing into thin air. Most people have worked retail in their lives, and if they haven't then they sure need too. You meet a lot of good, hardworking people who need the jobs that they have. Who rely on their job to help feed their family, or rely on their job as a lowly sales associate to make connections that will lead to furthering their careers within the company.
I work at a hardware store and I seriously doubt that that robot could interpret the mumbling, southern drawl, and mispronunciation that I hear daily from contractors. Not to mention the people who don't even know what they are looking for in the first place. That robot would just be another step that 90% customers would have to go through to get to a real person to find out what they are talking about.
DID I MENTION THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT WOULD BECOME OBSOLETE?!?!?!?! JUST TO "CUT COSTS"? | Yes. |
Action_Bronzong | No no no, that way lies only pain and heartbreak.
Letting people "decide" what content stays or goes with their upvotes is actually a pretty terrible system for a lot of reasons. The folks over at /r/TheoryofReddit made a [short story]( detailing some of the flaws of such a system. TL;DR [*"It's not persecution, it's having standards!"*]( | No no no, that way lies only pain and heartbreak.
Letting people "decide" what content stays or goes with their upvotes is actually a pretty terrible system for a lot of reasons. The folks over at /r/TheoryofReddit made a [short story]( detailing some of the flaws of such a system. TL;DR [ "It's not persecution, it's having standards!" ](
| Games | t5_2qhwp | clwt1sk | No no no, that way lies only pain and heartbreak.
Letting people "decide" what content stays or goes with their upvotes is actually a pretty terrible system for a lot of reasons. The folks over at /r/TheoryofReddit made a [short story]( detailing some of the flaws of such a system. | It's not persecution, it's having standards!" ]( |
quaunaut | > That doesn't make it a boys club and that has 0 to do with diversity. Also in all the dialogue promoted, I never once hears this as a reason from the women's side.
Then you're not listening very hard. It's been said by many of the most prominent women in the field, like Julie Ann Horvath, Gina Trapani, or Sara Chipps.
> Sure the work environment needs to be more respectful of employee's personal life.
But long hours != boys club. What would be a boys club would be Goldman Sach employee's calling women trying to enter banking as bimbo's That's a boys club.
That isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is, the games industry in general is going to go slower in getting more women than men because of societal issues + long hours. That wasn't me saying that's what makes it a boy's club, it's just saying that the boy's club issue isn't the only thing standing in the game's industry's way- there are broader issues too.
> and it does piss me off that no one promotes these successful women in their attempts to shame the industry as a boy's club
Once again, maybe it's because you're still in school, maybe it's because you're not looking at the right communities, but the tech industry as a whole has quite a few people talking about this. In fact, it's been one of the most frequent topics of discussion over the last year, and part of the reason so many companies are releasing demographic information of their employees now.
> Up until the 80's they made up 40% then it dropped to 17% when the field started to be heavily stereotyped (being one of the theories) Where those in the field were cast as unsociable losers. My CS professor she comments on this a lot, how when she was going through her degree the common perception of the industry were nerdy unsociable boys with non-existent hygiene. Where she'd get comments from other women asking how she puts up being around those types
This is part of the reason, but it's hardly the only one. It's also because of marketing, and the societal belief back in the 80s that women's work wasn't so technical as much as it was organizational, administrative, or communicative. This in itself wasn't so much something the tech industry created- once again, society at large caused the issue- but regardless, it helped create the circumstances that we now are paying for.
Also it should be added, there was a *lot* of entertainment media at the time that reinforced the belief that women don't belong as coders(Weird Science, War Games, etc. In the latter, re-watch it, the premise itself isn't the causal point).
> A change in behavior is needed in the industry but it's not from men. women need to actually support other women in their field and prop them up. So they can actually toss out the dishonest stereotype and encourage women to come back to the field instead of discouraging them by constantly stating how unwelcoming the field will be if they try
Some women don't support each other, this is true. But on the other hand, many, *many* women say that the only reason they stayed in the industry is because they got the support of those around them, men and women both. And currently, when you have major industry events constantly having sexist tropes or content in them, startup after startup having CEOs or policies that abuse women, and women who **do** speak up get harassed to kingdom come, then no, I do think the onus is on men. We're very much part of the problem, and absolving yourself of any capability to do something about it makes you a prime example of what so many of the women who are speaking up say about it.
**Edit:** Or tl;dr: Are you seriously purporting to know more about this as a student listening to your professor than the hundreds of women who speak out about this every day? | > That doesn't make it a boys club and that has 0 to do with diversity. Also in all the dialogue promoted, I never once hears this as a reason from the women's side.
Then you're not listening very hard. It's been said by many of the most prominent women in the field, like Julie Ann Horvath, Gina Trapani, or Sara Chipps.
> Sure the work environment needs to be more respectful of employee's personal life.
But long hours != boys club. What would be a boys club would be Goldman Sach employee's calling women trying to enter banking as bimbo's That's a boys club.
That isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is, the games industry in general is going to go slower in getting more women than men because of societal issues + long hours. That wasn't me saying that's what makes it a boy's club, it's just saying that the boy's club issue isn't the only thing standing in the game's industry's way- there are broader issues too.
> and it does piss me off that no one promotes these successful women in their attempts to shame the industry as a boy's club
Once again, maybe it's because you're still in school, maybe it's because you're not looking at the right communities, but the tech industry as a whole has quite a few people talking about this. In fact, it's been one of the most frequent topics of discussion over the last year, and part of the reason so many companies are releasing demographic information of their employees now.
> Up until the 80's they made up 40% then it dropped to 17% when the field started to be heavily stereotyped (being one of the theories) Where those in the field were cast as unsociable losers. My CS professor she comments on this a lot, how when she was going through her degree the common perception of the industry were nerdy unsociable boys with non-existent hygiene. Where she'd get comments from other women asking how she puts up being around those types
This is part of the reason, but it's hardly the only one. It's also because of marketing, and the societal belief back in the 80s that women's work wasn't so technical as much as it was organizational, administrative, or communicative. This in itself wasn't so much something the tech industry created- once again, society at large caused the issue- but regardless, it helped create the circumstances that we now are paying for.
Also it should be added, there was a lot of entertainment media at the time that reinforced the belief that women don't belong as coders(Weird Science, War Games, etc. In the latter, re-watch it, the premise itself isn't the causal point).
> A change in behavior is needed in the industry but it's not from men. women need to actually support other women in their field and prop them up. So they can actually toss out the dishonest stereotype and encourage women to come back to the field instead of discouraging them by constantly stating how unwelcoming the field will be if they try
Some women don't support each other, this is true. But on the other hand, many, many women say that the only reason they stayed in the industry is because they got the support of those around them, men and women both. And currently, when you have major industry events constantly having sexist tropes or content in them, startup after startup having CEOs or policies that abuse women, and women who do speak up get harassed to kingdom come, then no, I do think the onus is on men. We're very much part of the problem, and absolving yourself of any capability to do something about it makes you a prime example of what so many of the women who are speaking up say about it.
Edit: Or tl;dr: Are you seriously purporting to know more about this as a student listening to your professor than the hundreds of women who speak out about this every day?
| Games | t5_2qhwp | cly31lk | That doesn't make it a boys club and that has 0 to do with diversity. Also in all the dialogue promoted, I never once hears this as a reason from the women's side.
Then you're not listening very hard. It's been said by many of the most prominent women in the field, like Julie Ann Horvath, Gina Trapani, or Sara Chipps.
> Sure the work environment needs to be more respectful of employee's personal life.
But long hours != boys club. What would be a boys club would be Goldman Sach employee's calling women trying to enter banking as bimbo's That's a boys club.
That isn't what I was saying. What I was saying is, the games industry in general is going to go slower in getting more women than men because of societal issues + long hours. That wasn't me saying that's what makes it a boy's club, it's just saying that the boy's club issue isn't the only thing standing in the game's industry's way- there are broader issues too.
> and it does piss me off that no one promotes these successful women in their attempts to shame the industry as a boy's club
Once again, maybe it's because you're still in school, maybe it's because you're not looking at the right communities, but the tech industry as a whole has quite a few people talking about this. In fact, it's been one of the most frequent topics of discussion over the last year, and part of the reason so many companies are releasing demographic information of their employees now.
> Up until the 80's they made up 40% then it dropped to 17% when the field started to be heavily stereotyped (being one of the theories) Where those in the field were cast as unsociable losers. My CS professor she comments on this a lot, how when she was going through her degree the common perception of the industry were nerdy unsociable boys with non-existent hygiene. Where she'd get comments from other women asking how she puts up being around those types
This is part of the reason, but it's hardly the only one. It's also because of marketing, and the societal belief back in the 80s that women's work wasn't so technical as much as it was organizational, administrative, or communicative. This in itself wasn't so much something the tech industry created- once again, society at large caused the issue- but regardless, it helped create the circumstances that we now are paying for.
Also it should be added, there was a lot of entertainment media at the time that reinforced the belief that women don't belong as coders(Weird Science, War Games, etc. In the latter, re-watch it, the premise itself isn't the causal point).
> A change in behavior is needed in the industry but it's not from men. women need to actually support other women in their field and prop them up. So they can actually toss out the dishonest stereotype and encourage women to come back to the field instead of discouraging them by constantly stating how unwelcoming the field will be if they try
Some women don't support each other, this is true. But on the other hand, many, many women say that the only reason they stayed in the industry is because they got the support of those around them, men and women both. And currently, when you have major industry events constantly having sexist tropes or content in them, startup after startup having CEOs or policies that abuse women, and women who do speak up get harassed to kingdom come, then no, I do think the onus is on men. We're very much part of the problem, and absolving yourself of any capability to do something about it makes you a prime example of what so many of the women who are speaking up say about it.
Edit: Or | Are you seriously purporting to know more about this as a student listening to your professor than the hundreds of women who speak out about this every day? |
FoxRaptix | >Then you're not listening very hard. It's been said by many of the most prominent women in the field, like Julie Ann Horvath, Gina Trapani, or Sara Chipps.
Yes they experienced assholes and some guys that created a single sexist app in the sea of millions of apps.
However I do listen to my professor who has been in the industry a lot longer than them. I listen to the girls i know working at/with Obsidian, at blizzard. I prefer to listen to them rather than ignore them in favor of the opinions of women i've never met.
I also work close with my college's STEM club chapter and our biggest issue getting women in the club isn't sexism or it being a boys club, it's been the 2 female presidents we had pushing every girl out that they felt were in it *for attention* rather than had a passion. Which is a problem with the these fields themselves, gaming and tech. It's not a sexism lack of diversity issue, it's just everyone with a passion tries to shove out anyone who doesn't share that same level of passion. The first women president admitted this to me, she tried to push me out of the club because she felt I wasn't interested enough but I proved her wrong.
>Once again, maybe it's because you're still in school, maybe it's because you're not looking at the right communities, but the tech industry as a whole has quite a few people talking about this. In fact, it's been one of the most frequent topics of discussion over the last year, and part of the reason so many companies are releasing demographic information of their employees now.
my experiences aren't specific to school, but I do respect my professors opinion greatly because of how long she's belonged.
I'm not sure what you mean by not looking at the right communities. So the only *right* communities are the ones that confirm this rhetoric and me paying attention and associating with communities that don't fit the narrative is wrong? Rather wouldn't that be evidence that this isn't a sweeping problem by rather a pocketed one?
As a guy in tech and gaming i've been exposed to plenty of assholes and they're hardly represented of the community. They're the cliche stereotype. It's just they are noticed more because they are loud, you don't notice the hundreds of interactions with sensible players but you'll notice and remember that single asshole each time.
>Also it should be added, there was a lot of entertainment media at the time that reinforced the belief that women don't belong as coders(Weird Science, War Games, etc. In the latter, re-watch it, the premise itself isn't the causal point).
Which I don't buy into because all the same media and social pressure actively discouraged men from those endeavors as well. The same pressures that turned those that pursued those area's into social outcasts. Those social outcasts than built the world around us and the culture that developed was built to support those type of people. And then the culture hit mainstream and rather than fess up that society has treated these people terribly, instead they decided to attack the culture for not being inclusive. Tropes in video games are held to the light as an example of prevalent sexism in video games to shame the originators of the culture. When in actuality they are just shaming the fantasy's of some social outcasts. And this is why I don't buy into the current B.S. Sure we need to talk about the unwelcoming nature of the industries cool, how about we talk about the toxicity that has come from outside the industry as well. It's never left, the same attitudes permeates under a different banner. It's no coincidence that *neckbeard* rose in popularity as a negative term, as *nerdy* & *geek* transitioned from their negative connotations to positive.
>and absolving yourself of any capability to do something about it makes you a prime example of what so many of the women who are speaking up say about it.
i'm not sure how i'm absolving myself of doing anything, when I state I would rather prop up and hold successful women rather than attack tropes in the culture.
>Edit: Or tl;dr: Are you seriously purporting to know more about this as a student listening to your professor than the hundreds of women who speak out about this every day?
Yes I am seriously going to listen to my professor and all the other women I know, over these people i've never met
| >Then you're not listening very hard. It's been said by many of the most prominent women in the field, like Julie Ann Horvath, Gina Trapani, or Sara Chipps.
Yes they experienced assholes and some guys that created a single sexist app in the sea of millions of apps.
However I do listen to my professor who has been in the industry a lot longer than them. I listen to the girls i know working at/with Obsidian, at blizzard. I prefer to listen to them rather than ignore them in favor of the opinions of women i've never met.
I also work close with my college's STEM club chapter and our biggest issue getting women in the club isn't sexism or it being a boys club, it's been the 2 female presidents we had pushing every girl out that they felt were in it for attention rather than had a passion. Which is a problem with the these fields themselves, gaming and tech. It's not a sexism lack of diversity issue, it's just everyone with a passion tries to shove out anyone who doesn't share that same level of passion. The first women president admitted this to me, she tried to push me out of the club because she felt I wasn't interested enough but I proved her wrong.
>Once again, maybe it's because you're still in school, maybe it's because you're not looking at the right communities, but the tech industry as a whole has quite a few people talking about this. In fact, it's been one of the most frequent topics of discussion over the last year, and part of the reason so many companies are releasing demographic information of their employees now.
my experiences aren't specific to school, but I do respect my professors opinion greatly because of how long she's belonged.
I'm not sure what you mean by not looking at the right communities. So the only right communities are the ones that confirm this rhetoric and me paying attention and associating with communities that don't fit the narrative is wrong? Rather wouldn't that be evidence that this isn't a sweeping problem by rather a pocketed one?
As a guy in tech and gaming i've been exposed to plenty of assholes and they're hardly represented of the community. They're the cliche stereotype. It's just they are noticed more because they are loud, you don't notice the hundreds of interactions with sensible players but you'll notice and remember that single asshole each time.
>Also it should be added, there was a lot of entertainment media at the time that reinforced the belief that women don't belong as coders(Weird Science, War Games, etc. In the latter, re-watch it, the premise itself isn't the causal point).
Which I don't buy into because all the same media and social pressure actively discouraged men from those endeavors as well. The same pressures that turned those that pursued those area's into social outcasts. Those social outcasts than built the world around us and the culture that developed was built to support those type of people. And then the culture hit mainstream and rather than fess up that society has treated these people terribly, instead they decided to attack the culture for not being inclusive. Tropes in video games are held to the light as an example of prevalent sexism in video games to shame the originators of the culture. When in actuality they are just shaming the fantasy's of some social outcasts. And this is why I don't buy into the current B.S. Sure we need to talk about the unwelcoming nature of the industries cool, how about we talk about the toxicity that has come from outside the industry as well. It's never left, the same attitudes permeates under a different banner. It's no coincidence that neckbeard rose in popularity as a negative term, as nerdy & geek transitioned from their negative connotations to positive.
>and absolving yourself of any capability to do something about it makes you a prime example of what so many of the women who are speaking up say about it.
i'm not sure how i'm absolving myself of doing anything, when I state I would rather prop up and hold successful women rather than attack tropes in the culture.
>Edit: Or tl;dr: Are you seriously purporting to know more about this as a student listening to your professor than the hundreds of women who speak out about this every day?
Yes I am seriously going to listen to my professor and all the other women I know, over these people i've never met
| Games | t5_2qhwp | cly6cqw | Then you're not listening very hard. It's been said by many of the most prominent women in the field, like Julie Ann Horvath, Gina Trapani, or Sara Chipps.
Yes they experienced assholes and some guys that created a single sexist app in the sea of millions of apps.
However I do listen to my professor who has been in the industry a lot longer than them. I listen to the girls i know working at/with Obsidian, at blizzard. I prefer to listen to them rather than ignore them in favor of the opinions of women i've never met.
I also work close with my college's STEM club chapter and our biggest issue getting women in the club isn't sexism or it being a boys club, it's been the 2 female presidents we had pushing every girl out that they felt were in it for attention rather than had a passion. Which is a problem with the these fields themselves, gaming and tech. It's not a sexism lack of diversity issue, it's just everyone with a passion tries to shove out anyone who doesn't share that same level of passion. The first women president admitted this to me, she tried to push me out of the club because she felt I wasn't interested enough but I proved her wrong.
>Once again, maybe it's because you're still in school, maybe it's because you're not looking at the right communities, but the tech industry as a whole has quite a few people talking about this. In fact, it's been one of the most frequent topics of discussion over the last year, and part of the reason so many companies are releasing demographic information of their employees now.
my experiences aren't specific to school, but I do respect my professors opinion greatly because of how long she's belonged.
I'm not sure what you mean by not looking at the right communities. So the only right communities are the ones that confirm this rhetoric and me paying attention and associating with communities that don't fit the narrative is wrong? Rather wouldn't that be evidence that this isn't a sweeping problem by rather a pocketed one?
As a guy in tech and gaming i've been exposed to plenty of assholes and they're hardly represented of the community. They're the cliche stereotype. It's just they are noticed more because they are loud, you don't notice the hundreds of interactions with sensible players but you'll notice and remember that single asshole each time.
>Also it should be added, there was a lot of entertainment media at the time that reinforced the belief that women don't belong as coders(Weird Science, War Games, etc. In the latter, re-watch it, the premise itself isn't the causal point).
Which I don't buy into because all the same media and social pressure actively discouraged men from those endeavors as well. The same pressures that turned those that pursued those area's into social outcasts. Those social outcasts than built the world around us and the culture that developed was built to support those type of people. And then the culture hit mainstream and rather than fess up that society has treated these people terribly, instead they decided to attack the culture for not being inclusive. Tropes in video games are held to the light as an example of prevalent sexism in video games to shame the originators of the culture. When in actuality they are just shaming the fantasy's of some social outcasts. And this is why I don't buy into the current B.S. Sure we need to talk about the unwelcoming nature of the industries cool, how about we talk about the toxicity that has come from outside the industry as well. It's never left, the same attitudes permeates under a different banner. It's no coincidence that neckbeard rose in popularity as a negative term, as nerdy & geek transitioned from their negative connotations to positive.
>and absolving yourself of any capability to do something about it makes you a prime example of what so many of the women who are speaking up say about it.
i'm not sure how i'm absolving myself of doing anything, when I state I would rather prop up and hold successful women rather than attack tropes in the culture.
>Edit: Or | Are you seriously purporting to know more about this as a student listening to your professor than the hundreds of women who speak out about this every day?
Yes I am seriously going to listen to my professor and all the other women I know, over these people i've never met |
audi4444player | what do you mean? as humans we have 2 genders, if you're undecided go to whichever is closest? have a penis? go to the mens toilets, urinals are easier. want more privacy/take a shit? go to the ladies, it doesn't really make a difference. I've thought about it a bit and have changed my mind, if a lady is willing to let me use a urinal in the same room as her and not be put off I'm fine with it, unisex is a good idea in theory but I still think it will cause people to simply have less toilets available in total which is bad, especially as there is quite frequently a line for ladies toilets. I will admit that the main reason I don't like it is the sign :P I hate those symbols lol if they just put a picture of a toilet or something I probably wouldn't have even commented. what I think would be a better use of money than changing existing toilets would be automatic doors, it might actually allow me to use public bathrooms more often (currently I almost never use them, hence my ignorance of the fact that this is a problem at all, they're too filthy)
TL;DR : I don't actually care either way. | what do you mean? as humans we have 2 genders, if you're undecided go to whichever is closest? have a penis? go to the mens toilets, urinals are easier. want more privacy/take a shit? go to the ladies, it doesn't really make a difference. I've thought about it a bit and have changed my mind, if a lady is willing to let me use a urinal in the same room as her and not be put off I'm fine with it, unisex is a good idea in theory but I still think it will cause people to simply have less toilets available in total which is bad, especially as there is quite frequently a line for ladies toilets. I will admit that the main reason I don't like it is the sign :P I hate those symbols lol if they just put a picture of a toilet or something I probably wouldn't have even commented. what I think would be a better use of money than changing existing toilets would be automatic doors, it might actually allow me to use public bathrooms more often (currently I almost never use them, hence my ignorance of the fact that this is a problem at all, they're too filthy)
TL;DR : I don't actually care either way.
| lgbt | t5_2qhh7 | clxev90 | what do you mean? as humans we have 2 genders, if you're undecided go to whichever is closest? have a penis? go to the mens toilets, urinals are easier. want more privacy/take a shit? go to the ladies, it doesn't really make a difference. I've thought about it a bit and have changed my mind, if a lady is willing to let me use a urinal in the same room as her and not be put off I'm fine with it, unisex is a good idea in theory but I still think it will cause people to simply have less toilets available in total which is bad, especially as there is quite frequently a line for ladies toilets. I will admit that the main reason I don't like it is the sign :P I hate those symbols lol if they just put a picture of a toilet or something I probably wouldn't have even commented. what I think would be a better use of money than changing existing toilets would be automatic doors, it might actually allow me to use public bathrooms more often (currently I almost never use them, hence my ignorance of the fact that this is a problem at all, they're too filthy) | I don't actually care either way. |
Baron_von_Derp | That's correct, there are two different concepts being discussed here. I thought I did a decent job acknowledging them but I clearly did not, so I'd like to be more explicit this time around. I think we agree that the two questions are "What factors lead to victory in this competitive game, and in what proportion?" and "How much room is there within this game to differentiate oneself from others in a competitive sense?"; please correct me if you disagree. The first question deals with the "luck<->skill axis," while the second I believe is best expressed by the term you used, "complexity." What I see going on in this thread is that some people are looking at the concepts of luck and skill only through the lens of the first question, and this is leading them to (in my opinion) false conclusions.
When weighing the factors that lead to a particular outcome, the sum of weights must equal 1. This statement is, of course, true by definition. Consequently, if luck and skill encompass all such factors, then those two categories would seem to be locked in conflict. If one goes up in importance, the other must go down by the same amount. A single variable is thus sufficient to represent how much of each is present. All of this is trivial - *assuming you are asking the first question only*. My argument is that this is an overly simplistic, and not very informative, view of the relationship between luck and skill in games. To get more useful information, the second question must be considered.
I used two different examples to attempt to show that luck and skill factors in a game can be considered independently from one another. The first one about chess was referenced from one of Richard Garfield's talks on game design, actually. It is of course a terrible game design (not one person would argue for such a change to be implemented in real chess), but it is useful to illustrate a point. It shows trivially that the complexity in a game is an independent quantity from the luck involved in deciding the winner. The second example was to point out that adding random elements to a game ("luck") can be used to *increase* the complexity of the game and *widen* the gap between skilled and unskilled players. Such elements require the ability to judge expected values and also introduce the ability to bluff (though bluffing can also come from simultaneous move selection). Poker is a good example of a game that uses randomization mechanisms to increase its complexity.
This post got really long, but I wanted to shed some light on what I feel is a common misconception: that adding luck elements to a game design always comes at the expense of competitiveness. **TL;DR** looking at luck and skill as existing along a single axis is a misleading (though not technically wrong) perspective that masks their deeper relationship. | That's correct, there are two different concepts being discussed here. I thought I did a decent job acknowledging them but I clearly did not, so I'd like to be more explicit this time around. I think we agree that the two questions are "What factors lead to victory in this competitive game, and in what proportion?" and "How much room is there within this game to differentiate oneself from others in a competitive sense?"; please correct me if you disagree. The first question deals with the "luck<->skill axis," while the second I believe is best expressed by the term you used, "complexity." What I see going on in this thread is that some people are looking at the concepts of luck and skill only through the lens of the first question, and this is leading them to (in my opinion) false conclusions.
When weighing the factors that lead to a particular outcome, the sum of weights must equal 1. This statement is, of course, true by definition. Consequently, if luck and skill encompass all such factors, then those two categories would seem to be locked in conflict. If one goes up in importance, the other must go down by the same amount. A single variable is thus sufficient to represent how much of each is present. All of this is trivial - assuming you are asking the first question only . My argument is that this is an overly simplistic, and not very informative, view of the relationship between luck and skill in games. To get more useful information, the second question must be considered.
I used two different examples to attempt to show that luck and skill factors in a game can be considered independently from one another. The first one about chess was referenced from one of Richard Garfield's talks on game design, actually. It is of course a terrible game design (not one person would argue for such a change to be implemented in real chess), but it is useful to illustrate a point. It shows trivially that the complexity in a game is an independent quantity from the luck involved in deciding the winner. The second example was to point out that adding random elements to a game ("luck") can be used to increase the complexity of the game and widen the gap between skilled and unskilled players. Such elements require the ability to judge expected values and also introduce the ability to bluff (though bluffing can also come from simultaneous move selection). Poker is a good example of a game that uses randomization mechanisms to increase its complexity.
This post got really long, but I wanted to shed some light on what I feel is a common misconception: that adding luck elements to a game design always comes at the expense of competitiveness. TL;DR looking at luck and skill as existing along a single axis is a misleading (though not technically wrong) perspective that masks their deeper relationship.
| gamedev | t5_2qi0a | clz4h05 | That's correct, there are two different concepts being discussed here. I thought I did a decent job acknowledging them but I clearly did not, so I'd like to be more explicit this time around. I think we agree that the two questions are "What factors lead to victory in this competitive game, and in what proportion?" and "How much room is there within this game to differentiate oneself from others in a competitive sense?"; please correct me if you disagree. The first question deals with the "luck<->skill axis," while the second I believe is best expressed by the term you used, "complexity." What I see going on in this thread is that some people are looking at the concepts of luck and skill only through the lens of the first question, and this is leading them to (in my opinion) false conclusions.
When weighing the factors that lead to a particular outcome, the sum of weights must equal 1. This statement is, of course, true by definition. Consequently, if luck and skill encompass all such factors, then those two categories would seem to be locked in conflict. If one goes up in importance, the other must go down by the same amount. A single variable is thus sufficient to represent how much of each is present. All of this is trivial - assuming you are asking the first question only . My argument is that this is an overly simplistic, and not very informative, view of the relationship between luck and skill in games. To get more useful information, the second question must be considered.
I used two different examples to attempt to show that luck and skill factors in a game can be considered independently from one another. The first one about chess was referenced from one of Richard Garfield's talks on game design, actually. It is of course a terrible game design (not one person would argue for such a change to be implemented in real chess), but it is useful to illustrate a point. It shows trivially that the complexity in a game is an independent quantity from the luck involved in deciding the winner. The second example was to point out that adding random elements to a game ("luck") can be used to increase the complexity of the game and widen the gap between skilled and unskilled players. Such elements require the ability to judge expected values and also introduce the ability to bluff (though bluffing can also come from simultaneous move selection). Poker is a good example of a game that uses randomization mechanisms to increase its complexity.
This post got really long, but I wanted to shed some light on what I feel is a common misconception: that adding luck elements to a game design always comes at the expense of competitiveness. | looking at luck and skill as existing along a single axis is a misleading (though not technically wrong) perspective that masks their deeper relationship. |
Beer_And_Cheese | A lot of guys are saying this should be a minor, not a major, but this is once of those instances where it has to be either no call or a major. Whether it is a minor or major is not based on the degree of contact from the offending player (which is what is being assumed in this thread), but rather it is based on the degree of impact Schenn has with the boards. Looking at how much contact Mack has with Schenn is the incorrect thing to base the penalty on, that is not how it is called in accordance to the rules. Since the ref decided it was a boarding penalty (which I think is debatable), and Schenn hit the boards really, really fucking hard and "violently" (rulebook term not mine) enough to appear injured, it must be a major penalty - it cannot be a minor.
TL:DR - this is one of those weird instances where it must be called as no penalty or a major. Cannot be in between. | A lot of guys are saying this should be a minor, not a major, but this is once of those instances where it has to be either no call or a major. Whether it is a minor or major is not based on the degree of contact from the offending player (which is what is being assumed in this thread), but rather it is based on the degree of impact Schenn has with the boards. Looking at how much contact Mack has with Schenn is the incorrect thing to base the penalty on, that is not how it is called in accordance to the rules. Since the ref decided it was a boarding penalty (which I think is debatable), and Schenn hit the boards really, really fucking hard and "violently" (rulebook term not mine) enough to appear injured, it must be a major penalty - it cannot be a minor.
TL:DR - this is one of those weird instances where it must be called as no penalty or a major. Cannot be in between.
| hockey | t5_2qiel | clxatxp | A lot of guys are saying this should be a minor, not a major, but this is once of those instances where it has to be either no call or a major. Whether it is a minor or major is not based on the degree of contact from the offending player (which is what is being assumed in this thread), but rather it is based on the degree of impact Schenn has with the boards. Looking at how much contact Mack has with Schenn is the incorrect thing to base the penalty on, that is not how it is called in accordance to the rules. Since the ref decided it was a boarding penalty (which I think is debatable), and Schenn hit the boards really, really fucking hard and "violently" (rulebook term not mine) enough to appear injured, it must be a major penalty - it cannot be a minor. | this is one of those weird instances where it must be called as no penalty or a major. Cannot be in between. |
interview_suit | Sounds awful. I had a rotten therapist who continually discounted and dismissed my problems and my distorted thinking. Do you have a friend or someone you can debrief this stuff with? I have a kook friend, I can call him up and totally unload this crap and he give support, most of the time. It seems like the harder you try to tell them how bad it is, the more they think you're faking it. that's been my experience. These dr.s in the county mental health dept. just assume everyone's a lowbrow junkie trying to get meds. (sorry, that's my ADHD diagnosis challenge that I'm going through right now) TL'DR, they shouldn't put us on the defensive, that sucks. | Sounds awful. I had a rotten therapist who continually discounted and dismissed my problems and my distorted thinking. Do you have a friend or someone you can debrief this stuff with? I have a kook friend, I can call him up and totally unload this crap and he give support, most of the time. It seems like the harder you try to tell them how bad it is, the more they think you're faking it. that's been my experience. These dr.s in the county mental health dept. just assume everyone's a lowbrow junkie trying to get meds. (sorry, that's my ADHD diagnosis challenge that I'm going through right now) TL'DR, they shouldn't put us on the defensive, that sucks.
| ptsd | t5_2qm0x | clxr0rp | Sounds awful. I had a rotten therapist who continually discounted and dismissed my problems and my distorted thinking. Do you have a friend or someone you can debrief this stuff with? I have a kook friend, I can call him up and totally unload this crap and he give support, most of the time. It seems like the harder you try to tell them how bad it is, the more they think you're faking it. that's been my experience. These dr.s in the county mental health dept. just assume everyone's a lowbrow junkie trying to get meds. (sorry, that's my ADHD diagnosis challenge that I'm going through right now) | they shouldn't put us on the defensive, that sucks. |
idouglas | This is a problem, I've noticed, in any play environment when there is anything of value on the line. I run a weekly event at my LGS called "beginner magic" because it is a college town with lots of people that want to learn or improve, but get consistently crushed by net decks at fnm. There are some regulars that play in beginner magic that are not really beginners, but they do it because it is an environment when there is nothing on the line or at stake. Only then do you really root-out the players who take the game too seriously. In this environment people chat and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of cards, but they don't feel entitled to win just because their deck sees more competitive play. I saw a similar thing happen when my LGS did a limited pauper magic series, and it was a free tournament with a small prize for first but $1 in store credit for everyone who participated. That was the most pleasant semicompeditive tournament I had ever played, because as soon as you aren't in contention for first, no one really cares how well they do.
TLDR I find that any event that has either no prizes, or pays out very evenly attracts players with very positive attitudes. The events where placing in the top tier means a heavy payout attracts jerks. | This is a problem, I've noticed, in any play environment when there is anything of value on the line. I run a weekly event at my LGS called "beginner magic" because it is a college town with lots of people that want to learn or improve, but get consistently crushed by net decks at fnm. There are some regulars that play in beginner magic that are not really beginners, but they do it because it is an environment when there is nothing on the line or at stake. Only then do you really root-out the players who take the game too seriously. In this environment people chat and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of cards, but they don't feel entitled to win just because their deck sees more competitive play. I saw a similar thing happen when my LGS did a limited pauper magic series, and it was a free tournament with a small prize for first but $1 in store credit for everyone who participated. That was the most pleasant semicompeditive tournament I had ever played, because as soon as you aren't in contention for first, no one really cares how well they do.
TLDR I find that any event that has either no prizes, or pays out very evenly attracts players with very positive attitudes. The events where placing in the top tier means a heavy payout attracts jerks.
| magicTCG | t5_2qn5f | clx5yci | This is a problem, I've noticed, in any play environment when there is anything of value on the line. I run a weekly event at my LGS called "beginner magic" because it is a college town with lots of people that want to learn or improve, but get consistently crushed by net decks at fnm. There are some regulars that play in beginner magic that are not really beginners, but they do it because it is an environment when there is nothing on the line or at stake. Only then do you really root-out the players who take the game too seriously. In this environment people chat and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of cards, but they don't feel entitled to win just because their deck sees more competitive play. I saw a similar thing happen when my LGS did a limited pauper magic series, and it was a free tournament with a small prize for first but $1 in store credit for everyone who participated. That was the most pleasant semicompeditive tournament I had ever played, because as soon as you aren't in contention for first, no one really cares how well they do. | I find that any event that has either no prizes, or pays out very evenly attracts players with very positive attitudes. The events where placing in the top tier means a heavy payout attracts jerks. |
amethyst_specter | Don't all reference frames have to agree since they're equally accurate? From the heliocentric viewpoint Earth is rotating counterclockwise when viewed from above the north pole so the machine fly approximately east relative to Earth if we aren't on a pole (I think tangential to the orbit of Earth relative to the sun if we are which still isn't Earth's orbit) because rotations and orbits are acceleration, making it where inertia won't do shit for us since we can't just accelerate in all the ways Earth's surface is.
Since all reference frames are equally valid, this should mean that all other reference frames agree that the Earth and time machine are going to get increasingly far away from each other. I think that's how this shit works anyway, most of my science knowledge comes from The Science Channel or people arguing about this stuff here on Reddit.
**tl;dr** I think all reference frames would make Earth and the time machine fly away from each other. | Don't all reference frames have to agree since they're equally accurate? From the heliocentric viewpoint Earth is rotating counterclockwise when viewed from above the north pole so the machine fly approximately east relative to Earth if we aren't on a pole (I think tangential to the orbit of Earth relative to the sun if we are which still isn't Earth's orbit) because rotations and orbits are acceleration, making it where inertia won't do shit for us since we can't just accelerate in all the ways Earth's surface is.
Since all reference frames are equally valid, this should mean that all other reference frames agree that the Earth and time machine are going to get increasingly far away from each other. I think that's how this shit works anyway, most of my science knowledge comes from The Science Channel or people arguing about this stuff here on Reddit.
tl;dr I think all reference frames would make Earth and the time machine fly away from each other.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | clxhrfa | Don't all reference frames have to agree since they're equally accurate? From the heliocentric viewpoint Earth is rotating counterclockwise when viewed from above the north pole so the machine fly approximately east relative to Earth if we aren't on a pole (I think tangential to the orbit of Earth relative to the sun if we are which still isn't Earth's orbit) because rotations and orbits are acceleration, making it where inertia won't do shit for us since we can't just accelerate in all the ways Earth's surface is.
Since all reference frames are equally valid, this should mean that all other reference frames agree that the Earth and time machine are going to get increasingly far away from each other. I think that's how this shit works anyway, most of my science knowledge comes from The Science Channel or people arguing about this stuff here on Reddit. | I think all reference frames would make Earth and the time machine fly away from each other. |
BlakePolzl | This maybe because he had no idea about any of the technology in the modern iPhone, so he kept producing the same thing, and couldn't add features until current civilisation were it up to the point of when the original iPhone was made.
Tl;Dr the iPhone IS from the future. | This maybe because he had no idea about any of the technology in the modern iPhone, so he kept producing the same thing, and couldn't add features until current civilisation were it up to the point of when the original iPhone was made.
Tl;Dr the iPhone IS from the future.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | clxwbip | This maybe because he had no idea about any of the technology in the modern iPhone, so he kept producing the same thing, and couldn't add features until current civilisation were it up to the point of when the original iPhone was made. | the iPhone IS from the future. |
OneJobToRuleThemAll | Because while a review and a first impression aren't the same, the way they make their first impressions makes them journalists. Main requirement here being audience.
I'm a reviewer if I tell you I've played through game x and it was shit. I'm not a journalist though, because I do not have an audience nor anything interesting to say.
TL:DR; it's horseshit to claim you aren't a journalist because you don't do reviews as doing reviews isn't related to being a journalist in the first place. | Because while a review and a first impression aren't the same, the way they make their first impressions makes them journalists. Main requirement here being audience.
I'm a reviewer if I tell you I've played through game x and it was shit. I'm not a journalist though, because I do not have an audience nor anything interesting to say.
TL:DR; it's horseshit to claim you aren't a journalist because you don't do reviews as doing reviews isn't related to being a journalist in the first place.
| GamerGhazi | t5_33oia | clxitdq | Because while a review and a first impression aren't the same, the way they make their first impressions makes them journalists. Main requirement here being audience.
I'm a reviewer if I tell you I've played through game x and it was shit. I'm not a journalist though, because I do not have an audience nor anything interesting to say. | it's horseshit to claim you aren't a journalist because you don't do reviews as doing reviews isn't related to being a journalist in the first place. |
godsvoid | I personally have issues with any device turning my head (mouse, joystick, keyboard). Comfort mode solves most issues for me except turning 180, too many button presses to turn full circle. Maybe a dedicated turn 180 instantly button?
TL:DR - I have my dk2 since august, non instant turning makes me sick, cockpit games no issue. | I personally have issues with any device turning my head (mouse, joystick, keyboard). Comfort mode solves most issues for me except turning 180, too many button presses to turn full circle. Maybe a dedicated turn 180 instantly button?
TL:DR - I have my dk2 since august, non instant turning makes me sick, cockpit games no issue.
| oculus | t5_2uni5 | clxirxm | I personally have issues with any device turning my head (mouse, joystick, keyboard). Comfort mode solves most issues for me except turning 180, too many button presses to turn full circle. Maybe a dedicated turn 180 instantly button? | I have my dk2 since august, non instant turning makes me sick, cockpit games no issue. |
TheRealAlfredAdler | The problem is, this person is focused more on the fact that they *need* something and not *why* they need it or *how* they came about to need it in the first place. If you had a rough day or are just plain bored and you think you *need* to eat a pint of ice cream to feel better, that's a cognitive adaptation to your behavior.
It's not some mystical "need" that you've always had, it's goddamn operant conditioning. You feel bad/bored, you eat the ice cream, the sugar makes you feel good, you're positively reinforced so the behavior increases, eventually it becomes the standard response.
And it won't go away if you don't acknowledge the problem for what it is.
TL;DR Psychobabble. | The problem is, this person is focused more on the fact that they need something and not why they need it or how they came about to need it in the first place. If you had a rough day or are just plain bored and you think you need to eat a pint of ice cream to feel better, that's a cognitive adaptation to your behavior.
It's not some mystical "need" that you've always had, it's goddamn operant conditioning. You feel bad/bored, you eat the ice cream, the sugar makes you feel good, you're positively reinforced so the behavior increases, eventually it becomes the standard response.
And it won't go away if you don't acknowledge the problem for what it is.
TL;DR Psychobabble.
| fatlogic | t5_2wyxm | clxj11v | The problem is, this person is focused more on the fact that they need something and not why they need it or how they came about to need it in the first place. If you had a rough day or are just plain bored and you think you need to eat a pint of ice cream to feel better, that's a cognitive adaptation to your behavior.
It's not some mystical "need" that you've always had, it's goddamn operant conditioning. You feel bad/bored, you eat the ice cream, the sugar makes you feel good, you're positively reinforced so the behavior increases, eventually it becomes the standard response.
And it won't go away if you don't acknowledge the problem for what it is. | Psychobabble. |
Dixieduffy | It basically means you are happy in your own body and is commonly used as an insult because people don't wanna be trans are obviously cis shitlord scumbags who want to rape make all women slaves.
Edit: TLDR: Not transsexual. | It basically means you are happy in your own body and is commonly used as an insult because people don't wanna be trans are obviously cis shitlord scumbags who want to rape make all women slaves.
Edit: TLDR: Not transsexual.
| MensRights | t5_2qhk3 | clxv40m | It basically means you are happy in your own body and is commonly used as an insult because people don't wanna be trans are obviously cis shitlord scumbags who want to rape make all women slaves.
Edit: | Not transsexual. |
Persianboy7thst | While being an advocate of both sports and esports (I play lots basketball) I do believe in my option that they should be referred to as what they are. Esports belong with there tournaments and so should sports. For example I don't believe LoL should be an Olympic sport.
TL;DR no I don't think esports are sports | While being an advocate of both sports and esports (I play lots basketball) I do believe in my option that they should be referred to as what they are. Esports belong with there tournaments and so should sports. For example I don't believe LoL should be an Olympic sport.
TL;DR no I don't think esports are sports
| GlobalOffensive | t5_2sqho | cly8um2 | While being an advocate of both sports and esports (I play lots basketball) I do believe in my option that they should be referred to as what they are. Esports belong with there tournaments and so should sports. For example I don't believe LoL should be an Olympic sport. | no I don't think esports are sports |
the_swepr | Yeah, I never got why people think games need to orient themselves on reality.
I mean, that is so … limiting.
===
Seriously, a game dev can do anything he wants in his game because he is the one defining the rules.
* Probably when the player misses a single bullet their gun will just explode. WHOOOOO!!
* A wall morphs into a crocodile that sprints at you only to give you flowers (with which you can of course turn other players into pigs)
* …
===
TL;DR; just because games looks similar to reality, rules could be totally different | Yeah, I never got why people think games need to orient themselves on reality.
I mean, that is so … limiting.
===
Seriously, a game dev can do anything he wants in his game because he is the one defining the rules.
Probably when the player misses a single bullet their gun will just explode. WHOOOOO!!
A wall morphs into a crocodile that sprints at you only to give you flowers (with which you can of course turn other players into pigs)
…
===
TL;DR; just because games looks similar to reality, rules could be totally different
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | clyuvoi | Yeah, I never got why people think games need to orient themselves on reality.
I mean, that is so … limiting.
===
Seriously, a game dev can do anything he wants in his game because he is the one defining the rules.
Probably when the player misses a single bullet their gun will just explode. WHOOOOO!!
A wall morphs into a crocodile that sprints at you only to give you flowers (with which you can of course turn other players into pigs)
…
=== | just because games looks similar to reality, rules could be totally different |
Krzyski | It's actually virtually impossible to eliminate recoil, and even if you could in the sense of someone holding a firearm it would actually be worse for accuracy.
Recoil is the force of an explosion going off inside of the chamber of the firearm. That force has to travel somewhere and like all energy, it takes the path of least resistance. That's why if you're a right handed firer your firearm should travel up and right. Your body is to the left and below the firearm so it is easier to travel up and right.
If you could muster the strength to overcome the force of recoil you would essentially be creating a negative recoil that would push the firearm low and left. This is known as a "flinch". This is a bit weird to explain in text so I hope it makes sense. Note the math here is only to illustrate the principal.
The trick to shooting is too fire the exact same shot every time by changing nothing. The less you change in your position, hold, aim, release and follow through, the more accurate you will be. If you are holding a rifle in the shoulder we can say there is -10 units of force pushing the rifle down (gravity) and plus 10 units of force pushing the rifle up (you holding it). This equals zero units of force.
If you then fire a shot you will have an additional 10 units of force added to the rifle (recoil up and right). This means every time you shoot you can account for +10 units of force as you shoot. If you fired the perfect shot every time your bullet will literally land in the exact same spot every time. If you try and fight that force you could run into a lot of problems.
The main problem you could encounter is the inconsistency of force to push against the recoil. If you tense up and try to fight the recoil you may apply different levels of force as it is virtually impossible for a human to consistently push the same amount of force.
Lets say you fire three shots fighting the recoil. The first is a perfect -10 units of force and you end up with a net force of 0. The second shot you fire with say -12 units of force resulting in a net value of -2 units of force. The third shot you applied only had -8 units of force equaling a net of +2 units of force. You now have a spread of 4 units of force which translates in one center shot, on low and left, one high and right.
The trick to shooting isn't to eliminate recoil, but to account for it. There are many other forces that influence your shot that are far worse than recoil.
Note: You can vice grip firearms to ensure they dont move at all, but that is guaranteeing that the same amount of force is stopping the rifle from moving every single time you shoot. It is simply impossible for a human to be that accurate when generating force every single time. If you dont believe me try hitting a punching bag that tells you how many pounds per square inch youre generating. You wont get the exact same reading every time.
TL;DR: Don't fight recoil, use it. | It's actually virtually impossible to eliminate recoil, and even if you could in the sense of someone holding a firearm it would actually be worse for accuracy.
Recoil is the force of an explosion going off inside of the chamber of the firearm. That force has to travel somewhere and like all energy, it takes the path of least resistance. That's why if you're a right handed firer your firearm should travel up and right. Your body is to the left and below the firearm so it is easier to travel up and right.
If you could muster the strength to overcome the force of recoil you would essentially be creating a negative recoil that would push the firearm low and left. This is known as a "flinch". This is a bit weird to explain in text so I hope it makes sense. Note the math here is only to illustrate the principal.
The trick to shooting is too fire the exact same shot every time by changing nothing. The less you change in your position, hold, aim, release and follow through, the more accurate you will be. If you are holding a rifle in the shoulder we can say there is -10 units of force pushing the rifle down (gravity) and plus 10 units of force pushing the rifle up (you holding it). This equals zero units of force.
If you then fire a shot you will have an additional 10 units of force added to the rifle (recoil up and right). This means every time you shoot you can account for +10 units of force as you shoot. If you fired the perfect shot every time your bullet will literally land in the exact same spot every time. If you try and fight that force you could run into a lot of problems.
The main problem you could encounter is the inconsistency of force to push against the recoil. If you tense up and try to fight the recoil you may apply different levels of force as it is virtually impossible for a human to consistently push the same amount of force.
Lets say you fire three shots fighting the recoil. The first is a perfect -10 units of force and you end up with a net force of 0. The second shot you fire with say -12 units of force resulting in a net value of -2 units of force. The third shot you applied only had -8 units of force equaling a net of +2 units of force. You now have a spread of 4 units of force which translates in one center shot, on low and left, one high and right.
The trick to shooting isn't to eliminate recoil, but to account for it. There are many other forces that influence your shot that are far worse than recoil.
Note: You can vice grip firearms to ensure they dont move at all, but that is guaranteeing that the same amount of force is stopping the rifle from moving every single time you shoot. It is simply impossible for a human to be that accurate when generating force every single time. If you dont believe me try hitting a punching bag that tells you how many pounds per square inch youre generating. You wont get the exact same reading every time.
TL;DR: Don't fight recoil, use it.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | clxzje1 | It's actually virtually impossible to eliminate recoil, and even if you could in the sense of someone holding a firearm it would actually be worse for accuracy.
Recoil is the force of an explosion going off inside of the chamber of the firearm. That force has to travel somewhere and like all energy, it takes the path of least resistance. That's why if you're a right handed firer your firearm should travel up and right. Your body is to the left and below the firearm so it is easier to travel up and right.
If you could muster the strength to overcome the force of recoil you would essentially be creating a negative recoil that would push the firearm low and left. This is known as a "flinch". This is a bit weird to explain in text so I hope it makes sense. Note the math here is only to illustrate the principal.
The trick to shooting is too fire the exact same shot every time by changing nothing. The less you change in your position, hold, aim, release and follow through, the more accurate you will be. If you are holding a rifle in the shoulder we can say there is -10 units of force pushing the rifle down (gravity) and plus 10 units of force pushing the rifle up (you holding it). This equals zero units of force.
If you then fire a shot you will have an additional 10 units of force added to the rifle (recoil up and right). This means every time you shoot you can account for +10 units of force as you shoot. If you fired the perfect shot every time your bullet will literally land in the exact same spot every time. If you try and fight that force you could run into a lot of problems.
The main problem you could encounter is the inconsistency of force to push against the recoil. If you tense up and try to fight the recoil you may apply different levels of force as it is virtually impossible for a human to consistently push the same amount of force.
Lets say you fire three shots fighting the recoil. The first is a perfect -10 units of force and you end up with a net force of 0. The second shot you fire with say -12 units of force resulting in a net value of -2 units of force. The third shot you applied only had -8 units of force equaling a net of +2 units of force. You now have a spread of 4 units of force which translates in one center shot, on low and left, one high and right.
The trick to shooting isn't to eliminate recoil, but to account for it. There are many other forces that influence your shot that are far worse than recoil.
Note: You can vice grip firearms to ensure they dont move at all, but that is guaranteeing that the same amount of force is stopping the rifle from moving every single time you shoot. It is simply impossible for a human to be that accurate when generating force every single time. If you dont believe me try hitting a punching bag that tells you how many pounds per square inch youre generating. You wont get the exact same reading every time. | Don't fight recoil, use it. |
idiotsonfire | Its essentially sexual assault, not BDSM. He forces her into a contract and uses that to use her however he wants, pretty much is the tl;dr. Uses his money to keep her material possessions sated and then so on. | Its essentially sexual assault, not BDSM. He forces her into a contract and uses that to use her however he wants, pretty much is the tl;dr. Uses his money to keep her material possessions sated and then so on.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cly2idh | Its essentially sexual assault, not BDSM. He forces her into a contract and uses that to use her however he wants, pretty much is the | Uses his money to keep her material possessions sated and then so on. |
InfanticideAquifer | Yes. Because they can tap it to pay a *cost*. Whereas you can only tap is as part of the *resolution* of a spell or ability.
You would, e.g., pay mana to cast a spell that taps their creature. The mana is just gone. It simply leaves your mana pool. Then the tap effect goes on the stack.
In response they can place their creature's activated ability on the stack. The cost of that ability is tapping. The tapping just happens. Then the ability (destroy target creature) goes on the stack.
Then, assuming you both pass priority, their effect happens, then your effect happens. But your effect doesn't do much, because it taps an already tapped creature.
TL;DR: Paying costs simply happens. Effects use the stack. | Yes. Because they can tap it to pay a cost . Whereas you can only tap is as part of the resolution of a spell or ability.
You would, e.g., pay mana to cast a spell that taps their creature. The mana is just gone. It simply leaves your mana pool. Then the tap effect goes on the stack.
In response they can place their creature's activated ability on the stack. The cost of that ability is tapping. The tapping just happens. Then the ability (destroy target creature) goes on the stack.
Then, assuming you both pass priority, their effect happens, then your effect happens. But your effect doesn't do much, because it taps an already tapped creature.
TL;DR: Paying costs simply happens. Effects use the stack.
| magicTCG | t5_2qn5f | cly9op0 | Yes. Because they can tap it to pay a cost . Whereas you can only tap is as part of the resolution of a spell or ability.
You would, e.g., pay mana to cast a spell that taps their creature. The mana is just gone. It simply leaves your mana pool. Then the tap effect goes on the stack.
In response they can place their creature's activated ability on the stack. The cost of that ability is tapping. The tapping just happens. Then the ability (destroy target creature) goes on the stack.
Then, assuming you both pass priority, their effect happens, then your effect happens. But your effect doesn't do much, because it taps an already tapped creature. | Paying costs simply happens. Effects use the stack. |
froggieogreen | Anime Hange = canonically female
Manga Hange = canonically open to interpretation BUT WHY IS IT IMPORTANT IN THE SLIGHTEST? Hange, according to Isayama, is someone whose gender is not important to the plot which is good because when you write characters as genders and not as people, you write shitty characters (with a few exceptions). I personally see Hange as female, but I love that so many see her as non-binary because representation is important and while I have this soapbox to stand on I'll say that Hange, as a character, probably wouldn't give the slightest fuck as to what pronouns people use so long as they're not being disrespectful.
TL;DR - Hange is a glorious force of nature. | Anime Hange = canonically female
Manga Hange = canonically open to interpretation BUT WHY IS IT IMPORTANT IN THE SLIGHTEST? Hange, according to Isayama, is someone whose gender is not important to the plot which is good because when you write characters as genders and not as people, you write shitty characters (with a few exceptions). I personally see Hange as female, but I love that so many see her as non-binary because representation is important and while I have this soapbox to stand on I'll say that Hange, as a character, probably wouldn't give the slightest fuck as to what pronouns people use so long as they're not being disrespectful.
TL;DR - Hange is a glorious force of nature.
| ShingekiNoKyojin | t5_2we2n | clydkac | Anime Hange = canonically female
Manga Hange = canonically open to interpretation BUT WHY IS IT IMPORTANT IN THE SLIGHTEST? Hange, according to Isayama, is someone whose gender is not important to the plot which is good because when you write characters as genders and not as people, you write shitty characters (with a few exceptions). I personally see Hange as female, but I love that so many see her as non-binary because representation is important and while I have this soapbox to stand on I'll say that Hange, as a character, probably wouldn't give the slightest fuck as to what pronouns people use so long as they're not being disrespectful. | Hange is a glorious force of nature. |
MrChives | I've had this lower back/hip pain for quite some time now. Whenever it feels better, I'll wake up and have radiating pain in my hip and right lower back. I feel like something is wrong but every specialist I go to just tells me to do exercises. I can't squat because of it and that's my favorite exercise.
TL;DR Dat injury grind | I've had this lower back/hip pain for quite some time now. Whenever it feels better, I'll wake up and have radiating pain in my hip and right lower back. I feel like something is wrong but every specialist I go to just tells me to do exercises. I can't squat because of it and that's my favorite exercise.
TL;DR Dat injury grind
| bodybuilding | t5_2ql8s | clydfb5 | I've had this lower back/hip pain for quite some time now. Whenever it feels better, I'll wake up and have radiating pain in my hip and right lower back. I feel like something is wrong but every specialist I go to just tells me to do exercises. I can't squat because of it and that's my favorite exercise. | Dat injury grind |
Paran0idAndr0id | > I'm sure you know that all R/F chips in cell phones
Commercial cell phones maybe, but that doesn't stop you from building your own arduino- or raspberry-pi-based solution with a chip that does not have the bypass pulldowns (using an open schema). Further, you can use open source software and firmware or build the firmware yourself, as others have done for similar solutions.
I'm not saying it's convenient. In fact, I'd claim the ratio of convenience of buying a phone versus building one is, right now, astronomical. That doesn't mean that those that aren't security and privacy fanatics can't do it! That doesn't mean there's not a demand for these items. If anything, the growing popularity of the maker movement will increase the convenience over time.
Consider a second that you could instead use internet-based phone solutions using open source software to make phone calls. That way the only thing radio-wise you would need is the ability to connect to the internet wirelessly, such as via a 3g or 4g transmitter. Then, you could encrypt all of your communications locally before sending it over the air. None of this would require purchasing a microphone from a phone manufacturer. If one was somehow implanted in the wireless transmitter, then it's likely possible to open and remove it or at least render it useless.
Next, consider the evolution of a dark net or mesh, in which the internet is built on interconnected wireless nodes. This is getting cheaper by the day and may eventually remove the need for the 3g transmitter over simpler 802.11 (in populated areas at least). This could also make it harder for them to track your usage (something that a 3g transmitter makes basically trivial).
TL;DR - I disagree that I am delusional for thinking that DIY solutions offer additional protection over mass-produced ones. Further, I believe that it will get easier over time to do. This means that even if it's not feasible today, it may be a year from now. | > I'm sure you know that all R/F chips in cell phones
Commercial cell phones maybe, but that doesn't stop you from building your own arduino- or raspberry-pi-based solution with a chip that does not have the bypass pulldowns (using an open schema). Further, you can use open source software and firmware or build the firmware yourself, as others have done for similar solutions.
I'm not saying it's convenient. In fact, I'd claim the ratio of convenience of buying a phone versus building one is, right now, astronomical. That doesn't mean that those that aren't security and privacy fanatics can't do it! That doesn't mean there's not a demand for these items. If anything, the growing popularity of the maker movement will increase the convenience over time.
Consider a second that you could instead use internet-based phone solutions using open source software to make phone calls. That way the only thing radio-wise you would need is the ability to connect to the internet wirelessly, such as via a 3g or 4g transmitter. Then, you could encrypt all of your communications locally before sending it over the air. None of this would require purchasing a microphone from a phone manufacturer. If one was somehow implanted in the wireless transmitter, then it's likely possible to open and remove it or at least render it useless.
Next, consider the evolution of a dark net or mesh, in which the internet is built on interconnected wireless nodes. This is getting cheaper by the day and may eventually remove the need for the 3g transmitter over simpler 802.11 (in populated areas at least). This could also make it harder for them to track your usage (something that a 3g transmitter makes basically trivial).
TL;DR - I disagree that I am delusional for thinking that DIY solutions offer additional protection over mass-produced ones. Further, I believe that it will get easier over time to do. This means that even if it's not feasible today, it may be a year from now.
| TrueReddit | t5_2qyt6 | clymjzk | I'm sure you know that all R/F chips in cell phones
Commercial cell phones maybe, but that doesn't stop you from building your own arduino- or raspberry-pi-based solution with a chip that does not have the bypass pulldowns (using an open schema). Further, you can use open source software and firmware or build the firmware yourself, as others have done for similar solutions.
I'm not saying it's convenient. In fact, I'd claim the ratio of convenience of buying a phone versus building one is, right now, astronomical. That doesn't mean that those that aren't security and privacy fanatics can't do it! That doesn't mean there's not a demand for these items. If anything, the growing popularity of the maker movement will increase the convenience over time.
Consider a second that you could instead use internet-based phone solutions using open source software to make phone calls. That way the only thing radio-wise you would need is the ability to connect to the internet wirelessly, such as via a 3g or 4g transmitter. Then, you could encrypt all of your communications locally before sending it over the air. None of this would require purchasing a microphone from a phone manufacturer. If one was somehow implanted in the wireless transmitter, then it's likely possible to open and remove it or at least render it useless.
Next, consider the evolution of a dark net or mesh, in which the internet is built on interconnected wireless nodes. This is getting cheaper by the day and may eventually remove the need for the 3g transmitter over simpler 802.11 (in populated areas at least). This could also make it harder for them to track your usage (something that a 3g transmitter makes basically trivial). | I disagree that I am delusional for thinking that DIY solutions offer additional protection over mass-produced ones. Further, I believe that it will get easier over time to do. This means that even if it's not feasible today, it may be a year from now. |
SystemicPlural | I agree. This is a much more complex topic than most people think it is. The free-market is a lot more than just how we earn money. It is part of the fundamental fabric that society is made from. We use it to decide who can have what, which intrinsically defines who has power.
Society is a network of interacting humans. Many think that language and democracy is the most important way in which we interact. I disagree. I can talk about my needs until I am blue in the face but without food I will starve. Money and our use of it controls and engages our lives and time far more then the pitiful amount that we spend voting and discussing politics.
Most claims that we are entering a new age of automation fail to take this into account. They fail to realize that the market is not just about work: it is the process by which modern society exists. If that is coming to an end then how will society organize resource distribution in an efficient way? The answer is usually some form of centralized distribution. - as if that hasn't been tried before!
I believe that this is the reason we always manage to invent new jobs to fill the spaces left by automation. There is nothing else we can do. Machines might be capable of enabling us all to live much happier, relaxed and fulling lives but without a social structure to enable that and prevent the powerful from being greedy I don't see it happening.
Now. Having agreed with your general position I am going to take a seat on the other side of the isle.
The free-market uses an ancient technology - money - to connect us all together through the creation and distribution of resources. Money was an amazing invention. It enables the work one person does to be abstracted from the value of that work and exchanged for someone else's work. Before money we had to use centralized control in order to distribute resources which was far less efficient and led to far less opportunities for humans to invent. But money is not without its flaws.
Firstly, by its very nature, it can only ever represent a single metric of value. Regardless of how many different currencies there are, an item is worth whatever its market value is.
Secondly, money divorces the morals associated with work done from the value of the work. Child labor can be used to create teddy bears to sell to parents to give to their children.
It is now possible to change both of these limitations. Money used to rely on physical counters, but it is now essentially just information that is exchanged via the internet. The interesting thing about the internet is that it can be used to connect us in far more ways than have been possible before. We no longer have to rely on a single metric of value, we can instead use meshes of relationships to define value in much more accurate ways.
Imagine for a moment that every bit of work you did and every bit of stuff you purchased did not just change how much money you had but instead changed your relationship to everyone else in society based on any metric imaginable. For example, maybe you care about overfishing, so you only use fish that is sustainably harvested. This brings you closer in the network to others who share your love of fish, and so they are more easily able to benefit from the value of your work; it 'costs' them less. There is no money in this network, it is just people exchanging work for resources by abstracting its value and transferring it across the social network, which is exactly the service that the free-market gives us now.
To get back to the original point. Imagine in this new system that there is not enough work to go around - or to be more accurate - peoples will to invent work is less than their need for more stuff. Can the greedy in this system monopolise resources? The answer is yes, but to a lesser extent. Their monopolisation has to be morally justified, otherwise they will find that the value of their work decreases and they would have been better off not monopolising it. Where the balance lies I do not know, but it will be something that we can all live with.
tl;dr The internet makes it possible to replace the freemarket with a new market system that does not use money to distribute resources.
So why hasn't it happened yet?
We're talking about one of the largest upheavals society has ever faced. It's not going to be that quick and easy even in the digital age. We're probably talking generations. I've been [working on this problem]( for over four years and I feel like I'm barely scratching the surface.
Edit: words in the order wrong. | I agree. This is a much more complex topic than most people think it is. The free-market is a lot more than just how we earn money. It is part of the fundamental fabric that society is made from. We use it to decide who can have what, which intrinsically defines who has power.
Society is a network of interacting humans. Many think that language and democracy is the most important way in which we interact. I disagree. I can talk about my needs until I am blue in the face but without food I will starve. Money and our use of it controls and engages our lives and time far more then the pitiful amount that we spend voting and discussing politics.
Most claims that we are entering a new age of automation fail to take this into account. They fail to realize that the market is not just about work: it is the process by which modern society exists. If that is coming to an end then how will society organize resource distribution in an efficient way? The answer is usually some form of centralized distribution. - as if that hasn't been tried before!
I believe that this is the reason we always manage to invent new jobs to fill the spaces left by automation. There is nothing else we can do. Machines might be capable of enabling us all to live much happier, relaxed and fulling lives but without a social structure to enable that and prevent the powerful from being greedy I don't see it happening.
Now. Having agreed with your general position I am going to take a seat on the other side of the isle.
The free-market uses an ancient technology - money - to connect us all together through the creation and distribution of resources. Money was an amazing invention. It enables the work one person does to be abstracted from the value of that work and exchanged for someone else's work. Before money we had to use centralized control in order to distribute resources which was far less efficient and led to far less opportunities for humans to invent. But money is not without its flaws.
Firstly, by its very nature, it can only ever represent a single metric of value. Regardless of how many different currencies there are, an item is worth whatever its market value is.
Secondly, money divorces the morals associated with work done from the value of the work. Child labor can be used to create teddy bears to sell to parents to give to their children.
It is now possible to change both of these limitations. Money used to rely on physical counters, but it is now essentially just information that is exchanged via the internet. The interesting thing about the internet is that it can be used to connect us in far more ways than have been possible before. We no longer have to rely on a single metric of value, we can instead use meshes of relationships to define value in much more accurate ways.
Imagine for a moment that every bit of work you did and every bit of stuff you purchased did not just change how much money you had but instead changed your relationship to everyone else in society based on any metric imaginable. For example, maybe you care about overfishing, so you only use fish that is sustainably harvested. This brings you closer in the network to others who share your love of fish, and so they are more easily able to benefit from the value of your work; it 'costs' them less. There is no money in this network, it is just people exchanging work for resources by abstracting its value and transferring it across the social network, which is exactly the service that the free-market gives us now.
To get back to the original point. Imagine in this new system that there is not enough work to go around - or to be more accurate - peoples will to invent work is less than their need for more stuff. Can the greedy in this system monopolise resources? The answer is yes, but to a lesser extent. Their monopolisation has to be morally justified, otherwise they will find that the value of their work decreases and they would have been better off not monopolising it. Where the balance lies I do not know, but it will be something that we can all live with.
tl;dr The internet makes it possible to replace the freemarket with a new market system that does not use money to distribute resources.
So why hasn't it happened yet?
We're talking about one of the largest upheavals society has ever faced. It's not going to be that quick and easy even in the digital age. We're probably talking generations. I've been [working on this problem]( for over four years and I feel like I'm barely scratching the surface.
Edit: words in the order wrong.
| TrueReddit | t5_2qyt6 | clyhwoi | I agree. This is a much more complex topic than most people think it is. The free-market is a lot more than just how we earn money. It is part of the fundamental fabric that society is made from. We use it to decide who can have what, which intrinsically defines who has power.
Society is a network of interacting humans. Many think that language and democracy is the most important way in which we interact. I disagree. I can talk about my needs until I am blue in the face but without food I will starve. Money and our use of it controls and engages our lives and time far more then the pitiful amount that we spend voting and discussing politics.
Most claims that we are entering a new age of automation fail to take this into account. They fail to realize that the market is not just about work: it is the process by which modern society exists. If that is coming to an end then how will society organize resource distribution in an efficient way? The answer is usually some form of centralized distribution. - as if that hasn't been tried before!
I believe that this is the reason we always manage to invent new jobs to fill the spaces left by automation. There is nothing else we can do. Machines might be capable of enabling us all to live much happier, relaxed and fulling lives but without a social structure to enable that and prevent the powerful from being greedy I don't see it happening.
Now. Having agreed with your general position I am going to take a seat on the other side of the isle.
The free-market uses an ancient technology - money - to connect us all together through the creation and distribution of resources. Money was an amazing invention. It enables the work one person does to be abstracted from the value of that work and exchanged for someone else's work. Before money we had to use centralized control in order to distribute resources which was far less efficient and led to far less opportunities for humans to invent. But money is not without its flaws.
Firstly, by its very nature, it can only ever represent a single metric of value. Regardless of how many different currencies there are, an item is worth whatever its market value is.
Secondly, money divorces the morals associated with work done from the value of the work. Child labor can be used to create teddy bears to sell to parents to give to their children.
It is now possible to change both of these limitations. Money used to rely on physical counters, but it is now essentially just information that is exchanged via the internet. The interesting thing about the internet is that it can be used to connect us in far more ways than have been possible before. We no longer have to rely on a single metric of value, we can instead use meshes of relationships to define value in much more accurate ways.
Imagine for a moment that every bit of work you did and every bit of stuff you purchased did not just change how much money you had but instead changed your relationship to everyone else in society based on any metric imaginable. For example, maybe you care about overfishing, so you only use fish that is sustainably harvested. This brings you closer in the network to others who share your love of fish, and so they are more easily able to benefit from the value of your work; it 'costs' them less. There is no money in this network, it is just people exchanging work for resources by abstracting its value and transferring it across the social network, which is exactly the service that the free-market gives us now.
To get back to the original point. Imagine in this new system that there is not enough work to go around - or to be more accurate - peoples will to invent work is less than their need for more stuff. Can the greedy in this system monopolise resources? The answer is yes, but to a lesser extent. Their monopolisation has to be morally justified, otherwise they will find that the value of their work decreases and they would have been better off not monopolising it. Where the balance lies I do not know, but it will be something that we can all live with. | The internet makes it possible to replace the freemarket with a new market system that does not use money to distribute resources.
So why hasn't it happened yet?
We're talking about one of the largest upheavals society has ever faced. It's not going to be that quick and easy even in the digital age. We're probably talking generations. I've been [working on this problem]( for over four years and I feel like I'm barely scratching the surface.
Edit: words in the order wrong. |
Buffalo__Buffalo | Except this doesn't work - the very foundation of the market is based on people buying stuff.
Actually, post-WWII there was so much production that we had to find ways of mitigating the effects of oversupply crashing prices. Which is how we got to the place where everything is disposable these days.
But the next problem isn't going to be further increases in production, rather it will be the ever-decreasing amount of jobs - that is, the erosion of the consumer-base to which the market has operated since the end of feudalism.
Unless something dramatic happens (basic income, communism, etc.) then automation is going to wipe out the disposable incomes which used to get spent on consuming goods. Greed or no, there going to be robots performing production and nobody with any income to buy the products, and this has been the direction that capitalism has been on a slow march towards ever since the industrial revolution. We're just barreling headlong into the end-phase of it at an ever-increasing pace.
TL;DR: greed won't be the problem, but the eradication of the consumer base which forms the foundation of the market as we know it will be. | Except this doesn't work - the very foundation of the market is based on people buying stuff.
Actually, post-WWII there was so much production that we had to find ways of mitigating the effects of oversupply crashing prices. Which is how we got to the place where everything is disposable these days.
But the next problem isn't going to be further increases in production, rather it will be the ever-decreasing amount of jobs - that is, the erosion of the consumer-base to which the market has operated since the end of feudalism.
Unless something dramatic happens (basic income, communism, etc.) then automation is going to wipe out the disposable incomes which used to get spent on consuming goods. Greed or no, there going to be robots performing production and nobody with any income to buy the products, and this has been the direction that capitalism has been on a slow march towards ever since the industrial revolution. We're just barreling headlong into the end-phase of it at an ever-increasing pace.
TL;DR: greed won't be the problem, but the eradication of the consumer base which forms the foundation of the market as we know it will be.
| TrueReddit | t5_2qyt6 | clyiitj | Except this doesn't work - the very foundation of the market is based on people buying stuff.
Actually, post-WWII there was so much production that we had to find ways of mitigating the effects of oversupply crashing prices. Which is how we got to the place where everything is disposable these days.
But the next problem isn't going to be further increases in production, rather it will be the ever-decreasing amount of jobs - that is, the erosion of the consumer-base to which the market has operated since the end of feudalism.
Unless something dramatic happens (basic income, communism, etc.) then automation is going to wipe out the disposable incomes which used to get spent on consuming goods. Greed or no, there going to be robots performing production and nobody with any income to buy the products, and this has been the direction that capitalism has been on a slow march towards ever since the industrial revolution. We're just barreling headlong into the end-phase of it at an ever-increasing pace. | greed won't be the problem, but the eradication of the consumer base which forms the foundation of the market as we know it will be. |
lolmonger | **Pennsylvania**
House Bill 1243 - - has passed and been signed into law by outgoing Gov. Corbett. State pre-emption of local gun laws now has additional teeth; individuals being illegally prosecuted can now directly sue those municipalities, instead of having to worth through the courts and get PA State to remind towns that it is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which passes gun laws in this state, not whatever downstate Mayor has decided they can do as they wish.
____________________________________________________
Politically, our state is now a microcosm of the United States;
Rural and super rural conservative areas, urban and suburb liberal areas; large swaths of Red representation, a few but very highly populated spikes of blue.
Majority of Republicans in the Legislative House and Senate - - a Democratic Executive.
**tl;dr** - - Let's reach out to Wolf, as firearms owners, and say that outside of the NRA, outside of the special interest gun control groups, we want him to hear **us**, and hear our reasons for being suspicious of Philly originating gun control desires, and our reasons for why our lawful, harmless conduct shouldn't be further restrained while criminals walk freee.
Because otherwise, if we don't refocus legislative/executive goals on stuff like fracking, and PASSHE, etc. we're going to focus it on guns, and we're going to go into gridlock and partisan insanity.
| Pennsylvania
House Bill 1243 - - has passed and been signed into law by outgoing Gov. Corbett. State pre-emption of local gun laws now has additional teeth; individuals being illegally prosecuted can now directly sue those municipalities, instead of having to worth through the courts and get PA State to remind towns that it is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which passes gun laws in this state, not whatever downstate Mayor has decided they can do as they wish.
Politically, our state is now a microcosm of the United States;
Rural and super rural conservative areas, urban and suburb liberal areas; large swaths of Red representation, a few but very highly populated spikes of blue.
Majority of Republicans in the Legislative House and Senate - - a Democratic Executive.
tl;dr - - Let's reach out to Wolf, as firearms owners, and say that outside of the NRA, outside of the special interest gun control groups, we want him to hear us , and hear our reasons for being suspicious of Philly originating gun control desires, and our reasons for why our lawful, harmless conduct shouldn't be further restrained while criminals walk freee.
Because otherwise, if we don't refocus legislative/executive goals on stuff like fracking, and PASSHE, etc. we're going to focus it on guns, and we're going to go into gridlock and partisan insanity.
| guns | t5_2qhc8 | clyfqxo | Pennsylvania
House Bill 1243 - - has passed and been signed into law by outgoing Gov. Corbett. State pre-emption of local gun laws now has additional teeth; individuals being illegally prosecuted can now directly sue those municipalities, instead of having to worth through the courts and get PA State to remind towns that it is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which passes gun laws in this state, not whatever downstate Mayor has decided they can do as they wish.
Politically, our state is now a microcosm of the United States;
Rural and super rural conservative areas, urban and suburb liberal areas; large swaths of Red representation, a few but very highly populated spikes of blue.
Majority of Republicans in the Legislative House and Senate - - a Democratic Executive. | Let's reach out to Wolf, as firearms owners, and say that outside of the NRA, outside of the special interest gun control groups, we want him to hear us , and hear our reasons for being suspicious of Philly originating gun control desires, and our reasons for why our lawful, harmless conduct shouldn't be further restrained while criminals walk freee.
Because otherwise, if we don't refocus legislative/executive goals on stuff like fracking, and PASSHE, etc. we're going to focus it on guns, and we're going to go into gridlock and partisan insanity. |
phukka | Jesus Christ this thread is a dumpster fire full of hurt vaginas and closed minds.
You've done nothing wrong. She started dating you expecting you to change over time for her, eventually giving up all of the hobbies that made you who you are. Ironically, this is exactly the type of person that would then resent you because you wouldn't be the same person that she fell in love with.
She wants you to change, you're unwilling to do so. You would invite her to your hobbies, but she's likely incapable due to her stature. She wants to spend more time with you, you find the time spent with her is adequate. TL:DR - you're not an asshole, you're just incompatible with her. You guys just don't have a good foundation. Nothing wrong with that.
At this point, you need to break it off. You know that you're not right for each other, so why waste each others time? Split amicably and try to find someone that fits into your life better. Either someone who has their own interests and can find a fulfilling relationship on limited contact, or someone who is willing and able to enjoy your hobbies alongside you. | Jesus Christ this thread is a dumpster fire full of hurt vaginas and closed minds.
You've done nothing wrong. She started dating you expecting you to change over time for her, eventually giving up all of the hobbies that made you who you are. Ironically, this is exactly the type of person that would then resent you because you wouldn't be the same person that she fell in love with.
She wants you to change, you're unwilling to do so. You would invite her to your hobbies, but she's likely incapable due to her stature. She wants to spend more time with you, you find the time spent with her is adequate. TL:DR - you're not an asshole, you're just incompatible with her. You guys just don't have a good foundation. Nothing wrong with that.
At this point, you need to break it off. You know that you're not right for each other, so why waste each others time? Split amicably and try to find someone that fits into your life better. Either someone who has their own interests and can find a fulfilling relationship on limited contact, or someone who is willing and able to enjoy your hobbies alongside you.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | clyofok | Jesus Christ this thread is a dumpster fire full of hurt vaginas and closed minds.
You've done nothing wrong. She started dating you expecting you to change over time for her, eventually giving up all of the hobbies that made you who you are. Ironically, this is exactly the type of person that would then resent you because you wouldn't be the same person that she fell in love with.
She wants you to change, you're unwilling to do so. You would invite her to your hobbies, but she's likely incapable due to her stature. She wants to spend more time with you, you find the time spent with her is adequate. | you're not an asshole, you're just incompatible with her. You guys just don't have a good foundation. Nothing wrong with that.
At this point, you need to break it off. You know that you're not right for each other, so why waste each others time? Split amicably and try to find someone that fits into your life better. Either someone who has their own interests and can find a fulfilling relationship on limited contact, or someone who is willing and able to enjoy your hobbies alongside you. |
Daisymorrisae | As everyone else, I think your are not meant to be together.
You shouldn't drop your hobbies but if you love a girl, you would WANT to skip a session of your hobbies one time or an other just because you miss her.
I wouldn't say you need to prioritize her instead of yourself, but a relationship needs a good balance between how much you care of you and how much you care of her. But I think that the much important is that you must be ready to give a little bit of yourself for her and actually want to do it. If you don't, it is not even worth a try.
A relationship is sharing. Sharing interests and activities is what makes it fun. I know it may be hard to find a girl who would like same hobbies as you. The solution I have for you is to find a girl who is passionate and active as much as you are. A girl who will want to try things you like and who will make you want to try her activities.
The way you talk about sailing and how it is not possible to bring her seems like you don't even want her there and didn't even ask her. That's a big sign.
However, I perfectly understand it is hard to bring her on a boat with other people who are there to practice their sports. I suggest you to go sailing with your S/O just the two of you, so you can show her what it is and teach are the basics. If I understood well, it's look like you need more than two people to go sailing. You can ask some of your partners if they would like to help or to go dinghy sailing.
Why is it a problem that you crash at a friend's house? If his fiancee is there, you should be able to bring your lover too. When I am in a relationship, I am pleased to meet the friends of my boyfriend because it is part of himself and I want to discover his world.
Why don't you just sleep with her times to times? Even if you are tired and work next morning, the presence of the other is great and may help the relation. But she must understand that you need to sleep and you just want to feel her next to you.
TL;DR : In a good relationship, you need to give more time to the one you love, BUT you must have the desire to make efforts for her (which doesn't seem to be the situation right now). & relationship is sharing : find someone with who you can share at least this : being passionate.
| As everyone else, I think your are not meant to be together.
You shouldn't drop your hobbies but if you love a girl, you would WANT to skip a session of your hobbies one time or an other just because you miss her.
I wouldn't say you need to prioritize her instead of yourself, but a relationship needs a good balance between how much you care of you and how much you care of her. But I think that the much important is that you must be ready to give a little bit of yourself for her and actually want to do it. If you don't, it is not even worth a try.
A relationship is sharing. Sharing interests and activities is what makes it fun. I know it may be hard to find a girl who would like same hobbies as you. The solution I have for you is to find a girl who is passionate and active as much as you are. A girl who will want to try things you like and who will make you want to try her activities.
The way you talk about sailing and how it is not possible to bring her seems like you don't even want her there and didn't even ask her. That's a big sign.
However, I perfectly understand it is hard to bring her on a boat with other people who are there to practice their sports. I suggest you to go sailing with your S/O just the two of you, so you can show her what it is and teach are the basics. If I understood well, it's look like you need more than two people to go sailing. You can ask some of your partners if they would like to help or to go dinghy sailing.
Why is it a problem that you crash at a friend's house? If his fiancee is there, you should be able to bring your lover too. When I am in a relationship, I am pleased to meet the friends of my boyfriend because it is part of himself and I want to discover his world.
Why don't you just sleep with her times to times? Even if you are tired and work next morning, the presence of the other is great and may help the relation. But she must understand that you need to sleep and you just want to feel her next to you.
TL;DR : In a good relationship, you need to give more time to the one you love, BUT you must have the desire to make efforts for her (which doesn't seem to be the situation right now). & relationship is sharing : find someone with who you can share at least this : being passionate.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | clyper3 | As everyone else, I think your are not meant to be together.
You shouldn't drop your hobbies but if you love a girl, you would WANT to skip a session of your hobbies one time or an other just because you miss her.
I wouldn't say you need to prioritize her instead of yourself, but a relationship needs a good balance between how much you care of you and how much you care of her. But I think that the much important is that you must be ready to give a little bit of yourself for her and actually want to do it. If you don't, it is not even worth a try.
A relationship is sharing. Sharing interests and activities is what makes it fun. I know it may be hard to find a girl who would like same hobbies as you. The solution I have for you is to find a girl who is passionate and active as much as you are. A girl who will want to try things you like and who will make you want to try her activities.
The way you talk about sailing and how it is not possible to bring her seems like you don't even want her there and didn't even ask her. That's a big sign.
However, I perfectly understand it is hard to bring her on a boat with other people who are there to practice their sports. I suggest you to go sailing with your S/O just the two of you, so you can show her what it is and teach are the basics. If I understood well, it's look like you need more than two people to go sailing. You can ask some of your partners if they would like to help or to go dinghy sailing.
Why is it a problem that you crash at a friend's house? If his fiancee is there, you should be able to bring your lover too. When I am in a relationship, I am pleased to meet the friends of my boyfriend because it is part of himself and I want to discover his world.
Why don't you just sleep with her times to times? Even if you are tired and work next morning, the presence of the other is great and may help the relation. But she must understand that you need to sleep and you just want to feel her next to you. | In a good relationship, you need to give more time to the one you love, BUT you must have the desire to make efforts for her (which doesn't seem to be the situation right now). & relationship is sharing : find someone with who you can share at least this : being passionate. |
Release_the_KRAKEN | Sounds like you value your hobbies more than a relationship which is totally fine. But I think she got pretty rude at blowing up at you for assuming you'd make more time for her despite you telling her ahead of time how much value you place on hobby time.
TL;DR: You're not the bad guy. She's just a doofus for not taking you at your word that you're not more invested in a relationship. | Sounds like you value your hobbies more than a relationship which is totally fine. But I think she got pretty rude at blowing up at you for assuming you'd make more time for her despite you telling her ahead of time how much value you place on hobby time.
TL;DR: You're not the bad guy. She's just a doofus for not taking you at your word that you're not more invested in a relationship.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | clyhqgj | Sounds like you value your hobbies more than a relationship which is totally fine. But I think she got pretty rude at blowing up at you for assuming you'd make more time for her despite you telling her ahead of time how much value you place on hobby time. | You're not the bad guy. She's just a doofus for not taking you at your word that you're not more invested in a relationship. |
son_of_the_stig | Depending on your data plan, the contract price is either a good deal or a horrible deal, compared to buying it outright. If you're on a data plan under 10gb ($25/mo per device), you'll save about $40 over the 2-years going with the contract. If you're on a 10gb+ data plan ($15/mo per device), you lose about $200 by going with the $40/mo contract.
tldr: If you're on a data plan that's 10gb or higher, the 2-year contract is not a good deal. | Depending on your data plan, the contract price is either a good deal or a horrible deal, compared to buying it outright. If you're on a data plan under 10gb ($25/mo per device), you'll save about $40 over the 2-years going with the contract. If you're on a 10gb+ data plan ($15/mo per device), you lose about $200 by going with the $40/mo contract.
tldr: If you're on a data plan that's 10gb or higher, the 2-year contract is not a good deal.
| nexus6 | t5_2vo75 | clyqyrq | Depending on your data plan, the contract price is either a good deal or a horrible deal, compared to buying it outright. If you're on a data plan under 10gb ($25/mo per device), you'll save about $40 over the 2-years going with the contract. If you're on a 10gb+ data plan ($15/mo per device), you lose about $200 by going with the $40/mo contract. | If you're on a data plan that's 10gb or higher, the 2-year contract is not a good deal. |
matoiryu | Def a little about eyebrow games.
Semi-related: last Friday a girlfriend of mine and I were out to dinner and really loved our server. We wrote her little notes on our receipts. My friend wrote something like "You're a great server and totes adorbs!" And I wrote, "P.S. Fierce eyebrow game."
TL;DR: It's about eyebrows, supporting your fellow lady, and supporting your fellow lady's eyebrows. | Def a little about eyebrow games.
Semi-related: last Friday a girlfriend of mine and I were out to dinner and really loved our server. We wrote her little notes on our receipts. My friend wrote something like "You're a great server and totes adorbs!" And I wrote, "P.S. Fierce eyebrow game."
TL;DR: It's about eyebrows, supporting your fellow lady, and supporting your fellow lady's eyebrows.
| TrollXChromosomes | t5_2sekm | clyzoxx | Def a little about eyebrow games.
Semi-related: last Friday a girlfriend of mine and I were out to dinner and really loved our server. We wrote her little notes on our receipts. My friend wrote something like "You're a great server and totes adorbs!" And I wrote, "P.S. Fierce eyebrow game." | It's about eyebrows, supporting your fellow lady, and supporting your fellow lady's eyebrows. |
Nexus369 | You know, the last time I can remember a big "We want Dallas" chant breaking out was against the Bears last season. Remind me how that turned out?
tl;dr Swiggity swooty. | You know, the last time I can remember a big "We want Dallas" chant breaking out was against the Bears last season. Remind me how that turned out?
tl;dr Swiggity swooty.
| cowboys | t5_2re7g | cm072yi | You know, the last time I can remember a big "We want Dallas" chant breaking out was against the Bears last season. Remind me how that turned out? | Swiggity swooty. |
ZeroCracked | Oh shit. Alright, I guess I'll throw in my two cents.
Alright, so I was fifteen right? There was this girl I had known since I was about eight or so. We had fallen out of contact until around a year before and we hit it right off. We were literally calling each other best friends. It was great having someone to talk to who I could basically say anything to without worry.
Long story short, I had fallen in love with her, and after she found out, of course not through my own mouth, but through my little brother's friend who screamed it out in front of both of us, she rejected me. It hurt for a while but we stayed close friends and I ended up getting over it within a month or two. Then suddenly, February, two years ago, she just stopped speaking to me altogether. I felt absolutely hurt and betrayed, and I stopped trusting other people because shortly after that, a buddy of mine I grew up with stopped hanging out with me even though we were pretty much best buddies as well. Two of my closest companions up and decided I'm not worth their time.
This on top of the fact that I was always in an online school my entire life, and never had a physical class until I started at my uni last year, I had minimal social skills. On top of that, I actually skipped two grades during elementary and middle school, so I'm two years younger than everyone else there, which makes it awkward for me to try to talk to anyone. I could talk to other people and articulate myself, sure, but I can't relate to anybody.
So no, I only keep to myself. I take the bus to school, keep my headphones in, swing in-and-out of class, and don't talk to anyone. I have intense social anxiety and I'm not looking to do anything about it because people are shitty. Yes, it's depressing and I constantly get upset about it, to the point where the loneliness causes a physical pain in my chest, I'm not shitting you, but fuck it. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm just done. I'm never making any more friends, and I'm goddamn never going to find a significant other.
So there we are. I made a half-assed attempt at "trying", but now I will never put myself out there because I will not be treated like trash again.
tl;dr I rant about how socially inept I am and how little I care to put myself out there. I'm AGGRESSIVELY cynical today. | Oh shit. Alright, I guess I'll throw in my two cents.
Alright, so I was fifteen right? There was this girl I had known since I was about eight or so. We had fallen out of contact until around a year before and we hit it right off. We were literally calling each other best friends. It was great having someone to talk to who I could basically say anything to without worry.
Long story short, I had fallen in love with her, and after she found out, of course not through my own mouth, but through my little brother's friend who screamed it out in front of both of us, she rejected me. It hurt for a while but we stayed close friends and I ended up getting over it within a month or two. Then suddenly, February, two years ago, she just stopped speaking to me altogether. I felt absolutely hurt and betrayed, and I stopped trusting other people because shortly after that, a buddy of mine I grew up with stopped hanging out with me even though we were pretty much best buddies as well. Two of my closest companions up and decided I'm not worth their time.
This on top of the fact that I was always in an online school my entire life, and never had a physical class until I started at my uni last year, I had minimal social skills. On top of that, I actually skipped two grades during elementary and middle school, so I'm two years younger than everyone else there, which makes it awkward for me to try to talk to anyone. I could talk to other people and articulate myself, sure, but I can't relate to anybody.
So no, I only keep to myself. I take the bus to school, keep my headphones in, swing in-and-out of class, and don't talk to anyone. I have intense social anxiety and I'm not looking to do anything about it because people are shitty. Yes, it's depressing and I constantly get upset about it, to the point where the loneliness causes a physical pain in my chest, I'm not shitting you, but fuck it. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm just done. I'm never making any more friends, and I'm goddamn never going to find a significant other.
So there we are. I made a half-assed attempt at "trying", but now I will never put myself out there because I will not be treated like trash again.
tl;dr I rant about how socially inept I am and how little I care to put myself out there. I'm AGGRESSIVELY cynical today.
| ForeverAlone | t5_2s3yz | cm05zjm | Oh shit. Alright, I guess I'll throw in my two cents.
Alright, so I was fifteen right? There was this girl I had known since I was about eight or so. We had fallen out of contact until around a year before and we hit it right off. We were literally calling each other best friends. It was great having someone to talk to who I could basically say anything to without worry.
Long story short, I had fallen in love with her, and after she found out, of course not through my own mouth, but through my little brother's friend who screamed it out in front of both of us, she rejected me. It hurt for a while but we stayed close friends and I ended up getting over it within a month or two. Then suddenly, February, two years ago, she just stopped speaking to me altogether. I felt absolutely hurt and betrayed, and I stopped trusting other people because shortly after that, a buddy of mine I grew up with stopped hanging out with me even though we were pretty much best buddies as well. Two of my closest companions up and decided I'm not worth their time.
This on top of the fact that I was always in an online school my entire life, and never had a physical class until I started at my uni last year, I had minimal social skills. On top of that, I actually skipped two grades during elementary and middle school, so I'm two years younger than everyone else there, which makes it awkward for me to try to talk to anyone. I could talk to other people and articulate myself, sure, but I can't relate to anybody.
So no, I only keep to myself. I take the bus to school, keep my headphones in, swing in-and-out of class, and don't talk to anyone. I have intense social anxiety and I'm not looking to do anything about it because people are shitty. Yes, it's depressing and I constantly get upset about it, to the point where the loneliness causes a physical pain in my chest, I'm not shitting you, but fuck it. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm just done. I'm never making any more friends, and I'm goddamn never going to find a significant other.
So there we are. I made a half-assed attempt at "trying", but now I will never put myself out there because I will not be treated like trash again. | I rant about how socially inept I am and how little I care to put myself out there. I'm AGGRESSIVELY cynical today. |
adremeaux | > I guess it's hard for a normal to imagine the inner workings of the mind of someone like us.
No, I totally understand, because I am much the same. I see what you are saying about the pressures of decisions, but honestly, none of those decisions matter if it's a girl that digs you. She won't care what you are wearing, or if your hair is messed up, or if the dinner sucks, if she's into *you.* She won't care if you are being properly flirty or shy and reserved.
So here's what I say: those decisions you feel you need to make—where you are going, what you are wearing—make those decisions for *yourself,* to give yourself the most confidence you can have on the date. Wear clothing that makes you feel good about yourself. Grab a nice pair of shoes that makes you feel swanky, a shirt that is comfortable but sharp, that won't make you too warm if you get nervous. The mantra "confidence is everything" can be disarming and harmful for those who lack it, so rather than trying to mentally force yourself to be confident, which we all know doesn't work, set yourself up in advance to encourage it. Nothing feels better than wearing a sharp pair of oxfords on a date. Polish that shit up, iron your shirt nice and crisp, put on some bay rum aftershave and you'll feel fantastic before you even walk out the door. Study the wine or cocktail menu beforehand so you don't have to bumble around and wonder "what the hell is Lillet?" rather than sharing time with your date. Know how much the meal is going to cost you in advance so you don't have to panic when you look at prices.
I'm rambling a bit here, but the TLDR is that if she likes you, she likes you, so don't worry about those details for her, worry about those details for yourself to make yourself feel comfortable. | > I guess it's hard for a normal to imagine the inner workings of the mind of someone like us.
No, I totally understand, because I am much the same. I see what you are saying about the pressures of decisions, but honestly, none of those decisions matter if it's a girl that digs you. She won't care what you are wearing, or if your hair is messed up, or if the dinner sucks, if she's into you. She won't care if you are being properly flirty or shy and reserved.
So here's what I say: those decisions you feel you need to make—where you are going, what you are wearing—make those decisions for yourself, to give yourself the most confidence you can have on the date. Wear clothing that makes you feel good about yourself. Grab a nice pair of shoes that makes you feel swanky, a shirt that is comfortable but sharp, that won't make you too warm if you get nervous. The mantra "confidence is everything" can be disarming and harmful for those who lack it, so rather than trying to mentally force yourself to be confident, which we all know doesn't work, set yourself up in advance to encourage it. Nothing feels better than wearing a sharp pair of oxfords on a date. Polish that shit up, iron your shirt nice and crisp, put on some bay rum aftershave and you'll feel fantastic before you even walk out the door. Study the wine or cocktail menu beforehand so you don't have to bumble around and wonder "what the hell is Lillet?" rather than sharing time with your date. Know how much the meal is going to cost you in advance so you don't have to panic when you look at prices.
I'm rambling a bit here, but the TLDR is that if she likes you, she likes you, so don't worry about those details for her, worry about those details for yourself to make yourself feel comfortable.
| ForeverAlone | t5_2s3yz | clzox6t | I guess it's hard for a normal to imagine the inner workings of the mind of someone like us.
No, I totally understand, because I am much the same. I see what you are saying about the pressures of decisions, but honestly, none of those decisions matter if it's a girl that digs you. She won't care what you are wearing, or if your hair is messed up, or if the dinner sucks, if she's into you. She won't care if you are being properly flirty or shy and reserved.
So here's what I say: those decisions you feel you need to make—where you are going, what you are wearing—make those decisions for yourself, to give yourself the most confidence you can have on the date. Wear clothing that makes you feel good about yourself. Grab a nice pair of shoes that makes you feel swanky, a shirt that is comfortable but sharp, that won't make you too warm if you get nervous. The mantra "confidence is everything" can be disarming and harmful for those who lack it, so rather than trying to mentally force yourself to be confident, which we all know doesn't work, set yourself up in advance to encourage it. Nothing feels better than wearing a sharp pair of oxfords on a date. Polish that shit up, iron your shirt nice and crisp, put on some bay rum aftershave and you'll feel fantastic before you even walk out the door. Study the wine or cocktail menu beforehand so you don't have to bumble around and wonder "what the hell is Lillet?" rather than sharing time with your date. Know how much the meal is going to cost you in advance so you don't have to panic when you look at prices.
I'm rambling a bit here, but the | is that if she likes you, she likes you, so don't worry about those details for her, worry about those details for yourself to make yourself feel comfortable. |
SentientTurtle | A few reasons:
In the past, ISPs have been given money to upgrade their network, they pocketed the money and did nothing.
The ISPs can either: Build very expensive new cables to every house, and charge more for the new network, or they can just charge more for the current network and slow everything else down without spending a dime.
The latter obviously is more profitable, and is likely what they will actually do.
This fast lane ruling also allows ISPs to slow down services such as netflix, which compete with their own television services, to the point where they are useless.
This also means larger companies can pay huge fees for faster internet services, smaller, new, companies simply can't pay such fees, meaning their new services are unuseable, this means there's little room for innovation, even Facebook didn't start as a company with millions.
TL;DR: You won't get faster internet, you just pay more for your current speeds. Services like Netflix would be unuseable. There's no entry for new services. | A few reasons:
In the past, ISPs have been given money to upgrade their network, they pocketed the money and did nothing.
The ISPs can either: Build very expensive new cables to every house, and charge more for the new network, or they can just charge more for the current network and slow everything else down without spending a dime.
The latter obviously is more profitable, and is likely what they will actually do.
This fast lane ruling also allows ISPs to slow down services such as netflix, which compete with their own television services, to the point where they are useless.
This also means larger companies can pay huge fees for faster internet services, smaller, new, companies simply can't pay such fees, meaning their new services are unuseable, this means there's little room for innovation, even Facebook didn't start as a company with millions.
TL;DR: You won't get faster internet, you just pay more for your current speeds. Services like Netflix would be unuseable. There's no entry for new services.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | clz9xd3 | A few reasons:
In the past, ISPs have been given money to upgrade their network, they pocketed the money and did nothing.
The ISPs can either: Build very expensive new cables to every house, and charge more for the new network, or they can just charge more for the current network and slow everything else down without spending a dime.
The latter obviously is more profitable, and is likely what they will actually do.
This fast lane ruling also allows ISPs to slow down services such as netflix, which compete with their own television services, to the point where they are useless.
This also means larger companies can pay huge fees for faster internet services, smaller, new, companies simply can't pay such fees, meaning their new services are unuseable, this means there's little room for innovation, even Facebook didn't start as a company with millions. | You won't get faster internet, you just pay more for your current speeds. Services like Netflix would be unuseable. There's no entry for new services. |
MenacingErmine | I think the government must step in to prevent ISPs from scamming internet run companies. Just like telephone companies can't restrict service for some other companies, ISPs shouldn't be able to hurt internet based companies by slowing down their service and forcing them to pay for a speed "boost". Comcast already demonstrated their power on Netflix, as many know and they may do it again. Net neutrality will weaken companies like Comcast but help smaller companies grow. This is not the first time the government stepped in to stop monopolies, one of the more famous examples being the seperation of Standard Oil into competing companies. I think this is one of the times where the government must interfere with free market capitalism.
**TL;DR**: *In my humble opinion, net neutrality is in favor of the consumers (Fellow Internetters) and a lack of it in favor of the monopolizing Internet Service Providers.* *(With a lack of competition among ISPs they can get away with much of what they want, including getting rid of internet based competition.)* | I think the government must step in to prevent ISPs from scamming internet run companies. Just like telephone companies can't restrict service for some other companies, ISPs shouldn't be able to hurt internet based companies by slowing down their service and forcing them to pay for a speed "boost". Comcast already demonstrated their power on Netflix, as many know and they may do it again. Net neutrality will weaken companies like Comcast but help smaller companies grow. This is not the first time the government stepped in to stop monopolies, one of the more famous examples being the seperation of Standard Oil into competing companies. I think this is one of the times where the government must interfere with free market capitalism.
TL;DR : In my humble opinion, net neutrality is in favor of the consumers (Fellow Internetters) and a lack of it in favor of the monopolizing Internet Service Providers. (With a lack of competition among ISPs they can get away with much of what they want, including getting rid of internet based competition.)
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | clzubtu | I think the government must step in to prevent ISPs from scamming internet run companies. Just like telephone companies can't restrict service for some other companies, ISPs shouldn't be able to hurt internet based companies by slowing down their service and forcing them to pay for a speed "boost". Comcast already demonstrated their power on Netflix, as many know and they may do it again. Net neutrality will weaken companies like Comcast but help smaller companies grow. This is not the first time the government stepped in to stop monopolies, one of the more famous examples being the seperation of Standard Oil into competing companies. I think this is one of the times where the government must interfere with free market capitalism. | In my humble opinion, net neutrality is in favor of the consumers (Fellow Internetters) and a lack of it in favor of the monopolizing Internet Service Providers. (With a lack of competition among ISPs they can get away with much of what they want, including getting rid of internet based competition.) |
babblemammal | This argument seems to be saying that everything that passes through the ISP's cables is their property, and thus they have the right to manage it, which is false. If someone was physically damaging their infrastructure it would be a totally different story, they have every right to manage such a situation in whatever way they see fit. The traffic that is passing through their infrastructure is not damaging said infrastructure. The service providers are being paid to provide a service, the fees they charge to provide this service will cover maintenance of the infrastructure necessary for the service and also produce a profit if the provider wants one.
"Maintenance" of a network of any size means making sure the network is able to accomodate the average usage of users on the network, and since general real-world average usage is an upward trend, "maintenance" here includes upgrading the network to keep pace. Obviously upgrading infrastructure is a high effort activity, but it is worth it since it can be paid for with fees while maintaining a profit margin.
Aaaah, but this only makes sense if the provider has to compete in order to keep their profit margin. In reality the money vs effort is not balanced, the providers can make more money while spending less effort so they do. They make more money by digging in their heels and not providing the whole service they are being paid to provide, the rest of this issue is just stemming from the fact that there is no (or at least not enough) competiton to force them into doing so.
They are getting away with not providing all the services they should be, and since it has worked so phenomenally well up to this point they are trying to shave off more of the service in order to make more money, namely the part where they dont look into the pipe to see what people are sending through it.
TL;DR network upgrades are in fact part of the service that ISP's are supposed to be providing, they have gotten away with not providing that part of their service (and making more money because of it) through a lack of competition. The attempts to abolish net neutrality are just another way of withholding parts of the service they are being paid to provide so that they can make more money from the fees they charge (and maybe add a few more fees here and there that are just pure profit). | This argument seems to be saying that everything that passes through the ISP's cables is their property, and thus they have the right to manage it, which is false. If someone was physically damaging their infrastructure it would be a totally different story, they have every right to manage such a situation in whatever way they see fit. The traffic that is passing through their infrastructure is not damaging said infrastructure. The service providers are being paid to provide a service, the fees they charge to provide this service will cover maintenance of the infrastructure necessary for the service and also produce a profit if the provider wants one.
"Maintenance" of a network of any size means making sure the network is able to accomodate the average usage of users on the network, and since general real-world average usage is an upward trend, "maintenance" here includes upgrading the network to keep pace. Obviously upgrading infrastructure is a high effort activity, but it is worth it since it can be paid for with fees while maintaining a profit margin.
Aaaah, but this only makes sense if the provider has to compete in order to keep their profit margin. In reality the money vs effort is not balanced, the providers can make more money while spending less effort so they do. They make more money by digging in their heels and not providing the whole service they are being paid to provide, the rest of this issue is just stemming from the fact that there is no (or at least not enough) competiton to force them into doing so.
They are getting away with not providing all the services they should be, and since it has worked so phenomenally well up to this point they are trying to shave off more of the service in order to make more money, namely the part where they dont look into the pipe to see what people are sending through it.
TL;DR network upgrades are in fact part of the service that ISP's are supposed to be providing, they have gotten away with not providing that part of their service (and making more money because of it) through a lack of competition. The attempts to abolish net neutrality are just another way of withholding parts of the service they are being paid to provide so that they can make more money from the fees they charge (and maybe add a few more fees here and there that are just pure profit).
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cm03z3r | This argument seems to be saying that everything that passes through the ISP's cables is their property, and thus they have the right to manage it, which is false. If someone was physically damaging their infrastructure it would be a totally different story, they have every right to manage such a situation in whatever way they see fit. The traffic that is passing through their infrastructure is not damaging said infrastructure. The service providers are being paid to provide a service, the fees they charge to provide this service will cover maintenance of the infrastructure necessary for the service and also produce a profit if the provider wants one.
"Maintenance" of a network of any size means making sure the network is able to accomodate the average usage of users on the network, and since general real-world average usage is an upward trend, "maintenance" here includes upgrading the network to keep pace. Obviously upgrading infrastructure is a high effort activity, but it is worth it since it can be paid for with fees while maintaining a profit margin.
Aaaah, but this only makes sense if the provider has to compete in order to keep their profit margin. In reality the money vs effort is not balanced, the providers can make more money while spending less effort so they do. They make more money by digging in their heels and not providing the whole service they are being paid to provide, the rest of this issue is just stemming from the fact that there is no (or at least not enough) competiton to force them into doing so.
They are getting away with not providing all the services they should be, and since it has worked so phenomenally well up to this point they are trying to shave off more of the service in order to make more money, namely the part where they dont look into the pipe to see what people are sending through it. | network upgrades are in fact part of the service that ISP's are supposed to be providing, they have gotten away with not providing that part of their service (and making more money because of it) through a lack of competition. The attempts to abolish net neutrality are just another way of withholding parts of the service they are being paid to provide so that they can make more money from the fees they charge (and maybe add a few more fees here and there that are just pure profit). |
unitedhen | > But are there reasons why net neutrality is legitimately bad for the majority of consumers?
Ok so I'll try to ELI5. I'm assuming you know what NN is, but for the sake of ELI5, I'll give a brief overview.
Net Neutrality essentially mandates that an ISP cannot tamper with the packets that are being transmitted over their network. They cannot inspect the content of a packet, see that is a request going to Netflix or YouTube and put those particular packets in the back of the queue to be sent out (allowing certain services priority over others etc.). Many feared that if Net Neutrality did not exist, Telecomm companies would bundle internet in packages like they do cable packages...[Like this](
Obviously that is an exaggeration, but you get the idea.
Naturally, since a consumer can already play steam games all day, stream movies, or browse the internet however much he or she pleases right now, why would we want that to change? This is why people are opposed to restrictions or regulation of the open internet...it would generally cause an increase in price for consumers, *as well as hinder tech start-ups looking to enter and compete in the marketspace*. If you started a company in silicon valley and wanted to compete against Facebook and Google, a small start-up like yours has no chance without the political leverage that larger companies like Google and Facebook have. It would stifle innovation.
Now, your question is asking for reasons why NN would be a bad thing. Honestly, for consumers, there is no reason why NN would be a bad thing. For the aforementioned reasons, it is in the best interest of every consumer to keep the internet open and unbiased "every packet treated equally" (so to speak).
The only real party opposed to Net Neutrality is the big Telco's who want to "double dip". A company like Netflix who offers a streaming service to its customers also pays quite a bit of money to an ISP in order to keep their servers up an running, so that you can have your HD movies streamed to your home PC in a timely fashion. Imagine if NN didn't exist, and we lived in a world where Netflix not only had to pay for internet service, but had to pay a *premium* to have their packets prioritized in order to provide a truly quality steaming service? Do you think Netflix would just take a loss of profit? Nope...that cost trickles down to the customer, which in turn ends up right back in the big pockets of the Telco...
So TL;DR - Really consumers/users of the internet have no reason to be against Net Neutrality as it benefits them in every way. Big Telcos like Comcast and Verizon are the ones that stand to benefit from eliminating NN and being able to "play favorites" when prioritizing traffic of their network. | > But are there reasons why net neutrality is legitimately bad for the majority of consumers?
Ok so I'll try to ELI5. I'm assuming you know what NN is, but for the sake of ELI5, I'll give a brief overview.
Net Neutrality essentially mandates that an ISP cannot tamper with the packets that are being transmitted over their network. They cannot inspect the content of a packet, see that is a request going to Netflix or YouTube and put those particular packets in the back of the queue to be sent out (allowing certain services priority over others etc.). Many feared that if Net Neutrality did not exist, Telecomm companies would bundle internet in packages like they do cable packages...[Like this](
Obviously that is an exaggeration, but you get the idea.
Naturally, since a consumer can already play steam games all day, stream movies, or browse the internet however much he or she pleases right now, why would we want that to change? This is why people are opposed to restrictions or regulation of the open internet...it would generally cause an increase in price for consumers, as well as hinder tech start-ups looking to enter and compete in the marketspace . If you started a company in silicon valley and wanted to compete against Facebook and Google, a small start-up like yours has no chance without the political leverage that larger companies like Google and Facebook have. It would stifle innovation.
Now, your question is asking for reasons why NN would be a bad thing. Honestly, for consumers, there is no reason why NN would be a bad thing. For the aforementioned reasons, it is in the best interest of every consumer to keep the internet open and unbiased "every packet treated equally" (so to speak).
The only real party opposed to Net Neutrality is the big Telco's who want to "double dip". A company like Netflix who offers a streaming service to its customers also pays quite a bit of money to an ISP in order to keep their servers up an running, so that you can have your HD movies streamed to your home PC in a timely fashion. Imagine if NN didn't exist, and we lived in a world where Netflix not only had to pay for internet service, but had to pay a premium to have their packets prioritized in order to provide a truly quality steaming service? Do you think Netflix would just take a loss of profit? Nope...that cost trickles down to the customer, which in turn ends up right back in the big pockets of the Telco...
So TL;DR - Really consumers/users of the internet have no reason to be against Net Neutrality as it benefits them in every way. Big Telcos like Comcast and Verizon are the ones that stand to benefit from eliminating NN and being able to "play favorites" when prioritizing traffic of their network.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | clzlnl1 | But are there reasons why net neutrality is legitimately bad for the majority of consumers?
Ok so I'll try to ELI5. I'm assuming you know what NN is, but for the sake of ELI5, I'll give a brief overview.
Net Neutrality essentially mandates that an ISP cannot tamper with the packets that are being transmitted over their network. They cannot inspect the content of a packet, see that is a request going to Netflix or YouTube and put those particular packets in the back of the queue to be sent out (allowing certain services priority over others etc.). Many feared that if Net Neutrality did not exist, Telecomm companies would bundle internet in packages like they do cable packages...[Like this](
Obviously that is an exaggeration, but you get the idea.
Naturally, since a consumer can already play steam games all day, stream movies, or browse the internet however much he or she pleases right now, why would we want that to change? This is why people are opposed to restrictions or regulation of the open internet...it would generally cause an increase in price for consumers, as well as hinder tech start-ups looking to enter and compete in the marketspace . If you started a company in silicon valley and wanted to compete against Facebook and Google, a small start-up like yours has no chance without the political leverage that larger companies like Google and Facebook have. It would stifle innovation.
Now, your question is asking for reasons why NN would be a bad thing. Honestly, for consumers, there is no reason why NN would be a bad thing. For the aforementioned reasons, it is in the best interest of every consumer to keep the internet open and unbiased "every packet treated equally" (so to speak).
The only real party opposed to Net Neutrality is the big Telco's who want to "double dip". A company like Netflix who offers a streaming service to its customers also pays quite a bit of money to an ISP in order to keep their servers up an running, so that you can have your HD movies streamed to your home PC in a timely fashion. Imagine if NN didn't exist, and we lived in a world where Netflix not only had to pay for internet service, but had to pay a premium to have their packets prioritized in order to provide a truly quality steaming service? Do you think Netflix would just take a loss of profit? Nope...that cost trickles down to the customer, which in turn ends up right back in the big pockets of the Telco...
So | Really consumers/users of the internet have no reason to be against Net Neutrality as it benefits them in every way. Big Telcos like Comcast and Verizon are the ones that stand to benefit from eliminating NN and being able to "play favorites" when prioritizing traffic of their network. |
McCrarbear | I usually just ignore this type of ignorance, but really you're just commenting without truly thinking.
My girlfriend wrote the note, not me (even though trolls and anti - military say otherwise, because I totally just want karma all the karma). The thing is, she said that only because in conversation one day I told her what I made and she was surprised it was that low with the type of work I did (avionics). I explained how they compensate with a barracks room and meal card. I understand I signed the contract. It was at a time when patriotism was at an all time high and I was a bored high schooler. I didn't do it for benefits or to be considered a 'hero'. I did it because I didn't know what to do with my life and when I was a kid I thought the Marines were some of the coolest motherfuckers on the planet, so I wanted to be one.
Was my enlistment everything I thought it would be? No. I'm better for it though. I consider myself more cultured than most of my friends because I've had life experiences that most of them will never get the opportunity to have. I've made life long brothers and sisters; that if we weren't initially forced to work together we would have never had that relationship.
When you really try to look at things from a different perspective (one that isn't created by anti-war or pro-war ideals, but mixture of absolute truths in both) you might find out that you are wrong and you will change your stance on how you see the world.
As clique as the statement is; you have the liberty to say what you want to say, but please, I'm begging you, realize that with the way the world works and the way humans enheritantly are at the simplest form, militaries have to exist to protect those liberties.
I know that you probably don't agree with me, and think I'm pretty stupid, but you have that right.
TL;DR understand different perspectives, and learn how to think. | I usually just ignore this type of ignorance, but really you're just commenting without truly thinking.
My girlfriend wrote the note, not me (even though trolls and anti - military say otherwise, because I totally just want karma all the karma). The thing is, she said that only because in conversation one day I told her what I made and she was surprised it was that low with the type of work I did (avionics). I explained how they compensate with a barracks room and meal card. I understand I signed the contract. It was at a time when patriotism was at an all time high and I was a bored high schooler. I didn't do it for benefits or to be considered a 'hero'. I did it because I didn't know what to do with my life and when I was a kid I thought the Marines were some of the coolest motherfuckers on the planet, so I wanted to be one.
Was my enlistment everything I thought it would be? No. I'm better for it though. I consider myself more cultured than most of my friends because I've had life experiences that most of them will never get the opportunity to have. I've made life long brothers and sisters; that if we weren't initially forced to work together we would have never had that relationship.
When you really try to look at things from a different perspective (one that isn't created by anti-war or pro-war ideals, but mixture of absolute truths in both) you might find out that you are wrong and you will change your stance on how you see the world.
As clique as the statement is; you have the liberty to say what you want to say, but please, I'm begging you, realize that with the way the world works and the way humans enheritantly are at the simplest form, militaries have to exist to protect those liberties.
I know that you probably don't agree with me, and think I'm pretty stupid, but you have that right.
TL;DR understand different perspectives, and learn how to think.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | cm1kbxd | I usually just ignore this type of ignorance, but really you're just commenting without truly thinking.
My girlfriend wrote the note, not me (even though trolls and anti - military say otherwise, because I totally just want karma all the karma). The thing is, she said that only because in conversation one day I told her what I made and she was surprised it was that low with the type of work I did (avionics). I explained how they compensate with a barracks room and meal card. I understand I signed the contract. It was at a time when patriotism was at an all time high and I was a bored high schooler. I didn't do it for benefits or to be considered a 'hero'. I did it because I didn't know what to do with my life and when I was a kid I thought the Marines were some of the coolest motherfuckers on the planet, so I wanted to be one.
Was my enlistment everything I thought it would be? No. I'm better for it though. I consider myself more cultured than most of my friends because I've had life experiences that most of them will never get the opportunity to have. I've made life long brothers and sisters; that if we weren't initially forced to work together we would have never had that relationship.
When you really try to look at things from a different perspective (one that isn't created by anti-war or pro-war ideals, but mixture of absolute truths in both) you might find out that you are wrong and you will change your stance on how you see the world.
As clique as the statement is; you have the liberty to say what you want to say, but please, I'm begging you, realize that with the way the world works and the way humans enheritantly are at the simplest form, militaries have to exist to protect those liberties.
I know that you probably don't agree with me, and think I'm pretty stupid, but you have that right. | understand different perspectives, and learn how to think. |
Tahjaymahai | Why is wrestling so lame now?
I've been addicted to attitude era stuff and have been watching raw/ppv matches like crazy recently and revisited my childhood with the amazing theatrics and dramatic acts and comedy and overall greatness that attitude era was. I stopped watching wrestling in abou 2005 and just started again and it is so vanilla, boring, the characters have no depth or mystique like mankind or hbk or stone cold. Personalities are flat. Not to mention the "safe" way it's being played now with less sexuality no blood politically correctness, etc.
Tldr; why did they change wrestling so so much since the amazing time of attitude era? | Why is wrestling so lame now?
I've been addicted to attitude era stuff and have been watching raw/ppv matches like crazy recently and revisited my childhood with the amazing theatrics and dramatic acts and comedy and overall greatness that attitude era was. I stopped watching wrestling in abou 2005 and just started again and it is so vanilla, boring, the characters have no depth or mystique like mankind or hbk or stone cold. Personalities are flat. Not to mention the "safe" way it's being played now with less sexuality no blood politically correctness, etc.
Tldr; why did they change wrestling so so much since the amazing time of attitude era?
| IAmA | t5_2qzb6 | clzg961 | Why is wrestling so lame now?
I've been addicted to attitude era stuff and have been watching raw/ppv matches like crazy recently and revisited my childhood with the amazing theatrics and dramatic acts and comedy and overall greatness that attitude era was. I stopped watching wrestling in abou 2005 and just started again and it is so vanilla, boring, the characters have no depth or mystique like mankind or hbk or stone cold. Personalities are flat. Not to mention the "safe" way it's being played now with less sexuality no blood politically correctness, etc. | why did they change wrestling so so much since the amazing time of attitude era? |
auraofjason | I had a nexus 9 on pre-order until reviews came out and were really mixed. I decided to cancel my pre-order and pick up a galaxy tab s 10.5 instead for the same price ($399) and have no regrets. The display is one of the best displays I've ever seen (if not the best), even when including TVs and desktop monitors, not just mobile devices.
People always hate on touchwiz, and I did too, but honestly the features it brings are actually nice on this tablet at least. I don't know what I'd do without features like multiwindow especially on a device this size, it's just asking for it. Yes there is some "lag" but it's just the occasional frame drop in the launcher, not the actual definition of lag, and I really don't notice the frame drops. I heard installing a 3rd party launcher like nova removes the frame drops but I haven't cared enough.
Actual performance like load times is smooth and I don't notice a difference between it and my nexus 7 2013, in fact when doing things like viewing large imgur albums it loads faster than my nexus 7, probably due to having 3gb ram. The bloatware isn't that bad either, half of it was actually uninstallable which was surprising to me. You can just root and uninstall it all anyways if it really bothers you, it doesn't bother me.
tl;dr: tab s is nice | I had a nexus 9 on pre-order until reviews came out and were really mixed. I decided to cancel my pre-order and pick up a galaxy tab s 10.5 instead for the same price ($399) and have no regrets. The display is one of the best displays I've ever seen (if not the best), even when including TVs and desktop monitors, not just mobile devices.
People always hate on touchwiz, and I did too, but honestly the features it brings are actually nice on this tablet at least. I don't know what I'd do without features like multiwindow especially on a device this size, it's just asking for it. Yes there is some "lag" but it's just the occasional frame drop in the launcher, not the actual definition of lag, and I really don't notice the frame drops. I heard installing a 3rd party launcher like nova removes the frame drops but I haven't cared enough.
Actual performance like load times is smooth and I don't notice a difference between it and my nexus 7 2013, in fact when doing things like viewing large imgur albums it loads faster than my nexus 7, probably due to having 3gb ram. The bloatware isn't that bad either, half of it was actually uninstallable which was surprising to me. You can just root and uninstall it all anyways if it really bothers you, it doesn't bother me.
tl;dr: tab s is nice
| Android | t5_2qlqh | cm01kzb | I had a nexus 9 on pre-order until reviews came out and were really mixed. I decided to cancel my pre-order and pick up a galaxy tab s 10.5 instead for the same price ($399) and have no regrets. The display is one of the best displays I've ever seen (if not the best), even when including TVs and desktop monitors, not just mobile devices.
People always hate on touchwiz, and I did too, but honestly the features it brings are actually nice on this tablet at least. I don't know what I'd do without features like multiwindow especially on a device this size, it's just asking for it. Yes there is some "lag" but it's just the occasional frame drop in the launcher, not the actual definition of lag, and I really don't notice the frame drops. I heard installing a 3rd party launcher like nova removes the frame drops but I haven't cared enough.
Actual performance like load times is smooth and I don't notice a difference between it and my nexus 7 2013, in fact when doing things like viewing large imgur albums it loads faster than my nexus 7, probably due to having 3gb ram. The bloatware isn't that bad either, half of it was actually uninstallable which was surprising to me. You can just root and uninstall it all anyways if it really bothers you, it doesn't bother me. | tab s is nice |
sethra007 | **VERSION WITH PARAGRAPHS**
Ever since I can remember, my mom has had a shopping addiction.
Every day my mom would come home from work, arms full of shopping bags filled with new things. She was always getting caught up in some product. For a while she wouldn’t stop buying Beanie Babies, then it was Boyd’s Bears, then it was jewelry beads, then it was yarn, then it was Barbie Dolls. She would buy these things in excess and pile them in some room. Later in life, my dad accused her of having a hoarding problem. She refused.
About 4 years ago, my mom decided to move into her own apartment a few hours away from the house we grew up in. She moved into a fairly small one bedroom apartment, taking with her the necessities- her clothes, furniture, and basic household items. 2 years ago I decided to move in with her briefly to save some money. When I first started living with her, I noticed small piles of things had begun to build up, but nothing too terrible. However, when I looked inside her closets I found shelves full of hand soap, candles, medications, lotions, cleaning products, and paper products (10 times the amount one person needs). Her bedroom closet was over stuffed with clothing -enough for probably 5 people. Her shoes spilled out of the closet into her room. Her dressers were piled high with jewelry and clothing that couldn’t fit into her dresser drawers. And the floor was scattered with grocery bags filled with items like wrapping paper and holiday knick knacks.
A few months in, we upgraded to a 2 bedroom apartment one building over. Once we were in the 2 bedroom apartment, I started noticing her shopping habits had really picked up. Every day she came home, bringing in bag after bag. I would ask her how she could afford these things but she would just change the subject and get angry.
Eventually, every nook and cranny in this new apartment was full. They were expensive items (however mostly useless in my eyes). I could not just throw these things away and not feel guilty. These were hundreds of dollars’ worth of items taking over the apartment.
Finally, I decided it was time to move out when she explained to me she wanted to move into a bigger apartment. The day after I moved, I came back to her apartment to get anything I may have left behind. I also thought it would be ok for me to take some things that she had duplicates of. For example, my mother had 5 serving spoons. She doesn’t have any people over and she doesn’t go to parties. There is no reason she needs 5 serving spoons. However when she saw me take one, she threw a tantrum and took it out of my moving box. She then began to search the items I had put in there and claimed items I bought were hers and that I couldn’t have them.
Over the weekend, it was time for my mom to move out of her apartment into the new one. She had asked my sister and my brother to come up (they both live a few hours away) and help her move. I called them a few days ahead and warned them that she had gathered up so much stuff as of recently that it was going to be an almost impossible task. They said they were still going to help.
Upon arrival of her apartment, hardly anything had been packed. Piles of junk had been pushed into the center of the apartment. You could barely move. We could not even move her big furniture at first because too much stuff was in the way. Bins stuffed with Barbie doll bodies, rubber maids full of holiday towels, boxes filled nail polishes, and crates filled with nothing but brand new Yankee candles. Wedged in between these items were things that could have been thrown away, like magnets, chip bag clips, pens that do not work anymore, miscellaneous stationary, old newspaper ads, rolls of broken tape dispensers, and old tubes of Vaseline. Along with that, we were moving things that had never been used, still in their original packaging with the tags attached.
Eventually we got fed up, and the moving was no longer a process of helping her get situated into a new place; it was now a mission to get her stuff from point A to point B. We were stuffing things in boxes and garbage bags, tossing them into the truck, and then tossing them into her new place.
The new place was now filled with loose crap, stuffed boxes and spilling shopping bags. It took us 14 hours of intensive labor from the 3 of us to get it done. We had to do 4 trips with the 10 foot truck and at least 9 trips with my sister’s car. My mother was a nightmare the entire time. She would throw a tantrum when we would confront her with the situation and how messed up it was. She insisted everything was normal. She never apologized or said thank you. And now she is left alone in an apartment literally piled with crap and I am worried it is going to stay that way forever.
I am posting my story here because I would appreciate some outside opinions and support. Is this still considered hoarding if the living conditions are not dirty and unsanitary? Everything she keeps originally cost money. Is it more of a shopping addiction? What can we do? Does anyone else know what it is like to be in a situation like this and how do you cope? Any advice or support would be greatly appreciated.
TL; DR My mom has always had a shopping addiction. I am worried it is turning into a hoarding problem. She will not throw anything away and stock piles clothing, candles, barbies, make-up, toiletries, etc. She buys something new for herself every day. We helped her move over the weekend and it took me and my 2 siblings 14 hours of intensive labor (the 3 of us carrying heavy loads of her things into the truck and out of the truck). Her new apartment is now just piles of loose crap because it took so much time just to move it. I am worried now her apartment will looks that way forever and will begin to get dirty and dangerous. Seeking any advice or support.
| VERSION WITH PARAGRAPHS
Ever since I can remember, my mom has had a shopping addiction.
Every day my mom would come home from work, arms full of shopping bags filled with new things. She was always getting caught up in some product. For a while she wouldn’t stop buying Beanie Babies, then it was Boyd’s Bears, then it was jewelry beads, then it was yarn, then it was Barbie Dolls. She would buy these things in excess and pile them in some room. Later in life, my dad accused her of having a hoarding problem. She refused.
About 4 years ago, my mom decided to move into her own apartment a few hours away from the house we grew up in. She moved into a fairly small one bedroom apartment, taking with her the necessities- her clothes, furniture, and basic household items. 2 years ago I decided to move in with her briefly to save some money. When I first started living with her, I noticed small piles of things had begun to build up, but nothing too terrible. However, when I looked inside her closets I found shelves full of hand soap, candles, medications, lotions, cleaning products, and paper products (10 times the amount one person needs). Her bedroom closet was over stuffed with clothing -enough for probably 5 people. Her shoes spilled out of the closet into her room. Her dressers were piled high with jewelry and clothing that couldn’t fit into her dresser drawers. And the floor was scattered with grocery bags filled with items like wrapping paper and holiday knick knacks.
A few months in, we upgraded to a 2 bedroom apartment one building over. Once we were in the 2 bedroom apartment, I started noticing her shopping habits had really picked up. Every day she came home, bringing in bag after bag. I would ask her how she could afford these things but she would just change the subject and get angry.
Eventually, every nook and cranny in this new apartment was full. They were expensive items (however mostly useless in my eyes). I could not just throw these things away and not feel guilty. These were hundreds of dollars’ worth of items taking over the apartment.
Finally, I decided it was time to move out when she explained to me she wanted to move into a bigger apartment. The day after I moved, I came back to her apartment to get anything I may have left behind. I also thought it would be ok for me to take some things that she had duplicates of. For example, my mother had 5 serving spoons. She doesn’t have any people over and she doesn’t go to parties. There is no reason she needs 5 serving spoons. However when she saw me take one, she threw a tantrum and took it out of my moving box. She then began to search the items I had put in there and claimed items I bought were hers and that I couldn’t have them.
Over the weekend, it was time for my mom to move out of her apartment into the new one. She had asked my sister and my brother to come up (they both live a few hours away) and help her move. I called them a few days ahead and warned them that she had gathered up so much stuff as of recently that it was going to be an almost impossible task. They said they were still going to help.
Upon arrival of her apartment, hardly anything had been packed. Piles of junk had been pushed into the center of the apartment. You could barely move. We could not even move her big furniture at first because too much stuff was in the way. Bins stuffed with Barbie doll bodies, rubber maids full of holiday towels, boxes filled nail polishes, and crates filled with nothing but brand new Yankee candles. Wedged in between these items were things that could have been thrown away, like magnets, chip bag clips, pens that do not work anymore, miscellaneous stationary, old newspaper ads, rolls of broken tape dispensers, and old tubes of Vaseline. Along with that, we were moving things that had never been used, still in their original packaging with the tags attached.
Eventually we got fed up, and the moving was no longer a process of helping her get situated into a new place; it was now a mission to get her stuff from point A to point B. We were stuffing things in boxes and garbage bags, tossing them into the truck, and then tossing them into her new place.
The new place was now filled with loose crap, stuffed boxes and spilling shopping bags. It took us 14 hours of intensive labor from the 3 of us to get it done. We had to do 4 trips with the 10 foot truck and at least 9 trips with my sister’s car. My mother was a nightmare the entire time. She would throw a tantrum when we would confront her with the situation and how messed up it was. She insisted everything was normal. She never apologized or said thank you. And now she is left alone in an apartment literally piled with crap and I am worried it is going to stay that way forever.
I am posting my story here because I would appreciate some outside opinions and support. Is this still considered hoarding if the living conditions are not dirty and unsanitary? Everything she keeps originally cost money. Is it more of a shopping addiction? What can we do? Does anyone else know what it is like to be in a situation like this and how do you cope? Any advice or support would be greatly appreciated.
TL; DR My mom has always had a shopping addiction. I am worried it is turning into a hoarding problem. She will not throw anything away and stock piles clothing, candles, barbies, make-up, toiletries, etc. She buys something new for herself every day. We helped her move over the weekend and it took me and my 2 siblings 14 hours of intensive labor (the 3 of us carrying heavy loads of her things into the truck and out of the truck). Her new apartment is now just piles of loose crap because it took so much time just to move it. I am worried now her apartment will looks that way forever and will begin to get dirty and dangerous. Seeking any advice or support.
| hoarding | t5_2s9r3 | clzsxjw | VERSION WITH PARAGRAPHS
Ever since I can remember, my mom has had a shopping addiction.
Every day my mom would come home from work, arms full of shopping bags filled with new things. She was always getting caught up in some product. For a while she wouldn’t stop buying Beanie Babies, then it was Boyd’s Bears, then it was jewelry beads, then it was yarn, then it was Barbie Dolls. She would buy these things in excess and pile them in some room. Later in life, my dad accused her of having a hoarding problem. She refused.
About 4 years ago, my mom decided to move into her own apartment a few hours away from the house we grew up in. She moved into a fairly small one bedroom apartment, taking with her the necessities- her clothes, furniture, and basic household items. 2 years ago I decided to move in with her briefly to save some money. When I first started living with her, I noticed small piles of things had begun to build up, but nothing too terrible. However, when I looked inside her closets I found shelves full of hand soap, candles, medications, lotions, cleaning products, and paper products (10 times the amount one person needs). Her bedroom closet was over stuffed with clothing -enough for probably 5 people. Her shoes spilled out of the closet into her room. Her dressers were piled high with jewelry and clothing that couldn’t fit into her dresser drawers. And the floor was scattered with grocery bags filled with items like wrapping paper and holiday knick knacks.
A few months in, we upgraded to a 2 bedroom apartment one building over. Once we were in the 2 bedroom apartment, I started noticing her shopping habits had really picked up. Every day she came home, bringing in bag after bag. I would ask her how she could afford these things but she would just change the subject and get angry.
Eventually, every nook and cranny in this new apartment was full. They were expensive items (however mostly useless in my eyes). I could not just throw these things away and not feel guilty. These were hundreds of dollars’ worth of items taking over the apartment.
Finally, I decided it was time to move out when she explained to me she wanted to move into a bigger apartment. The day after I moved, I came back to her apartment to get anything I may have left behind. I also thought it would be ok for me to take some things that she had duplicates of. For example, my mother had 5 serving spoons. She doesn’t have any people over and she doesn’t go to parties. There is no reason she needs 5 serving spoons. However when she saw me take one, she threw a tantrum and took it out of my moving box. She then began to search the items I had put in there and claimed items I bought were hers and that I couldn’t have them.
Over the weekend, it was time for my mom to move out of her apartment into the new one. She had asked my sister and my brother to come up (they both live a few hours away) and help her move. I called them a few days ahead and warned them that she had gathered up so much stuff as of recently that it was going to be an almost impossible task. They said they were still going to help.
Upon arrival of her apartment, hardly anything had been packed. Piles of junk had been pushed into the center of the apartment. You could barely move. We could not even move her big furniture at first because too much stuff was in the way. Bins stuffed with Barbie doll bodies, rubber maids full of holiday towels, boxes filled nail polishes, and crates filled with nothing but brand new Yankee candles. Wedged in between these items were things that could have been thrown away, like magnets, chip bag clips, pens that do not work anymore, miscellaneous stationary, old newspaper ads, rolls of broken tape dispensers, and old tubes of Vaseline. Along with that, we were moving things that had never been used, still in their original packaging with the tags attached.
Eventually we got fed up, and the moving was no longer a process of helping her get situated into a new place; it was now a mission to get her stuff from point A to point B. We were stuffing things in boxes and garbage bags, tossing them into the truck, and then tossing them into her new place.
The new place was now filled with loose crap, stuffed boxes and spilling shopping bags. It took us 14 hours of intensive labor from the 3 of us to get it done. We had to do 4 trips with the 10 foot truck and at least 9 trips with my sister’s car. My mother was a nightmare the entire time. She would throw a tantrum when we would confront her with the situation and how messed up it was. She insisted everything was normal. She never apologized or said thank you. And now she is left alone in an apartment literally piled with crap and I am worried it is going to stay that way forever.
I am posting my story here because I would appreciate some outside opinions and support. Is this still considered hoarding if the living conditions are not dirty and unsanitary? Everything she keeps originally cost money. Is it more of a shopping addiction? What can we do? Does anyone else know what it is like to be in a situation like this and how do you cope? Any advice or support would be greatly appreciated. | My mom has always had a shopping addiction. I am worried it is turning into a hoarding problem. She will not throw anything away and stock piles clothing, candles, barbies, make-up, toiletries, etc. She buys something new for herself every day. We helped her move over the weekend and it took me and my 2 siblings 14 hours of intensive labor (the 3 of us carrying heavy loads of her things into the truck and out of the truck). Her new apartment is now just piles of loose crap because it took so much time just to move it. I am worried now her apartment will looks that way forever and will begin to get dirty and dangerous. Seeking any advice or support. |
lostinredditallday | Hahaha. Yeah, it can be rather depressing. I'm currently selling insurance through telemarketing, but really just setting leads for salespeople. An old ass man in Arkansas called me a "bird dog" the other day.
TLDR:: I'm a bird-dog. | Hahaha. Yeah, it can be rather depressing. I'm currently selling insurance through telemarketing, but really just setting leads for salespeople. An old ass man in Arkansas called me a "bird dog" the other day.
TLDR:: I'm a bird-dog.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | clzss05 | Hahaha. Yeah, it can be rather depressing. I'm currently selling insurance through telemarketing, but really just setting leads for salespeople. An old ass man in Arkansas called me a "bird dog" the other day. | I'm a bird-dog. |
Fermit | Just to be clear, what you're saying in your first paragraph is that the law is the law and we have to follow it, right? If so, I absolutely agree. Whether or not it needs to be modified for extreme cases like these is neither here nor there.
>A few problems with what you said. If this was a normal person working a normal job whose wife stayed home and managed their household no one would be surprised or baffled if she got ~50% of the marital estate. We assume that her labor in terms of cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc was just as valid of a contribution to the marital partnership as working a normal job.
>While his wife would not necessarily be scrubbing dishes herself, there is no reason to discount the contributions she did make to their partnership. Social events, fundraising, household management are all valid contributions to a marital relationship. So I would put that forth as the first misconception in your point.
I understand what you're saying here, but I'm honestly not sure I can think of any group of contributions to a marriage (within reason) that anybody can make that would entitle them to $1B. If you look at it as 7% of their partner's net wealth, it sounds reasonable. But this isn't a standard case and (I believe, at least) it needs to be looked at completely differently.
Somebody else made the same "she's not a random person" point, and I agree, but it really seems like a technicality to me. If you take a step back and look at it it's extremely obvious that *he* earned that money. Yes, they shared assets, but he made essentially all of the contributions in that area.
>Finally, the idea that person who wins the bread should take home 99.99% of the marital estate is huge problem if it were applied to most cases.
It wouldn't be applied to other cases at all, unless they also involved billionaires I suppose. This isn't a standard case by any means, so its outcome would only be applicable to other extraordinary cases, no?
>This woman doesn't deserve to be treated worse proportionally than any one else simply because her husband happened to make more money.
Yes, she would be treated worse proportionally, but in hard numbers she wouldn't be treated badly at all. Marriage covenant aside, *he* earned that money. All of it, or near enough.
**TL;DR /u/DenverJr hit the nail on the head**
> **divorce law should simply ensure that the non-breadwinner is no worse off than they would be absent the marriage, rather than allowing them to be substantially better off.**
**That's what I came in here thinking. Marriage shouldn't be something that you can "profit" off of when you end it, IMO, and she absolutely did. I can't think of any kind of reasonable set of contributions to the marriage/earnings missed (because of the marriage) that can justify the sum. Not the percentage of his wealth, but the sum itself.** | Just to be clear, what you're saying in your first paragraph is that the law is the law and we have to follow it, right? If so, I absolutely agree. Whether or not it needs to be modified for extreme cases like these is neither here nor there.
>A few problems with what you said. If this was a normal person working a normal job whose wife stayed home and managed their household no one would be surprised or baffled if she got ~50% of the marital estate. We assume that her labor in terms of cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc was just as valid of a contribution to the marital partnership as working a normal job.
>While his wife would not necessarily be scrubbing dishes herself, there is no reason to discount the contributions she did make to their partnership. Social events, fundraising, household management are all valid contributions to a marital relationship. So I would put that forth as the first misconception in your point.
I understand what you're saying here, but I'm honestly not sure I can think of any group of contributions to a marriage (within reason) that anybody can make that would entitle them to $1B. If you look at it as 7% of their partner's net wealth, it sounds reasonable. But this isn't a standard case and (I believe, at least) it needs to be looked at completely differently.
Somebody else made the same "she's not a random person" point, and I agree, but it really seems like a technicality to me. If you take a step back and look at it it's extremely obvious that he earned that money. Yes, they shared assets, but he made essentially all of the contributions in that area.
>Finally, the idea that person who wins the bread should take home 99.99% of the marital estate is huge problem if it were applied to most cases.
It wouldn't be applied to other cases at all, unless they also involved billionaires I suppose. This isn't a standard case by any means, so its outcome would only be applicable to other extraordinary cases, no?
>This woman doesn't deserve to be treated worse proportionally than any one else simply because her husband happened to make more money.
Yes, she would be treated worse proportionally, but in hard numbers she wouldn't be treated badly at all. Marriage covenant aside, he earned that money. All of it, or near enough.
TL;DR /u/DenverJr hit the nail on the head
> divorce law should simply ensure that the non-breadwinner is no worse off than they would be absent the marriage, rather than allowing them to be substantially better off.
That's what I came in here thinking. Marriage shouldn't be something that you can "profit" off of when you end it, IMO, and she absolutely did. I can't think of any kind of reasonable set of contributions to the marriage/earnings missed (because of the marriage) that can justify the sum. Not the percentage of his wealth, but the sum itself.
| law | t5_2qh9k | cm0mxbu | Just to be clear, what you're saying in your first paragraph is that the law is the law and we have to follow it, right? If so, I absolutely agree. Whether or not it needs to be modified for extreme cases like these is neither here nor there.
>A few problems with what you said. If this was a normal person working a normal job whose wife stayed home and managed their household no one would be surprised or baffled if she got ~50% of the marital estate. We assume that her labor in terms of cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc was just as valid of a contribution to the marital partnership as working a normal job.
>While his wife would not necessarily be scrubbing dishes herself, there is no reason to discount the contributions she did make to their partnership. Social events, fundraising, household management are all valid contributions to a marital relationship. So I would put that forth as the first misconception in your point.
I understand what you're saying here, but I'm honestly not sure I can think of any group of contributions to a marriage (within reason) that anybody can make that would entitle them to $1B. If you look at it as 7% of their partner's net wealth, it sounds reasonable. But this isn't a standard case and (I believe, at least) it needs to be looked at completely differently.
Somebody else made the same "she's not a random person" point, and I agree, but it really seems like a technicality to me. If you take a step back and look at it it's extremely obvious that he earned that money. Yes, they shared assets, but he made essentially all of the contributions in that area.
>Finally, the idea that person who wins the bread should take home 99.99% of the marital estate is huge problem if it were applied to most cases.
It wouldn't be applied to other cases at all, unless they also involved billionaires I suppose. This isn't a standard case by any means, so its outcome would only be applicable to other extraordinary cases, no?
>This woman doesn't deserve to be treated worse proportionally than any one else simply because her husband happened to make more money.
Yes, she would be treated worse proportionally, but in hard numbers she wouldn't be treated badly at all. Marriage covenant aside, he earned that money. All of it, or near enough. | u/DenverJr hit the nail on the head
> divorce law should simply ensure that the non-breadwinner is no worse off than they would be absent the marriage, rather than allowing them to be substantially better off.
That's what I came in here thinking. Marriage shouldn't be something that you can "profit" off of when you end it, IMO, and she absolutely did. I can't think of any kind of reasonable set of contributions to the marriage/earnings missed (because of the marriage) that can justify the sum. Not the percentage of his wealth, but the sum itself. |
Goatse_man | Well, I suppose I may as well confess this.
I *am* a killer.
My first murder - and I do think of it as such now, after all the therapy I've had and self-analysis that I've done - was an accident. Though I've tried to rationalize it by claiming that I just wasn't careful enough or that I wasn't paying attention, the simple truth of the matter is that there was an element of intent to my actions. I was curious about how it would feel, about what would happen... like those times when you stand at the edge of a cliff and think, just for a moment, what it would be like to jump. The only difference was that *my* life wasn't at risk, but that of another being.
I can still remember the wet, sickening crunch.
The feeling haunted me for awhile after that... but perhaps more disturbing was the sense of satisfied, empowered superiority that I experienced. I knew that killing was wrong, but in a strange way, I didn't care. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that knowing it *was* such a horrific act made it all the more appealing. I didn't have any plans to repeat it... but I wanted to.
Just under a month later, I killed again.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine seeing a lone innocent, walking along the street at night. You might very well have missed them, were in not for the glow of the streetlamp and the dancing shadow of their movement. You glance around and see that other than them, you're completely alone. If you wanted to, you could end their life. You could be the final thing that they saw before the light in their eyes dimmed forever. You could be the *only one* to ever claim that *you* killed them. It would make you *special*. It would make you the equivalent of a *god*.
Sometimes I wonder if my second victim even knew that I was coming.
That was all it took. I gave myself over entirely to those murderous urges. I killed again and again, all the while convincing myself that I was somehow ridding the world of filth. Each time, it was an act of opportunity, a crime of passion executed by the cold, unfeeling entity that I became in those moments.
To date, I've likely had dozens, if not *hundreds* of victims... and though I've learned to feel remorse for my actions, the motivation for those killings is still with me:
I *really* hate spiders.
**TL;DR: I have killed. I will likely kill again.**
Not me but /u/RamsesThePigeon's story | Well, I suppose I may as well confess this.
I am a killer.
My first murder - and I do think of it as such now, after all the therapy I've had and self-analysis that I've done - was an accident. Though I've tried to rationalize it by claiming that I just wasn't careful enough or that I wasn't paying attention, the simple truth of the matter is that there was an element of intent to my actions. I was curious about how it would feel, about what would happen... like those times when you stand at the edge of a cliff and think, just for a moment, what it would be like to jump. The only difference was that my life wasn't at risk, but that of another being.
I can still remember the wet, sickening crunch.
The feeling haunted me for awhile after that... but perhaps more disturbing was the sense of satisfied, empowered superiority that I experienced. I knew that killing was wrong, but in a strange way, I didn't care. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that knowing it was such a horrific act made it all the more appealing. I didn't have any plans to repeat it... but I wanted to.
Just under a month later, I killed again.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine seeing a lone innocent, walking along the street at night. You might very well have missed them, were in not for the glow of the streetlamp and the dancing shadow of their movement. You glance around and see that other than them, you're completely alone. If you wanted to, you could end their life. You could be the final thing that they saw before the light in their eyes dimmed forever. You could be the only one to ever claim that you killed them. It would make you special . It would make you the equivalent of a god .
Sometimes I wonder if my second victim even knew that I was coming.
That was all it took. I gave myself over entirely to those murderous urges. I killed again and again, all the while convincing myself that I was somehow ridding the world of filth. Each time, it was an act of opportunity, a crime of passion executed by the cold, unfeeling entity that I became in those moments.
To date, I've likely had dozens, if not hundreds of victims... and though I've learned to feel remorse for my actions, the motivation for those killings is still with me:
I really hate spiders.
TL;DR: I have killed. I will likely kill again.
Not me but /u/RamsesThePigeon's story
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cm02ens | Well, I suppose I may as well confess this.
I am a killer.
My first murder - and I do think of it as such now, after all the therapy I've had and self-analysis that I've done - was an accident. Though I've tried to rationalize it by claiming that I just wasn't careful enough or that I wasn't paying attention, the simple truth of the matter is that there was an element of intent to my actions. I was curious about how it would feel, about what would happen... like those times when you stand at the edge of a cliff and think, just for a moment, what it would be like to jump. The only difference was that my life wasn't at risk, but that of another being.
I can still remember the wet, sickening crunch.
The feeling haunted me for awhile after that... but perhaps more disturbing was the sense of satisfied, empowered superiority that I experienced. I knew that killing was wrong, but in a strange way, I didn't care. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that knowing it was such a horrific act made it all the more appealing. I didn't have any plans to repeat it... but I wanted to.
Just under a month later, I killed again.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine seeing a lone innocent, walking along the street at night. You might very well have missed them, were in not for the glow of the streetlamp and the dancing shadow of their movement. You glance around and see that other than them, you're completely alone. If you wanted to, you could end their life. You could be the final thing that they saw before the light in their eyes dimmed forever. You could be the only one to ever claim that you killed them. It would make you special . It would make you the equivalent of a god .
Sometimes I wonder if my second victim even knew that I was coming.
That was all it took. I gave myself over entirely to those murderous urges. I killed again and again, all the while convincing myself that I was somehow ridding the world of filth. Each time, it was an act of opportunity, a crime of passion executed by the cold, unfeeling entity that I became in those moments.
To date, I've likely had dozens, if not hundreds of victims... and though I've learned to feel remorse for my actions, the motivation for those killings is still with me:
I really hate spiders. | I have killed. I will likely kill again.
Not me but /u/RamsesThePigeon's story |
pingwing | Some local farmers raise Turkeys in a pasture, roaming freely and pecking around all day happily in Valley Center. They are expensive, but they are expensive to raise this way and they don't make a lot of money doing this. The turkeys have a great life and aren't raised in a crowded, unsanitary building.
If you order one, you can pick it up at the farm or they will also have a delivery day in **San Diego** where you can also pick it up.
These guys are legit, they are really great and want to give people biodynamic, healthy food. I am happy to see farmers who take pride in providing us with alternatives to factory farming, so they get my support!
**tl;dr - get a good turkey this thanksgiving** | Some local farmers raise Turkeys in a pasture, roaming freely and pecking around all day happily in Valley Center. They are expensive, but they are expensive to raise this way and they don't make a lot of money doing this. The turkeys have a great life and aren't raised in a crowded, unsanitary building.
If you order one, you can pick it up at the farm or they will also have a delivery day in San Diego where you can also pick it up.
These guys are legit, they are really great and want to give people biodynamic, healthy food. I am happy to see farmers who take pride in providing us with alternatives to factory farming, so they get my support!
tl;dr - get a good turkey this thanksgiving
| sandiego | t5_2qq2q | cm0375e | Some local farmers raise Turkeys in a pasture, roaming freely and pecking around all day happily in Valley Center. They are expensive, but they are expensive to raise this way and they don't make a lot of money doing this. The turkeys have a great life and aren't raised in a crowded, unsanitary building.
If you order one, you can pick it up at the farm or they will also have a delivery day in San Diego where you can also pick it up.
These guys are legit, they are really great and want to give people biodynamic, healthy food. I am happy to see farmers who take pride in providing us with alternatives to factory farming, so they get my support! | get a good turkey this thanksgiving |
pair-o-dice_found | First, congratulations on 6 months. That is quite an achievement.
Feel like shit at the beginning? Yeah that happens. Best advice I ever heard was that if you are going through hell do not stop for a picnic. That shitty feeling? The remorse? The self-loathing? The regret? That is why we work the steps. Not to quit drinking, but to live sober. Have you read the 9th step promises yet? You know, "If we are painstaking about this phase of our development we will be amazed before we are half way through..."?
I was never told that I would be amazed at the changes that happen by sitting on my ass in a meeting. The only thing it will do is keep my ass from drinking. Trouble is, I always put the booze in the other end.
So, you are busy. You have a life. Awesome. You want to keep it? Do something. I know a hundred alcoholics just like me who have nothing to do all day except go to meetings and wait for their release date from prison. I've know a hundred more who lost their lives entirely to this disease. You can join either group at any time by drinking like I did, and making the same bad choices I did.
Or you can get serious about your recovery TODAY. Work it. Do all of the work. Get a sponsor, work the steps, get a service commitment and a home group. Go to meetings until you WANT to go to meetings. You have already said that you want what we have. Now go to any lengths. And honestly, the lengths are not that long.
So you are struggling, and unhappy? The TL;DR is my sponsor's favorite Big Book quote:
**We are not a glum lot.**
Feeling glum? Join our lot instead. | First, congratulations on 6 months. That is quite an achievement.
Feel like shit at the beginning? Yeah that happens. Best advice I ever heard was that if you are going through hell do not stop for a picnic. That shitty feeling? The remorse? The self-loathing? The regret? That is why we work the steps. Not to quit drinking, but to live sober. Have you read the 9th step promises yet? You know, "If we are painstaking about this phase of our development we will be amazed before we are half way through..."?
I was never told that I would be amazed at the changes that happen by sitting on my ass in a meeting. The only thing it will do is keep my ass from drinking. Trouble is, I always put the booze in the other end.
So, you are busy. You have a life. Awesome. You want to keep it? Do something. I know a hundred alcoholics just like me who have nothing to do all day except go to meetings and wait for their release date from prison. I've know a hundred more who lost their lives entirely to this disease. You can join either group at any time by drinking like I did, and making the same bad choices I did.
Or you can get serious about your recovery TODAY. Work it. Do all of the work. Get a sponsor, work the steps, get a service commitment and a home group. Go to meetings until you WANT to go to meetings. You have already said that you want what we have. Now go to any lengths. And honestly, the lengths are not that long.
So you are struggling, and unhappy? The TL;DR is my sponsor's favorite Big Book quote:
We are not a glum lot.
Feeling glum? Join our lot instead.
| stopdrinking | t5_2s7yr | cm0mwuv | First, congratulations on 6 months. That is quite an achievement.
Feel like shit at the beginning? Yeah that happens. Best advice I ever heard was that if you are going through hell do not stop for a picnic. That shitty feeling? The remorse? The self-loathing? The regret? That is why we work the steps. Not to quit drinking, but to live sober. Have you read the 9th step promises yet? You know, "If we are painstaking about this phase of our development we will be amazed before we are half way through..."?
I was never told that I would be amazed at the changes that happen by sitting on my ass in a meeting. The only thing it will do is keep my ass from drinking. Trouble is, I always put the booze in the other end.
So, you are busy. You have a life. Awesome. You want to keep it? Do something. I know a hundred alcoholics just like me who have nothing to do all day except go to meetings and wait for their release date from prison. I've know a hundred more who lost their lives entirely to this disease. You can join either group at any time by drinking like I did, and making the same bad choices I did.
Or you can get serious about your recovery TODAY. Work it. Do all of the work. Get a sponsor, work the steps, get a service commitment and a home group. Go to meetings until you WANT to go to meetings. You have already said that you want what we have. Now go to any lengths. And honestly, the lengths are not that long.
So you are struggling, and unhappy? The | is my sponsor's favorite Big Book quote:
We are not a glum lot.
Feeling glum? Join our lot instead. |
PM_ME_A_CHALLENGE | But what if the private parts are on the internet, i.e. when there are some of them that are public?
TL;DR: Does p = np? | But what if the private parts are on the internet, i.e. when there are some of them that are public?
TL;DR: Does p = np?
| shittyaskscience | t5_2sw51 | cm0arp7 | But what if the private parts are on the internet, i.e. when there are some of them that are public? | Does p = np? |
franksymptoms | A VERY good answer to this and other problems with the corn industry may be found in the documentary "King Corn." Two college grads studied the corn industry for a year by planting an acre of corn and studying the life cycle: planting, spraying, marketing, selling, AND subsidies. Available on Netflix and other places.
tl;dr: Farmers make NO money off the sale of their corn; all 'income' comes from subsidies! The act of producing corn simply seems to qualify those farmers for the government money. It didn't happen all at once, but over a period of time; now, growers are trapped in the situation. | A VERY good answer to this and other problems with the corn industry may be found in the documentary "King Corn." Two college grads studied the corn industry for a year by planting an acre of corn and studying the life cycle: planting, spraying, marketing, selling, AND subsidies. Available on Netflix and other places.
tl;dr: Farmers make NO money off the sale of their corn; all 'income' comes from subsidies! The act of producing corn simply seems to qualify those farmers for the government money. It didn't happen all at once, but over a period of time; now, growers are trapped in the situation.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cm0bvwk | A VERY good answer to this and other problems with the corn industry may be found in the documentary "King Corn." Two college grads studied the corn industry for a year by planting an acre of corn and studying the life cycle: planting, spraying, marketing, selling, AND subsidies. Available on Netflix and other places. | Farmers make NO money off the sale of their corn; all 'income' comes from subsidies! The act of producing corn simply seems to qualify those farmers for the government money. It didn't happen all at once, but over a period of time; now, growers are trapped in the situation. |
chessc | This looks like it's going to be a pretty large cluster, but because they've detected it I expect this cluster can be contained.
What's more worrying is that there are quite likely other cases in Mali (and perhaps Ivory Coast) which haven't yet been detected which are silently spreading. The WHO has no visibility as to what is happening in the remote villages of Guinea. People are crossing by road which is much harder to monitor and control than the air links. Look at the [WHO map]( Guinea's provinces adjacent to Mali and Ivory Coast have known active cases - and who knows how many undetected cases there are. The 2 clusters detected in the last 2 weeks confirms that its spreading over the lines on the map.
TLDR; Ebola is probably silently spreading into new countries | This looks like it's going to be a pretty large cluster, but because they've detected it I expect this cluster can be contained.
What's more worrying is that there are quite likely other cases in Mali (and perhaps Ivory Coast) which haven't yet been detected which are silently spreading. The WHO has no visibility as to what is happening in the remote villages of Guinea. People are crossing by road which is much harder to monitor and control than the air links. Look at the [WHO map]( Guinea's provinces adjacent to Mali and Ivory Coast have known active cases - and who knows how many undetected cases there are. The 2 clusters detected in the last 2 weeks confirms that its spreading over the lines on the map.
TLDR; Ebola is probably silently spreading into new countries
| ebola | t5_2xabe | cm0x9cg | This looks like it's going to be a pretty large cluster, but because they've detected it I expect this cluster can be contained.
What's more worrying is that there are quite likely other cases in Mali (and perhaps Ivory Coast) which haven't yet been detected which are silently spreading. The WHO has no visibility as to what is happening in the remote villages of Guinea. People are crossing by road which is much harder to monitor and control than the air links. Look at the [WHO map]( Guinea's provinces adjacent to Mali and Ivory Coast have known active cases - and who knows how many undetected cases there are. The 2 clusters detected in the last 2 weeks confirms that its spreading over the lines on the map. | Ebola is probably silently spreading into new countries |
NobleSic | Coming from a guy; you need to analyse this bloke. If you think he's purposely being a dick due to the fact that he acts this way often then probs bail. However often times guys do things with 0 thought about implications and may not mean anything by it.
TL;DR don't make knee jerk reactions to things just see it out! | Coming from a guy; you need to analyse this bloke. If you think he's purposely being a dick due to the fact that he acts this way often then probs bail. However often times guys do things with 0 thought about implications and may not mean anything by it.
TL;DR don't make knee jerk reactions to things just see it out!
| whatsbotheringyou | t5_2xvyd | cm0vq24 | Coming from a guy; you need to analyse this bloke. If you think he's purposely being a dick due to the fact that he acts this way often then probs bail. However often times guys do things with 0 thought about implications and may not mean anything by it. | don't make knee jerk reactions to things just see it out! |
UltraChip | That's definitely an option in some cases - I seem to remember reading somewhere that the New Horizon's probe is just caching everything on an internal drive and transmitting it to us later.
As to the Rosetta mission specifically - I'm trying to look up how much on board storage the two probes have. I can't find any exact figures, but most probes usually don't have a lot. Spacecraft computers are designed for redundancy and resiliency, not for high-storage or fast processing.
TL;DR - It's just a guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if the probes don't have enough storage space to save videos.
| That's definitely an option in some cases - I seem to remember reading somewhere that the New Horizon's probe is just caching everything on an internal drive and transmitting it to us later.
As to the Rosetta mission specifically - I'm trying to look up how much on board storage the two probes have. I can't find any exact figures, but most probes usually don't have a lot. Spacecraft computers are designed for redundancy and resiliency, not for high-storage or fast processing.
TL;DR - It's just a guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if the probes don't have enough storage space to save videos.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cm1c15l | That's definitely an option in some cases - I seem to remember reading somewhere that the New Horizon's probe is just caching everything on an internal drive and transmitting it to us later.
As to the Rosetta mission specifically - I'm trying to look up how much on board storage the two probes have. I can't find any exact figures, but most probes usually don't have a lot. Spacecraft computers are designed for redundancy and resiliency, not for high-storage or fast processing. | It's just a guess, but it wouldn't surprise me if the probes don't have enough storage space to save videos. |
peanutbuttar | I'm just curious, did you watch the video? There was also something the guy did called a ground pound, jetpacked over him and then locked onto him and smashed into him for a kill. I'm guessing he didn't even have to pick it up like you would a powerup (or picking up the sword like he would in halo).
About the sword vs quad, though, I'm just going to give a comparison of what I know of quake and what I am assuming will be the case in halo (if you've played halo 3 or 4 or odst, and my assumptions are wrong, feel free to tell me, since I didn't get to play past 2).
In both games you will have to control the map to secure it. Because of the more frequent spawns in quake (since the sword apparently has a 4 min timer?) You have more chances throughout the game to loose control of the quad also, because of the speed of movement, the actual task of controlling the map is harder, since an enemy can be in position to take the quad from one route, then have a totally different route the next. The faster respawn time, and the movement speed means you need to manage more items at once than in halo.
Now, here's where the controller vs mouse aspect comes in; That 4 minute respawn might be in place because players can't move around the map like quake; you need more time to choose your route since you're so much slower, and that's a legitimate reason to double the spawning - ideally, the increase in time should allow players to work the mind games. But I just see that as more free time to focus on other aspects of the map. I think that's dumbed-down compared to quake, you don't have to manage everything at once. In fact you're restricted from focusing on everything at once since you're only allowed two weapon slots (but that's somewhat of a different aspect anyways).
The other difference I see is the fact that quads in quake have a finite active time, while the sword runs out from ammo. So during the 4 minutes between spawns, the halo player still has his one click hitter ready any time he's in close range (And also, if that ground pound thing is freely given, then it looks like they might essentially have a sword for free without needing to bother with map control or timing to secure it). So even though the quad gives you huge killing potential, you have to be very active in actually getting to use it. If you're playing against someone who's got the map awareness of a psychic, your 25 seconds might drain out before you have a chance to get a rocket off. Hopefully you use that to force your way to a red or a mega or some other important item you want to deny the other guy, but you don't have the leisure of saving it for the right moment. So I think that's another skill that should be factored into the quad.
I think it's also important to look at how the quad or sword effects the other players in the map, and what skills are needed to deal with it (This is going to be a very simplified paragraph, but it's still something to think about). To use the example of the awp in cs, many many new players complain that it's overpowered and a cheap gun, but it's presence tends to actually deepen gameplay since other skills (teamwork/flashes/counterawping) are needed to counter it. In quake, if the other player or team has a quad, you have to ninja to avoid that player, and then try and regain the control that you've more than likely lost. You have to play absolutely defensively or straight up retreatedly (that's a new word, I just made it up). You need great gamesense to avoid prediction spams, and be able to predict their movements around the map to avoid their hunt as well as their traps.
In halo, they're limited by their range, so you can freely engage them from across the map. In that case, the sword doesn't really require any special skill to counter. Another tactic that I remember from halo2 (that I'm sure is not as viable snow since everyone probably already knows it) was just to run backwards and shoot at them. That one requires a bit more map knowledge and skill so you don't run into things behind you, but again, I figure by now, anyone who's good at the game isn't going to fall for it (and also there might be sprinting now?). So other than just out aiming them, there are two counters, one is similar to quakes, and that is to have good game-sense to not let yourself become flanked. Gamesense is probably the number one skill any player should have in any game, but as far as you vs the guy with the sword, the situation where they can rape you with it isn't as common as quake with the quad; they can't strafe jump across the map and surprise you, and if you're taking your corners tactically, you shouldn't get gayed out by someone setting up a trap. The thing someone could do would be like counter awping in cs: since the sword doesn't run on a time limit, you could have two swords on the map at once, and get the frag just by pulling the trigger faster. But that doesn't take any smarts, that's just clicking faster. I'm sure you probably know of more counters if you play.
So I know that was probably way more information than the conversation warrented, but I just think there's more that goes into it than just how easy it is to use, because their presence are what has a large impact on the game, not just the skill needed for a frag. Which I suppose I'll get into now.
In quake, you still have to aim. With the rocketlauncher, you have a larger tolerance to miss, since the splash damage is greater with a quad, but you do have to aim. You also have to compensate for the other players movement, which can be very hard against a player with great movement. Other than the SG, LG, and RG, all of quakes weapons take some degree of leading (and the shotgun needs to be up close and is a risk itself). So you have to account for insane movement, slow projectiles, and your own insane movement to score a hit. Granted, if you hit that shot, they're probably giblets, but that gib needs to be worked for, it's not free.
From what I saw in halo, the work came from getting into position, letting your crosshair drag over them so it slows down, and then pressing the trigger to lock in and charge at them. It's easier to initially aim at them, since they are slow moving targets; it's easier to get the shot off, since the crosshair sticks; and it's impossible to whiff the shot, since the system is adjusting for their movement for you. It's like they're giving away an autoaim+triggerbot!
At 2:25, he should be jumping right past the guy, who's moved out of the way, but the sword pulls him right onto him because of the lock in.
Same with the ground pound at two fifty; he starts his sequence moves the crosshair onto the body, and once it's on him it's following the red guy- then splat, instagib.
_______________________________________
TLDR: If we want to narrow it down to just the amount of skill needed for quads and swords: The quad has the *potential* to be more devastating. But the amount of skill needed to bring that devastation is higher than the lock on click-to-kill swords in halo.
Again, this is just my opinion from playing halo2, and halo3/4 probably had some very big differences, and halo5 probably has some more as well, but from what I saw, it was the same sticky trigger locking that halo2 had.
PS: sorry about the book | I'm just curious, did you watch the video? There was also something the guy did called a ground pound, jetpacked over him and then locked onto him and smashed into him for a kill. I'm guessing he didn't even have to pick it up like you would a powerup (or picking up the sword like he would in halo).
About the sword vs quad, though, I'm just going to give a comparison of what I know of quake and what I am assuming will be the case in halo (if you've played halo 3 or 4 or odst, and my assumptions are wrong, feel free to tell me, since I didn't get to play past 2).
In both games you will have to control the map to secure it. Because of the more frequent spawns in quake (since the sword apparently has a 4 min timer?) You have more chances throughout the game to loose control of the quad also, because of the speed of movement, the actual task of controlling the map is harder, since an enemy can be in position to take the quad from one route, then have a totally different route the next. The faster respawn time, and the movement speed means you need to manage more items at once than in halo.
Now, here's where the controller vs mouse aspect comes in; That 4 minute respawn might be in place because players can't move around the map like quake; you need more time to choose your route since you're so much slower, and that's a legitimate reason to double the spawning - ideally, the increase in time should allow players to work the mind games. But I just see that as more free time to focus on other aspects of the map. I think that's dumbed-down compared to quake, you don't have to manage everything at once. In fact you're restricted from focusing on everything at once since you're only allowed two weapon slots (but that's somewhat of a different aspect anyways).
The other difference I see is the fact that quads in quake have a finite active time, while the sword runs out from ammo. So during the 4 minutes between spawns, the halo player still has his one click hitter ready any time he's in close range (And also, if that ground pound thing is freely given, then it looks like they might essentially have a sword for free without needing to bother with map control or timing to secure it). So even though the quad gives you huge killing potential, you have to be very active in actually getting to use it. If you're playing against someone who's got the map awareness of a psychic, your 25 seconds might drain out before you have a chance to get a rocket off. Hopefully you use that to force your way to a red or a mega or some other important item you want to deny the other guy, but you don't have the leisure of saving it for the right moment. So I think that's another skill that should be factored into the quad.
I think it's also important to look at how the quad or sword effects the other players in the map, and what skills are needed to deal with it (This is going to be a very simplified paragraph, but it's still something to think about). To use the example of the awp in cs, many many new players complain that it's overpowered and a cheap gun, but it's presence tends to actually deepen gameplay since other skills (teamwork/flashes/counterawping) are needed to counter it. In quake, if the other player or team has a quad, you have to ninja to avoid that player, and then try and regain the control that you've more than likely lost. You have to play absolutely defensively or straight up retreatedly (that's a new word, I just made it up). You need great gamesense to avoid prediction spams, and be able to predict their movements around the map to avoid their hunt as well as their traps.
In halo, they're limited by their range, so you can freely engage them from across the map. In that case, the sword doesn't really require any special skill to counter. Another tactic that I remember from halo2 (that I'm sure is not as viable snow since everyone probably already knows it) was just to run backwards and shoot at them. That one requires a bit more map knowledge and skill so you don't run into things behind you, but again, I figure by now, anyone who's good at the game isn't going to fall for it (and also there might be sprinting now?). So other than just out aiming them, there are two counters, one is similar to quakes, and that is to have good game-sense to not let yourself become flanked. Gamesense is probably the number one skill any player should have in any game, but as far as you vs the guy with the sword, the situation where they can rape you with it isn't as common as quake with the quad; they can't strafe jump across the map and surprise you, and if you're taking your corners tactically, you shouldn't get gayed out by someone setting up a trap. The thing someone could do would be like counter awping in cs: since the sword doesn't run on a time limit, you could have two swords on the map at once, and get the frag just by pulling the trigger faster. But that doesn't take any smarts, that's just clicking faster. I'm sure you probably know of more counters if you play.
So I know that was probably way more information than the conversation warrented, but I just think there's more that goes into it than just how easy it is to use, because their presence are what has a large impact on the game, not just the skill needed for a frag. Which I suppose I'll get into now.
In quake, you still have to aim. With the rocketlauncher, you have a larger tolerance to miss, since the splash damage is greater with a quad, but you do have to aim. You also have to compensate for the other players movement, which can be very hard against a player with great movement. Other than the SG, LG, and RG, all of quakes weapons take some degree of leading (and the shotgun needs to be up close and is a risk itself). So you have to account for insane movement, slow projectiles, and your own insane movement to score a hit. Granted, if you hit that shot, they're probably giblets, but that gib needs to be worked for, it's not free.
From what I saw in halo, the work came from getting into position, letting your crosshair drag over them so it slows down, and then pressing the trigger to lock in and charge at them. It's easier to initially aim at them, since they are slow moving targets; it's easier to get the shot off, since the crosshair sticks; and it's impossible to whiff the shot, since the system is adjusting for their movement for you. It's like they're giving away an autoaim+triggerbot!
At 2:25, he should be jumping right past the guy, who's moved out of the way, but the sword pulls him right onto him because of the lock in.
Same with the ground pound at two fifty; he starts his sequence moves the crosshair onto the body, and once it's on him it's following the red guy- then splat, instagib.
TLDR: If we want to narrow it down to just the amount of skill needed for quads and swords: The quad has the potential to be more devastating. But the amount of skill needed to bring that devastation is higher than the lock on click-to-kill swords in halo.
Again, this is just my opinion from playing halo2, and halo3/4 probably had some very big differences, and halo5 probably has some more as well, but from what I saw, it was the same sticky trigger locking that halo2 had.
PS: sorry about the book
| quake | t5_2qzfl | cm3rsat | I'm just curious, did you watch the video? There was also something the guy did called a ground pound, jetpacked over him and then locked onto him and smashed into him for a kill. I'm guessing he didn't even have to pick it up like you would a powerup (or picking up the sword like he would in halo).
About the sword vs quad, though, I'm just going to give a comparison of what I know of quake and what I am assuming will be the case in halo (if you've played halo 3 or 4 or odst, and my assumptions are wrong, feel free to tell me, since I didn't get to play past 2).
In both games you will have to control the map to secure it. Because of the more frequent spawns in quake (since the sword apparently has a 4 min timer?) You have more chances throughout the game to loose control of the quad also, because of the speed of movement, the actual task of controlling the map is harder, since an enemy can be in position to take the quad from one route, then have a totally different route the next. The faster respawn time, and the movement speed means you need to manage more items at once than in halo.
Now, here's where the controller vs mouse aspect comes in; That 4 minute respawn might be in place because players can't move around the map like quake; you need more time to choose your route since you're so much slower, and that's a legitimate reason to double the spawning - ideally, the increase in time should allow players to work the mind games. But I just see that as more free time to focus on other aspects of the map. I think that's dumbed-down compared to quake, you don't have to manage everything at once. In fact you're restricted from focusing on everything at once since you're only allowed two weapon slots (but that's somewhat of a different aspect anyways).
The other difference I see is the fact that quads in quake have a finite active time, while the sword runs out from ammo. So during the 4 minutes between spawns, the halo player still has his one click hitter ready any time he's in close range (And also, if that ground pound thing is freely given, then it looks like they might essentially have a sword for free without needing to bother with map control or timing to secure it). So even though the quad gives you huge killing potential, you have to be very active in actually getting to use it. If you're playing against someone who's got the map awareness of a psychic, your 25 seconds might drain out before you have a chance to get a rocket off. Hopefully you use that to force your way to a red or a mega or some other important item you want to deny the other guy, but you don't have the leisure of saving it for the right moment. So I think that's another skill that should be factored into the quad.
I think it's also important to look at how the quad or sword effects the other players in the map, and what skills are needed to deal with it (This is going to be a very simplified paragraph, but it's still something to think about). To use the example of the awp in cs, many many new players complain that it's overpowered and a cheap gun, but it's presence tends to actually deepen gameplay since other skills (teamwork/flashes/counterawping) are needed to counter it. In quake, if the other player or team has a quad, you have to ninja to avoid that player, and then try and regain the control that you've more than likely lost. You have to play absolutely defensively or straight up retreatedly (that's a new word, I just made it up). You need great gamesense to avoid prediction spams, and be able to predict their movements around the map to avoid their hunt as well as their traps.
In halo, they're limited by their range, so you can freely engage them from across the map. In that case, the sword doesn't really require any special skill to counter. Another tactic that I remember from halo2 (that I'm sure is not as viable snow since everyone probably already knows it) was just to run backwards and shoot at them. That one requires a bit more map knowledge and skill so you don't run into things behind you, but again, I figure by now, anyone who's good at the game isn't going to fall for it (and also there might be sprinting now?). So other than just out aiming them, there are two counters, one is similar to quakes, and that is to have good game-sense to not let yourself become flanked. Gamesense is probably the number one skill any player should have in any game, but as far as you vs the guy with the sword, the situation where they can rape you with it isn't as common as quake with the quad; they can't strafe jump across the map and surprise you, and if you're taking your corners tactically, you shouldn't get gayed out by someone setting up a trap. The thing someone could do would be like counter awping in cs: since the sword doesn't run on a time limit, you could have two swords on the map at once, and get the frag just by pulling the trigger faster. But that doesn't take any smarts, that's just clicking faster. I'm sure you probably know of more counters if you play.
So I know that was probably way more information than the conversation warrented, but I just think there's more that goes into it than just how easy it is to use, because their presence are what has a large impact on the game, not just the skill needed for a frag. Which I suppose I'll get into now.
In quake, you still have to aim. With the rocketlauncher, you have a larger tolerance to miss, since the splash damage is greater with a quad, but you do have to aim. You also have to compensate for the other players movement, which can be very hard against a player with great movement. Other than the SG, LG, and RG, all of quakes weapons take some degree of leading (and the shotgun needs to be up close and is a risk itself). So you have to account for insane movement, slow projectiles, and your own insane movement to score a hit. Granted, if you hit that shot, they're probably giblets, but that gib needs to be worked for, it's not free.
From what I saw in halo, the work came from getting into position, letting your crosshair drag over them so it slows down, and then pressing the trigger to lock in and charge at them. It's easier to initially aim at them, since they are slow moving targets; it's easier to get the shot off, since the crosshair sticks; and it's impossible to whiff the shot, since the system is adjusting for their movement for you. It's like they're giving away an autoaim+triggerbot!
At 2:25, he should be jumping right past the guy, who's moved out of the way, but the sword pulls him right onto him because of the lock in.
Same with the ground pound at two fifty; he starts his sequence moves the crosshair onto the body, and once it's on him it's following the red guy- then splat, instagib. | If we want to narrow it down to just the amount of skill needed for quads and swords: The quad has the potential to be more devastating. But the amount of skill needed to bring that devastation is higher than the lock on click-to-kill swords in halo.
Again, this is just my opinion from playing halo2, and halo3/4 probably had some very big differences, and halo5 probably has some more as well, but from what I saw, it was the same sticky trigger locking that halo2 had.
PS: sorry about the book |
redditjuliet | I actually do all the crafting types and don't have a problem with bag space. The key is to get rid of lower-level materials!! For example, once your actual level is 20+ and provisioning level (recipe inprovement) is lvl 2, you get sell or destroy all of these items forevermore: Aged Meat, Shornhelm Grains, Snake Slime, Dusk Beetle, Iron Peat, Snake Venom, Tangerine, Ripe Apple, Wild Honey, Wisp Floss, Dragon's-Tounge Sap, Wasp Squeezings, Brown Malt, Corn Mash, Wine Grapes.
**tl;dr** Know when you can stop storing certain types of mats because you've levelled past them, and you'll have no problem with storage even if you're doing all of the crafting types. | I actually do all the crafting types and don't have a problem with bag space. The key is to get rid of lower-level materials!! For example, once your actual level is 20+ and provisioning level (recipe inprovement) is lvl 2, you get sell or destroy all of these items forevermore: Aged Meat, Shornhelm Grains, Snake Slime, Dusk Beetle, Iron Peat, Snake Venom, Tangerine, Ripe Apple, Wild Honey, Wisp Floss, Dragon's-Tounge Sap, Wasp Squeezings, Brown Malt, Corn Mash, Wine Grapes.
tl;dr Know when you can stop storing certain types of mats because you've levelled past them, and you'll have no problem with storage even if you're doing all of the crafting types.
| elderscrollsonline | t5_2tqi0 | cm4ijct | I actually do all the crafting types and don't have a problem with bag space. The key is to get rid of lower-level materials!! For example, once your actual level is 20+ and provisioning level (recipe inprovement) is lvl 2, you get sell or destroy all of these items forevermore: Aged Meat, Shornhelm Grains, Snake Slime, Dusk Beetle, Iron Peat, Snake Venom, Tangerine, Ripe Apple, Wild Honey, Wisp Floss, Dragon's-Tounge Sap, Wasp Squeezings, Brown Malt, Corn Mash, Wine Grapes. | Know when you can stop storing certain types of mats because you've levelled past them, and you'll have no problem with storage even if you're doing all of the crafting types. |
capitainkirk | This is because for several varying reasons. One of them is the social pressure to stop playing with those toys and move on to "more mature" things. When you get to those pre-teen years you begin to look over your shoulder while playing superheroes just to make sure someone isn't watching. Or if you're playing in the front yard and someone drives by you pause what you're doing and pretend like you're just sitting there being "cool." Social pressure is quite possible the most influential force in your life, and it definitely influences what you do and don't feel embarrassed about, and at what age you feel is proper to move on from the hot wheels. On the other hand, we never stop playing with toys, just simply find a different supplement for those needs. Phones are a great example of this. Think of how childish some of the games on phones are these days, yet it is acceptable to play them because it's done through the phone. The desire to play never goes away, just the means and time to do so evolves as you age.
TL;DR Society pressure and more mature toys. | This is because for several varying reasons. One of them is the social pressure to stop playing with those toys and move on to "more mature" things. When you get to those pre-teen years you begin to look over your shoulder while playing superheroes just to make sure someone isn't watching. Or if you're playing in the front yard and someone drives by you pause what you're doing and pretend like you're just sitting there being "cool." Social pressure is quite possible the most influential force in your life, and it definitely influences what you do and don't feel embarrassed about, and at what age you feel is proper to move on from the hot wheels. On the other hand, we never stop playing with toys, just simply find a different supplement for those needs. Phones are a great example of this. Think of how childish some of the games on phones are these days, yet it is acceptable to play them because it's done through the phone. The desire to play never goes away, just the means and time to do so evolves as you age.
TL;DR Society pressure and more mature toys.
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cm169jj | This is because for several varying reasons. One of them is the social pressure to stop playing with those toys and move on to "more mature" things. When you get to those pre-teen years you begin to look over your shoulder while playing superheroes just to make sure someone isn't watching. Or if you're playing in the front yard and someone drives by you pause what you're doing and pretend like you're just sitting there being "cool." Social pressure is quite possible the most influential force in your life, and it definitely influences what you do and don't feel embarrassed about, and at what age you feel is proper to move on from the hot wheels. On the other hand, we never stop playing with toys, just simply find a different supplement for those needs. Phones are a great example of this. Think of how childish some of the games on phones are these days, yet it is acceptable to play them because it's done through the phone. The desire to play never goes away, just the means and time to do so evolves as you age. | Society pressure and more mature toys. |
CHEECHREBORN | Of the choices listed, I would go with Haden. He has a track record for playing at a high level and seems to really love the city. He has also spent his whole career here.
West seems to earning the favor of the coaching staff right now, but the running back committee seems to be volatile. Tate is also a bit injury prone and always seems to be one hit away from missing 4 games.
Gordon was tremendous last season and can hopefully show consistent play when he comes back. Unfortunately, he's one failed drug test away from an even longer suspension.
TL;DR: Haden because of his consistent play and job security | Of the choices listed, I would go with Haden. He has a track record for playing at a high level and seems to really love the city. He has also spent his whole career here.
West seems to earning the favor of the coaching staff right now, but the running back committee seems to be volatile. Tate is also a bit injury prone and always seems to be one hit away from missing 4 games.
Gordon was tremendous last season and can hopefully show consistent play when he comes back. Unfortunately, he's one failed drug test away from an even longer suspension.
TL;DR: Haden because of his consistent play and job security
| Browns | t5_2s1wh | cm1axv0 | Of the choices listed, I would go with Haden. He has a track record for playing at a high level and seems to really love the city. He has also spent his whole career here.
West seems to earning the favor of the coaching staff right now, but the running back committee seems to be volatile. Tate is also a bit injury prone and always seems to be one hit away from missing 4 games.
Gordon was tremendous last season and can hopefully show consistent play when he comes back. Unfortunately, he's one failed drug test away from an even longer suspension. | Haden because of his consistent play and job security |
JacquesLemonhead | With the second punch if you just concentrate on his feet then you'll see his back foot is almost linear to his front. Meaning he doesn't have a great surface area to gain rotation from so when he does swing and rotate the force knocks his front foot of balance first then his back moves out to compensate for his lack of balance. If his back foot was out say a foot or so he couldn't of knocked himself off balance. Tl;dr he could off knocked that cigarette further!!! | With the second punch if you just concentrate on his feet then you'll see his back foot is almost linear to his front. Meaning he doesn't have a great surface area to gain rotation from so when he does swing and rotate the force knocks his front foot of balance first then his back moves out to compensate for his lack of balance. If his back foot was out say a foot or so he couldn't of knocked himself off balance. Tl;dr he could off knocked that cigarette further!!!
| gifs | t5_2qt55 | cm1qq5j | With the second punch if you just concentrate on his feet then you'll see his back foot is almost linear to his front. Meaning he doesn't have a great surface area to gain rotation from so when he does swing and rotate the force knocks his front foot of balance first then his back moves out to compensate for his lack of balance. If his back foot was out say a foot or so he couldn't of knocked himself off balance. | he could off knocked that cigarette further!!! |
TheMerchandise | i respectfully disagree, and i will back this up, though i will say my enjoyment of it is rather subjective (obviously, but when i say "best," i mean i got more out of it than i did any of his other films; it's a personal thing).
while it was overly ambitious and a potentially unwelcome departure from his trademark style, it had elements of greatness throughout, and despite falling short on a lot of levels, it succeeds in evoking visceral reactions from its viewers. for every plot hole or sequence that makes no sense, you have to question reality even in the world of the movie. with every instance requiring you to suspend disbelief, it challenges your perception.
looking at the details, you will see many flaws, but you will also find several nuggets of gold (and green. see wat i did thar? but srsly, see what guy ritchie did there). stylistically, the movie is incredible. the editing and cinematography defy the genre stereotypes, and the production design is truly beautiful.
ultimately, it's one of those movies that requires you to take a step back and look at the thing as a whole to appreciate what's in front of you. it's kinda like an impressionist painting in that regard (though you can argue against my simile); it's a lot more about the themes and feelings of the piece than the individual details. however, in a 2-hour movie, that might not be worth the investment. if it ostensibly offends your ego or leaves you impatient/restless then it is a colossal waste of time; you are not wrong to think it convoluted and garbage.
however, i implore you to give it another look. it's message is what's most important, and it conveys it pretty damn well for someone who made his career with zany gangster antics. sure, it's not a coen brothers script (god, if only), but they wouldn't have given it the same feel that it so desperately needed. power, greed, right and wrong, and reality (slash perception thereof) all feature prominently, and i'm of the opinion that the movie calls a lot of notions about those things into question.
anyway. it's all allegory, but yeah, it's kinda roundabout for the generality/simplicity of the message. it's definitely one of those movies that is 100x better when you're high, because you don't get as hung up on all the shit that doesn't make sense. if you can see past it, there is definitely a lot to enjoy.
but if you want something in the same vein as lock stock or snatch, it's thoroughly disappointing.
tl;dr - [it's all about your state of mind, man.]( "all i want is 'cosmic,' but i don't know how to clip that part...")
EDIT: clarified something. hopefully i don't have to come back for spelling/grammar .-. | i respectfully disagree, and i will back this up, though i will say my enjoyment of it is rather subjective (obviously, but when i say "best," i mean i got more out of it than i did any of his other films; it's a personal thing).
while it was overly ambitious and a potentially unwelcome departure from his trademark style, it had elements of greatness throughout, and despite falling short on a lot of levels, it succeeds in evoking visceral reactions from its viewers. for every plot hole or sequence that makes no sense, you have to question reality even in the world of the movie. with every instance requiring you to suspend disbelief, it challenges your perception.
looking at the details, you will see many flaws, but you will also find several nuggets of gold (and green. see wat i did thar? but srsly, see what guy ritchie did there). stylistically, the movie is incredible. the editing and cinematography defy the genre stereotypes, and the production design is truly beautiful.
ultimately, it's one of those movies that requires you to take a step back and look at the thing as a whole to appreciate what's in front of you. it's kinda like an impressionist painting in that regard (though you can argue against my simile); it's a lot more about the themes and feelings of the piece than the individual details. however, in a 2-hour movie, that might not be worth the investment. if it ostensibly offends your ego or leaves you impatient/restless then it is a colossal waste of time; you are not wrong to think it convoluted and garbage.
however, i implore you to give it another look. it's message is what's most important, and it conveys it pretty damn well for someone who made his career with zany gangster antics. sure, it's not a coen brothers script (god, if only), but they wouldn't have given it the same feel that it so desperately needed. power, greed, right and wrong, and reality (slash perception thereof) all feature prominently, and i'm of the opinion that the movie calls a lot of notions about those things into question.
anyway. it's all allegory, but yeah, it's kinda roundabout for the generality/simplicity of the message. it's definitely one of those movies that is 100x better when you're high, because you don't get as hung up on all the shit that doesn't make sense. if you can see past it, there is definitely a lot to enjoy.
but if you want something in the same vein as lock stock or snatch, it's thoroughly disappointing.
tl;dr - it's all about your state of mind, man.
EDIT: clarified something. hopefully i don't have to come back for spelling/grammar .-.
| gifs | t5_2qt55 | cm1spbb | i respectfully disagree, and i will back this up, though i will say my enjoyment of it is rather subjective (obviously, but when i say "best," i mean i got more out of it than i did any of his other films; it's a personal thing).
while it was overly ambitious and a potentially unwelcome departure from his trademark style, it had elements of greatness throughout, and despite falling short on a lot of levels, it succeeds in evoking visceral reactions from its viewers. for every plot hole or sequence that makes no sense, you have to question reality even in the world of the movie. with every instance requiring you to suspend disbelief, it challenges your perception.
looking at the details, you will see many flaws, but you will also find several nuggets of gold (and green. see wat i did thar? but srsly, see what guy ritchie did there). stylistically, the movie is incredible. the editing and cinematography defy the genre stereotypes, and the production design is truly beautiful.
ultimately, it's one of those movies that requires you to take a step back and look at the thing as a whole to appreciate what's in front of you. it's kinda like an impressionist painting in that regard (though you can argue against my simile); it's a lot more about the themes and feelings of the piece than the individual details. however, in a 2-hour movie, that might not be worth the investment. if it ostensibly offends your ego or leaves you impatient/restless then it is a colossal waste of time; you are not wrong to think it convoluted and garbage.
however, i implore you to give it another look. it's message is what's most important, and it conveys it pretty damn well for someone who made his career with zany gangster antics. sure, it's not a coen brothers script (god, if only), but they wouldn't have given it the same feel that it so desperately needed. power, greed, right and wrong, and reality (slash perception thereof) all feature prominently, and i'm of the opinion that the movie calls a lot of notions about those things into question.
anyway. it's all allegory, but yeah, it's kinda roundabout for the generality/simplicity of the message. it's definitely one of those movies that is 100x better when you're high, because you don't get as hung up on all the shit that doesn't make sense. if you can see past it, there is definitely a lot to enjoy.
but if you want something in the same vein as lock stock or snatch, it's thoroughly disappointing. | it's all about your state of mind, man.
EDIT: clarified something. hopefully i don't have to come back for spelling/grammar .-. |
Jables162 | It sounds to me off of what you're saying that you're letting up on it.
First I'd play up the conversation. Make it clear to him that this is something super important to you. Something you don't just want to have a casual conversation about. Make it clear that no matter what he says you'll still love him and nothing could scare you away. Also be sure to be open to the idea that maybe, to him, you just aren't that into it.
And maybe he's right since it's very subjective, maybe he does actually feel like you're not very involved. Then you two have a huge miscommunication going on and you gotta fix that. More often than not it just turns out being two people that are too afraid to say what's actually on their minds. I can't tell you how much that's happened to me. *(I'm real good at pickin' 'em, tell ya hwat)*
You have to really press it, you make sure he's comfortable talking about it and make sure you're expressing everything too. Don't hold back. Don't lose your shit about it, but calmly explain every last feeling your having. Sometimes just letting it all out in a shitty emotional spew is all it takes to make some progress.
Keep in mind, I'm no psychiatrist, so I generally have only anecdotal evidence to suggest that I'm on the right track. But it really does seem like you're approaching this super casually. You gotta be serious about things that mean a lot to you. Especially sex, because it's such a tense area that one miscommunication can lead one person to believe less sex is what you want, or worse!
Coincidentally I've had a very similar situation with an ex of mine, she didn't talk to me about anything, if at all. We were 10 months into a relationship and communication meant more than 2 texts a day and actual pillow talk after sex. I had been begging her for about 3 months after that to just talk to me more, but she didn't really seem to pay attention. So one day I called her and let everything spew at once. How it made me feel, how I thought she didn't care and how I knew that some major changes would have to take place if she wanted to keep things going. I told her that if there's something wrong or if she's feeling distant I need to know so that we can take care of it.
The next day I started the conversation and she just said that she was done. And sometimes that's all it is, they just aren't as committed as you are, and that's okay.
But the bottom line is that you have to talk about it with the utmost intensity. If something is important to you you have to adequately help someone else understand just how important it is. Explain it like you're explaining color to a blind man. Be vivid, be descriptive, and don't skip out on details. Because if you do, you'll hate yourself later for the mistake you made. But be clear and serious and you'll have no reason to be upset with yourself.
**Tl,Dr: You can't let up or be casual about it. You have to be passionate about things that you're, well, passionate about. Especially in relationships. Be open minded to the idea that maybe he doesn't feel like you want sex as much as he does. Be open to the thought that you're wrong, but don't just accept it. Most importantly; communicate EVERYTHING to him. Every. Last. Thing. About this.** | It sounds to me off of what you're saying that you're letting up on it.
First I'd play up the conversation. Make it clear to him that this is something super important to you. Something you don't just want to have a casual conversation about. Make it clear that no matter what he says you'll still love him and nothing could scare you away. Also be sure to be open to the idea that maybe, to him, you just aren't that into it.
And maybe he's right since it's very subjective, maybe he does actually feel like you're not very involved. Then you two have a huge miscommunication going on and you gotta fix that. More often than not it just turns out being two people that are too afraid to say what's actually on their minds. I can't tell you how much that's happened to me. (I'm real good at pickin' 'em, tell ya hwat)
You have to really press it, you make sure he's comfortable talking about it and make sure you're expressing everything too. Don't hold back. Don't lose your shit about it, but calmly explain every last feeling your having. Sometimes just letting it all out in a shitty emotional spew is all it takes to make some progress.
Keep in mind, I'm no psychiatrist, so I generally have only anecdotal evidence to suggest that I'm on the right track. But it really does seem like you're approaching this super casually. You gotta be serious about things that mean a lot to you. Especially sex, because it's such a tense area that one miscommunication can lead one person to believe less sex is what you want, or worse!
Coincidentally I've had a very similar situation with an ex of mine, she didn't talk to me about anything, if at all. We were 10 months into a relationship and communication meant more than 2 texts a day and actual pillow talk after sex. I had been begging her for about 3 months after that to just talk to me more, but she didn't really seem to pay attention. So one day I called her and let everything spew at once. How it made me feel, how I thought she didn't care and how I knew that some major changes would have to take place if she wanted to keep things going. I told her that if there's something wrong or if she's feeling distant I need to know so that we can take care of it.
The next day I started the conversation and she just said that she was done. And sometimes that's all it is, they just aren't as committed as you are, and that's okay.
But the bottom line is that you have to talk about it with the utmost intensity. If something is important to you you have to adequately help someone else understand just how important it is. Explain it like you're explaining color to a blind man. Be vivid, be descriptive, and don't skip out on details. Because if you do, you'll hate yourself later for the mistake you made. But be clear and serious and you'll have no reason to be upset with yourself.
Tl,Dr: You can't let up or be casual about it. You have to be passionate about things that you're, well, passionate about. Especially in relationships. Be open minded to the idea that maybe he doesn't feel like you want sex as much as he does. Be open to the thought that you're wrong, but don't just accept it. Most importantly; communicate EVERYTHING to him. Every. Last. Thing. About this.
| relationships | t5_2qjvn | cm1oddw | It sounds to me off of what you're saying that you're letting up on it.
First I'd play up the conversation. Make it clear to him that this is something super important to you. Something you don't just want to have a casual conversation about. Make it clear that no matter what he says you'll still love him and nothing could scare you away. Also be sure to be open to the idea that maybe, to him, you just aren't that into it.
And maybe he's right since it's very subjective, maybe he does actually feel like you're not very involved. Then you two have a huge miscommunication going on and you gotta fix that. More often than not it just turns out being two people that are too afraid to say what's actually on their minds. I can't tell you how much that's happened to me. (I'm real good at pickin' 'em, tell ya hwat)
You have to really press it, you make sure he's comfortable talking about it and make sure you're expressing everything too. Don't hold back. Don't lose your shit about it, but calmly explain every last feeling your having. Sometimes just letting it all out in a shitty emotional spew is all it takes to make some progress.
Keep in mind, I'm no psychiatrist, so I generally have only anecdotal evidence to suggest that I'm on the right track. But it really does seem like you're approaching this super casually. You gotta be serious about things that mean a lot to you. Especially sex, because it's such a tense area that one miscommunication can lead one person to believe less sex is what you want, or worse!
Coincidentally I've had a very similar situation with an ex of mine, she didn't talk to me about anything, if at all. We were 10 months into a relationship and communication meant more than 2 texts a day and actual pillow talk after sex. I had been begging her for about 3 months after that to just talk to me more, but she didn't really seem to pay attention. So one day I called her and let everything spew at once. How it made me feel, how I thought she didn't care and how I knew that some major changes would have to take place if she wanted to keep things going. I told her that if there's something wrong or if she's feeling distant I need to know so that we can take care of it.
The next day I started the conversation and she just said that she was done. And sometimes that's all it is, they just aren't as committed as you are, and that's okay.
But the bottom line is that you have to talk about it with the utmost intensity. If something is important to you you have to adequately help someone else understand just how important it is. Explain it like you're explaining color to a blind man. Be vivid, be descriptive, and don't skip out on details. Because if you do, you'll hate yourself later for the mistake you made. But be clear and serious and you'll have no reason to be upset with yourself. | You can't let up or be casual about it. You have to be passionate about things that you're, well, passionate about. Especially in relationships. Be open minded to the idea that maybe he doesn't feel like you want sex as much as he does. Be open to the thought that you're wrong, but don't just accept it. Most importantly; communicate EVERYTHING to him. Every. Last. Thing. About this. |
evanx11 | [GamingVlogNetwork]( We do videos and shit! Not as much anymore since Luis and I went off to college, but we still do from time to time. We used to have a website and I was the person who ran the technical side of that, until we realized not too many people checked the site out, and YouTube was where our audience was. We still make videos from time to time, mostly involving smash bros. Speaking of Smash Bros...
If you HAVE heard of us, it was probably though a series we did called Smash Brothers Breakdown where we basically just analyzed every possible character for Smash Bros, and we managed to predict almost all of the crazy announcements (like [Pac Man]( even though I doubted they would be in. I then proceeded to eat my hat.
Here is a video I did. [Paper Mario Smash Bros Breakdown]( and another one [Retro/Grade Review](
We used to be a more IGN-ish network until we decided we shouldn't try to be a big network if we aren't one. But yeah!
TLDR: [This One]( | [GamingVlogNetwork]( We do videos and shit! Not as much anymore since Luis and I went off to college, but we still do from time to time. We used to have a website and I was the person who ran the technical side of that, until we realized not too many people checked the site out, and YouTube was where our audience was. We still make videos from time to time, mostly involving smash bros. Speaking of Smash Bros...
If you HAVE heard of us, it was probably though a series we did called Smash Brothers Breakdown where we basically just analyzed every possible character for Smash Bros, and we managed to predict almost all of the crazy announcements (like [Pac Man]( even though I doubted they would be in. I then proceeded to eat my hat.
Here is a video I did. [Paper Mario Smash Bros Breakdown]( and another one [Retro/Grade Review](
We used to be a more IGN-ish network until we decided we shouldn't try to be a big network if we aren't one. But yeah!
TLDR: [This One](
| JonTron | t5_2ua5i | cm241wo | GamingVlogNetwork]( We do videos and shit! Not as much anymore since Luis and I went off to college, but we still do from time to time. We used to have a website and I was the person who ran the technical side of that, until we realized not too many people checked the site out, and YouTube was where our audience was. We still make videos from time to time, mostly involving smash bros. Speaking of Smash Bros...
If you HAVE heard of us, it was probably though a series we did called Smash Brothers Breakdown where we basically just analyzed every possible character for Smash Bros, and we managed to predict almost all of the crazy announcements (like [Pac Man]( even though I doubted they would be in. I then proceeded to eat my hat.
Here is a video I did. [Paper Mario Smash Bros Breakdown]( and another one [Retro/Grade Review](
We used to be a more IGN-ish network until we decided we shouldn't try to be a big network if we aren't one. But yeah! | This One]( |
KillAllTheThings | Deep water fording is not something one does while engaging the enemy, it's a means of getting forces across a water obstacle in preparation for a battle. The depth limit unaided is determined by the height above ground of the intake & exhaust ports of the engine. All modern tanks have NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protection and so should be inherently water-tight otherwise.
The T-90 version used by the Russian army already has deep-fording capability:
>[The tank crew can prepare fording equipment within 20 minutes to negotiate 5 meter deep water obstacles](
Thanks to the Marines switching to the M1 Abrams, there is a Deep Water Fording Kit that enables the M1 to negotiate water obstacles over 7 feet deep for amphibious operations (or just about to the top of the turret). Otherwise, the M1 is good to about 1.5m (or about where the exhaust is). I gather using a turbine instead of the diesel like the T-90 makes snorkeling more difficult for the Abrams (crossing water obstacles isn't much of a concern in the desert areas M1s have been deployed thus far in combat).
TL;DR: It's a balance feature that DICE didn't find necessary to code into the game. | Deep water fording is not something one does while engaging the enemy, it's a means of getting forces across a water obstacle in preparation for a battle. The depth limit unaided is determined by the height above ground of the intake & exhaust ports of the engine. All modern tanks have NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protection and so should be inherently water-tight otherwise.
The T-90 version used by the Russian army already has deep-fording capability:
>[The tank crew can prepare fording equipment within 20 minutes to negotiate 5 meter deep water obstacles](
Thanks to the Marines switching to the M1 Abrams, there is a Deep Water Fording Kit that enables the M1 to negotiate water obstacles over 7 feet deep for amphibious operations (or just about to the top of the turret). Otherwise, the M1 is good to about 1.5m (or about where the exhaust is). I gather using a turbine instead of the diesel like the T-90 makes snorkeling more difficult for the Abrams (crossing water obstacles isn't much of a concern in the desert areas M1s have been deployed thus far in combat).
TL;DR: It's a balance feature that DICE didn't find necessary to code into the game.
| Pure | t5_2qr29 | cm1lpej | Deep water fording is not something one does while engaging the enemy, it's a means of getting forces across a water obstacle in preparation for a battle. The depth limit unaided is determined by the height above ground of the intake & exhaust ports of the engine. All modern tanks have NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protection and so should be inherently water-tight otherwise.
The T-90 version used by the Russian army already has deep-fording capability:
>[The tank crew can prepare fording equipment within 20 minutes to negotiate 5 meter deep water obstacles](
Thanks to the Marines switching to the M1 Abrams, there is a Deep Water Fording Kit that enables the M1 to negotiate water obstacles over 7 feet deep for amphibious operations (or just about to the top of the turret). Otherwise, the M1 is good to about 1.5m (or about where the exhaust is). I gather using a turbine instead of the diesel like the T-90 makes snorkeling more difficult for the Abrams (crossing water obstacles isn't much of a concern in the desert areas M1s have been deployed thus far in combat). | It's a balance feature that DICE didn't find necessary to code into the game. |
I_Have_No_Idea_What | >48+ hours after launch
Yeah, I expect it fixed five minutes after it launches! Not as easy as flipping a switch. Have patience.
>But to excuse shipping a broken product when they could have just as easily delayed
Could it be that they didn't know about it ahead of time? They probably only connected to their internal network while testing it, and therefore they thought it was working fine. (Edit: I'm sure this could be worded better. I understand they have dedicated servers.)
Edit 2: Also, it probably wasn't entirely up to them to push the date back. Microsoft probably wouldn't let them.
tl;dr: Have some patience. I left the destiny sub to get away from this shit. | >48+ hours after launch
Yeah, I expect it fixed five minutes after it launches! Not as easy as flipping a switch. Have patience.
>But to excuse shipping a broken product when they could have just as easily delayed
Could it be that they didn't know about it ahead of time? They probably only connected to their internal network while testing it, and therefore they thought it was working fine. (Edit: I'm sure this could be worded better. I understand they have dedicated servers.)
Edit 2: Also, it probably wasn't entirely up to them to push the date back. Microsoft probably wouldn't let them.
tl;dr: Have some patience. I left the destiny sub to get away from this shit.
| halo | t5_2qixk | cm1u0ce | 48+ hours after launch
Yeah, I expect it fixed five minutes after it launches! Not as easy as flipping a switch. Have patience.
>But to excuse shipping a broken product when they could have just as easily delayed
Could it be that they didn't know about it ahead of time? They probably only connected to their internal network while testing it, and therefore they thought it was working fine. (Edit: I'm sure this could be worded better. I understand they have dedicated servers.)
Edit 2: Also, it probably wasn't entirely up to them to push the date back. Microsoft probably wouldn't let them. | Have some patience. I left the destiny sub to get away from this shit. |
ravesilly | As a BF4 player, I'm not mad at them in the slightest. Let them take their time and be patient with them instead of getting angry and saying "343 sucks" or "never buying halo again". Patching a game isn't as easy as it sounds. Here I was convinced for 13 years that the Halo community was the best out there. Nope, just as whiny as some of the others (I'm looking at you BF and COD community).
TLDR: Chill the fuck out and give them time. | As a BF4 player, I'm not mad at them in the slightest. Let them take their time and be patient with them instead of getting angry and saying "343 sucks" or "never buying halo again". Patching a game isn't as easy as it sounds. Here I was convinced for 13 years that the Halo community was the best out there. Nope, just as whiny as some of the others (I'm looking at you BF and COD community).
TLDR: Chill the fuck out and give them time.
| halo | t5_2qixk | cm2cy3t | As a BF4 player, I'm not mad at them in the slightest. Let them take their time and be patient with them instead of getting angry and saying "343 sucks" or "never buying halo again". Patching a game isn't as easy as it sounds. Here I was convinced for 13 years that the Halo community was the best out there. Nope, just as whiny as some of the others (I'm looking at you BF and COD community). | Chill the fuck out and give them time. |
Immaridel | I'm going to comment here, because it might help someone else in the future:
I just had the second tech come by my house and simply take time to explain what had been going on in my area this week that was causing issues.
He explained that the amplifiers in the area had experienced faults/outages, and that they had far more maintenance techs out working to fix those than normal, but that there were a lot of them out and it simply took a couple days to get them all. Between that, the sudden temperature change causing more power to run through the lines just due to normal constriction caused by cold (more power != better performance. It causes problems), and then the already known issue of congestion with the node we're on, it was a nice perfect storm for service interruption.
This was the information I had been trying to get from Suddenlink since I started having problems. I'm not a cable internet tech, but I have enough years of experience with networking and infrastructure that I can make a good guess at these things. All I needed was some communication on the part of Suddenlink to help confirm to me what was actually wrong, and to stop pissing me off by telling me a canned answer of "There's congestion and it'll be fixed Dec. 16th."
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Kacie. In the future, I would prefer *not* to be told I have to drive my happy butt to your local Suddenlink office just so I can talk to a customer service rep who has no ability to answer my questions and schedules a tech to come to my house, and then have it suggested by her that I cancel my service until the problem is fixed. I'm sure she thought she was being helpful, but I needed to talk to a technical person, and I don't know why anyone thought I was going to get any help in the lobby of your sales office. It was a waste of my time, and a waste of her time.
**TL;DR: Tanner came by and answered my questions, confirming that congestion wasn't the cause of my problems at all - equipment failures and sudden weather changes in the area were. Issue is, for the time being, resolved.**
| I'm going to comment here, because it might help someone else in the future:
I just had the second tech come by my house and simply take time to explain what had been going on in my area this week that was causing issues.
He explained that the amplifiers in the area had experienced faults/outages, and that they had far more maintenance techs out working to fix those than normal, but that there were a lot of them out and it simply took a couple days to get them all. Between that, the sudden temperature change causing more power to run through the lines just due to normal constriction caused by cold (more power != better performance. It causes problems), and then the already known issue of congestion with the node we're on, it was a nice perfect storm for service interruption.
This was the information I had been trying to get from Suddenlink since I started having problems. I'm not a cable internet tech, but I have enough years of experience with networking and infrastructure that I can make a good guess at these things. All I needed was some communication on the part of Suddenlink to help confirm to me what was actually wrong, and to stop pissing me off by telling me a canned answer of "There's congestion and it'll be fixed Dec. 16th."
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Kacie. In the future, I would prefer not to be told I have to drive my happy butt to your local Suddenlink office just so I can talk to a customer service rep who has no ability to answer my questions and schedules a tech to come to my house, and then have it suggested by her that I cancel my service until the problem is fixed. I'm sure she thought she was being helpful, but I needed to talk to a technical person, and I don't know why anyone thought I was going to get any help in the lobby of your sales office. It was a waste of my time, and a waste of her time.
TL;DR: Tanner came by and answered my questions, confirming that congestion wasn't the cause of my problems at all - equipment failures and sudden weather changes in the area were. Issue is, for the time being, resolved.
| Suddenlink | t5_30ikl | cm2i7yf | I'm going to comment here, because it might help someone else in the future:
I just had the second tech come by my house and simply take time to explain what had been going on in my area this week that was causing issues.
He explained that the amplifiers in the area had experienced faults/outages, and that they had far more maintenance techs out working to fix those than normal, but that there were a lot of them out and it simply took a couple days to get them all. Between that, the sudden temperature change causing more power to run through the lines just due to normal constriction caused by cold (more power != better performance. It causes problems), and then the already known issue of congestion with the node we're on, it was a nice perfect storm for service interruption.
This was the information I had been trying to get from Suddenlink since I started having problems. I'm not a cable internet tech, but I have enough years of experience with networking and infrastructure that I can make a good guess at these things. All I needed was some communication on the part of Suddenlink to help confirm to me what was actually wrong, and to stop pissing me off by telling me a canned answer of "There's congestion and it'll be fixed Dec. 16th."
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Kacie. In the future, I would prefer not to be told I have to drive my happy butt to your local Suddenlink office just so I can talk to a customer service rep who has no ability to answer my questions and schedules a tech to come to my house, and then have it suggested by her that I cancel my service until the problem is fixed. I'm sure she thought she was being helpful, but I needed to talk to a technical person, and I don't know why anyone thought I was going to get any help in the lobby of your sales office. It was a waste of my time, and a waste of her time. | Tanner came by and answered my questions, confirming that congestion wasn't the cause of my problems at all - equipment failures and sudden weather changes in the area were. Issue is, for the time being, resolved. |
SpectorBot | This is a much more case-by-case issue than porn. It's hard to find any net benefit in porn, but masturbation alone, being tied much more directly into the human body, is harder to study. Many people find masturbation physically and/or mentally draining even when done without porn. On the other hand, there are some studies that correlate moderate masturbation with slight increase in prostate health. It is noteworthy, though, that good diet and exercise far outweighs the supposed benefits found in said studies.
TL;DR You'll probably have to figure it out on your own, although hopefully you realized when you wrote that on this sub what type of answer you'd get. | This is a much more case-by-case issue than porn. It's hard to find any net benefit in porn, but masturbation alone, being tied much more directly into the human body, is harder to study. Many people find masturbation physically and/or mentally draining even when done without porn. On the other hand, there are some studies that correlate moderate masturbation with slight increase in prostate health. It is noteworthy, though, that good diet and exercise far outweighs the supposed benefits found in said studies.
TL;DR You'll probably have to figure it out on your own, although hopefully you realized when you wrote that on this sub what type of answer you'd get.
| NoFap | t5_2skrn | cm1zrut | This is a much more case-by-case issue than porn. It's hard to find any net benefit in porn, but masturbation alone, being tied much more directly into the human body, is harder to study. Many people find masturbation physically and/or mentally draining even when done without porn. On the other hand, there are some studies that correlate moderate masturbation with slight increase in prostate health. It is noteworthy, though, that good diet and exercise far outweighs the supposed benefits found in said studies. | You'll probably have to figure it out on your own, although hopefully you realized when you wrote that on this sub what type of answer you'd get. |
CarterAggie | I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with ethics in journalism, but it speaks loads about what GG is about. Anything that is interpreted as SJW criticism must itself be loudly criticized.
SJW's criticize a scientists choice of clothing out of the belief that it is rude to wear a shirt picturing scantily clad women and that dressing as such will make women in science and prospective female scientists uncomfortable? "OMG Feminazi bitches bullied a man and made him cry for expressing himself through clothing!!"
No. People saw his shirt, it made them feel uncomfortable, and they criticized him for it. However "mobbish" the critique was, from the video he seemed to be crying because he legitimately felt bad about wearing the shirt and offending people. That being said, the scientist has offered a heartfelt apology and he should be forgiven for his actions, and thanked for apologizing.
TL;DR Ethics in game journalism. | I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with ethics in journalism, but it speaks loads about what GG is about. Anything that is interpreted as SJW criticism must itself be loudly criticized.
SJW's criticize a scientists choice of clothing out of the belief that it is rude to wear a shirt picturing scantily clad women and that dressing as such will make women in science and prospective female scientists uncomfortable? "OMG Feminazi bitches bullied a man and made him cry for expressing himself through clothing!!"
No. People saw his shirt, it made them feel uncomfortable, and they criticized him for it. However "mobbish" the critique was, from the video he seemed to be crying because he legitimately felt bad about wearing the shirt and offending people. That being said, the scientist has offered a heartfelt apology and he should be forgiven for his actions, and thanked for apologizing.
TL;DR Ethics in game journalism.
| GamerGhazi | t5_33oia | cm2t0s7 | I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with ethics in journalism, but it speaks loads about what GG is about. Anything that is interpreted as SJW criticism must itself be loudly criticized.
SJW's criticize a scientists choice of clothing out of the belief that it is rude to wear a shirt picturing scantily clad women and that dressing as such will make women in science and prospective female scientists uncomfortable? "OMG Feminazi bitches bullied a man and made him cry for expressing himself through clothing!!"
No. People saw his shirt, it made them feel uncomfortable, and they criticized him for it. However "mobbish" the critique was, from the video he seemed to be crying because he legitimately felt bad about wearing the shirt and offending people. That being said, the scientist has offered a heartfelt apology and he should be forgiven for his actions, and thanked for apologizing. | Ethics in game journalism. |
crappysurfer | Nah. Everyone talked it up. I was freaking out because I was virgin later than most of my friends in high school. At some point they all just assumed I had sex. With hormones raging I was ready to bang any lady.
But I got a serious girlfriend and when we banged I remember as I finished my exact thoughts were,
*....That was it?...*
Then I was hooked and couldn't stop fucking hot bitches and I became a man slut. Then I graduated college and finding babes gets a little more difficult.
TLDR; Bang all the babes in college. | Nah. Everyone talked it up. I was freaking out because I was virgin later than most of my friends in high school. At some point they all just assumed I had sex. With hormones raging I was ready to bang any lady.
But I got a serious girlfriend and when we banged I remember as I finished my exact thoughts were,
....That was it?...
Then I was hooked and couldn't stop fucking hot bitches and I became a man slut. Then I graduated college and finding babes gets a little more difficult.
TLDR; Bang all the babes in college.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cm25k11 | Nah. Everyone talked it up. I was freaking out because I was virgin later than most of my friends in high school. At some point they all just assumed I had sex. With hormones raging I was ready to bang any lady.
But I got a serious girlfriend and when we banged I remember as I finished my exact thoughts were,
....That was it?...
Then I was hooked and couldn't stop fucking hot bitches and I became a man slut. Then I graduated college and finding babes gets a little more difficult. | Bang all the babes in college. |
Matthew2229 | I know a lot of audiophiles don't like Bose because they are very expensive for their actual audio quality but I fell in love with how well the QuietComfort 25's passively cancel audio. The only issue is price, $300 is out of my budget. I'm looking for something I can take on airplanes and buses to cut out any ambient noise around me so 3.5mm audio jack in essential.
**TL;DR** - Recommend me less expensive headphones with really good noise cancelling. | I know a lot of audiophiles don't like Bose because they are very expensive for their actual audio quality but I fell in love with how well the QuietComfort 25's passively cancel audio. The only issue is price, $300 is out of my budget. I'm looking for something I can take on airplanes and buses to cut out any ambient noise around me so 3.5mm audio jack in essential.
TL;DR - Recommend me less expensive headphones with really good noise cancelling.
| headphones | t5_2rcyx | cm2dmk1 | I know a lot of audiophiles don't like Bose because they are very expensive for their actual audio quality but I fell in love with how well the QuietComfort 25's passively cancel audio. The only issue is price, $300 is out of my budget. I'm looking for something I can take on airplanes and buses to cut out any ambient noise around me so 3.5mm audio jack in essential. | Recommend me less expensive headphones with really good noise cancelling. |
Beamazedbyme | Thats really too subjective a question for an objective answer to be provided, but I'm going to give a explanation to my thinking:
Octopus' Garden is about love, in a way. The songs in Abbey Road were about attributes of love, and this song is no different. Through OG, the comfort and safety of the place is laid out. Getting into [the final refrain] ( of the song, the love attribute comes in.
tl;dr check out the lyrics, love comes in, in a way, at the end. | Thats really too subjective a question for an objective answer to be provided, but I'm going to give a explanation to my thinking:
Octopus' Garden is about love, in a way. The songs in Abbey Road were about attributes of love, and this song is no different. Through OG, the comfort and safety of the place is laid out. Getting into [the final refrain] ( of the song, the love attribute comes in.
tl;dr check out the lyrics, love comes in, in a way, at the end.
| Music | t5_2qh1u | cm43vzs | Thats really too subjective a question for an objective answer to be provided, but I'm going to give a explanation to my thinking:
Octopus' Garden is about love, in a way. The songs in Abbey Road were about attributes of love, and this song is no different. Through OG, the comfort and safety of the place is laid out. Getting into [the final refrain] ( of the song, the love attribute comes in. | check out the lyrics, love comes in, in a way, at the end. |
Italmustardrace | The argument on that site is fucking stupid, default stick figure? seriously? apparently people don't have the IQ to look at something and have an opinion.
Leaving aside the pointless argument, what's really annoying is that those people are outraged because they think Japanese people worship the West... White people are supposed to be seen as the ultimate evil, that's why they are so butt hurt about Japanese animation.
Anyway my 2 cents on the argument: i don't know if it's on purpose or not, but the characters do look European, why? by exclusion, just by looking at the colour of the skin we can say they are not Black or Indian or Mestizo, the only 2 races left are East-Asians and Europeans... the characters usually all have different hair and eye colour, the eyes are usually big and round, they are generally tall and the movement and the shape of the bodies are typically European, the acting and the expressions too, try watching an American movie and then a Japanese one, they lack passion and emotion in their faces IMO.
Take a look at the works of Miyazaki with Europeans in it like "Porco Rosso" and then compare the look of the characters with his other works that take place in Japan like "Princess Mononoke", the character are identical, are we supposed to think that the only difference between Whites and Asians is the colour of the hairs and eyes?
TL;DR: The characters look White, fuck anti-whites who are butthurt by it. | The argument on that site is fucking stupid, default stick figure? seriously? apparently people don't have the IQ to look at something and have an opinion.
Leaving aside the pointless argument, what's really annoying is that those people are outraged because they think Japanese people worship the West... White people are supposed to be seen as the ultimate evil, that's why they are so butt hurt about Japanese animation.
Anyway my 2 cents on the argument: i don't know if it's on purpose or not, but the characters do look European, why? by exclusion, just by looking at the colour of the skin we can say they are not Black or Indian or Mestizo, the only 2 races left are East-Asians and Europeans... the characters usually all have different hair and eye colour, the eyes are usually big and round, they are generally tall and the movement and the shape of the bodies are typically European, the acting and the expressions too, try watching an American movie and then a Japanese one, they lack passion and emotion in their faces IMO.
Take a look at the works of Miyazaki with Europeans in it like "Porco Rosso" and then compare the look of the characters with his other works that take place in Japan like "Princess Mononoke", the character are identical, are we supposed to think that the only difference between Whites and Asians is the colour of the hairs and eyes?
TL;DR: The characters look White, fuck anti-whites who are butthurt by it.
| WhiteRights | t5_2rjto | cm2mvr9 | The argument on that site is fucking stupid, default stick figure? seriously? apparently people don't have the IQ to look at something and have an opinion.
Leaving aside the pointless argument, what's really annoying is that those people are outraged because they think Japanese people worship the West... White people are supposed to be seen as the ultimate evil, that's why they are so butt hurt about Japanese animation.
Anyway my 2 cents on the argument: i don't know if it's on purpose or not, but the characters do look European, why? by exclusion, just by looking at the colour of the skin we can say they are not Black or Indian or Mestizo, the only 2 races left are East-Asians and Europeans... the characters usually all have different hair and eye colour, the eyes are usually big and round, they are generally tall and the movement and the shape of the bodies are typically European, the acting and the expressions too, try watching an American movie and then a Japanese one, they lack passion and emotion in their faces IMO.
Take a look at the works of Miyazaki with Europeans in it like "Porco Rosso" and then compare the look of the characters with his other works that take place in Japan like "Princess Mononoke", the character are identical, are we supposed to think that the only difference between Whites and Asians is the colour of the hairs and eyes? | The characters look White, fuck anti-whites who are butthurt by it. |
metzepp | 1. "My Propeller"
2. "Crying Lightning"
3. "Dangerous Animals"
4. "Secret Door"
5. "Potion Approaching"
6. "Fire and the Thud"
7. "Cornerstone"
8. "Dance Little Liar"
9. "Pretty Visitors"
10. "The Jeweller's Hands"
tl;dr: Humbug |
"My Propeller"
"Crying Lightning"
"Dangerous Animals"
"Secret Door"
"Potion Approaching"
"Fire and the Thud"
"Cornerstone"
"Dance Little Liar"
"Pretty Visitors"
"The Jeweller's Hands"
tl;dr: Humbug
| arcticmonkeys | t5_2sx6y | cm592r6 | My Propeller"
"Crying Lightning"
"Dangerous Animals"
"Secret Door"
"Potion Approaching"
"Fire and the Thud"
"Cornerstone"
"Dance Little Liar"
"Pretty Visitors"
"The Jeweller's Hands" | Humbug |
Timmisiewicz | Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I suck at TLDR's | Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I suck at TLDR's
| thatHappened | t5_2vmb7 | cm3fly2 | Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I suck at | s |
Timmisiewicz | Ok I'll allow it. It *was* a pretty big setup. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. I just know there have been multiple things posted on here that I believe probably could have or even DID happen, yet it gets posted here as if it is preposterous.
Tl;Dr: I change my stance and agree with you. I still think there are a couple of posts per day that get on this sub that are completely believable. And I'm normally a skeptic when it comes to about,*anything*. | Ok I'll allow it. It was a pretty big setup. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. I just know there have been multiple things posted on here that I believe probably could have or even DID happen, yet it gets posted here as if it is preposterous.
Tl;Dr: I change my stance and agree with you. I still think there are a couple of posts per day that get on this sub that are completely believable. And I'm normally a skeptic when it comes to about, anything .
| thatHappened | t5_2vmb7 | cm3f8s8 | Ok I'll allow it. It was a pretty big setup. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. I just know there have been multiple things posted on here that I believe probably could have or even DID happen, yet it gets posted here as if it is preposterous. | I change my stance and agree with you. I still think there are a couple of posts per day that get on this sub that are completely believable. And I'm normally a skeptic when it comes to about, anything . |
kaisong | I can see where Fine_Cut is going with his statement but he's rather blunt if I can phrase it like that. Mainly that the challenge leagues each season always have a set of incredibly easy challenges and then the actual hard ones that either require a ton of grinding or a lot of currency. Yes a total challenge count would be nice to get some reward, however this is still the first time a midpoint challenge tier has been implemented and might see further balancing or implementation.
Players falling off at the end of a league probably more has to do with individual players being unable to continue after hitting a progression wall, or the content becoming stale rather than the challenges. The challenges for the most part will only have 1 challenge for each league to specifically complete a league unique challenge where the rest of the challenges are usually grinds to repeat old content.
tldr There is already an incentive to complete partial challenges. GGG shouldn't need to prioritize keeping players interested in challenges when there's already a midpoint reward if they were interested. | I can see where Fine_Cut is going with his statement but he's rather blunt if I can phrase it like that. Mainly that the challenge leagues each season always have a set of incredibly easy challenges and then the actual hard ones that either require a ton of grinding or a lot of currency. Yes a total challenge count would be nice to get some reward, however this is still the first time a midpoint challenge tier has been implemented and might see further balancing or implementation.
Players falling off at the end of a league probably more has to do with individual players being unable to continue after hitting a progression wall, or the content becoming stale rather than the challenges. The challenges for the most part will only have 1 challenge for each league to specifically complete a league unique challenge where the rest of the challenges are usually grinds to repeat old content.
tldr There is already an incentive to complete partial challenges. GGG shouldn't need to prioritize keeping players interested in challenges when there's already a midpoint reward if they were interested.
| pathofexile | t5_2sf6m | cm3jx9f | I can see where Fine_Cut is going with his statement but he's rather blunt if I can phrase it like that. Mainly that the challenge leagues each season always have a set of incredibly easy challenges and then the actual hard ones that either require a ton of grinding or a lot of currency. Yes a total challenge count would be nice to get some reward, however this is still the first time a midpoint challenge tier has been implemented and might see further balancing or implementation.
Players falling off at the end of a league probably more has to do with individual players being unable to continue after hitting a progression wall, or the content becoming stale rather than the challenges. The challenges for the most part will only have 1 challenge for each league to specifically complete a league unique challenge where the rest of the challenges are usually grinds to repeat old content. | There is already an incentive to complete partial challenges. GGG shouldn't need to prioritize keeping players interested in challenges when there's already a midpoint reward if they were interested. |
illfatedpupulon | btc to be worth $100k per coin? $1m? not so sure about that.
even if it does. it doesn't mean anything to dogecoin, we may rise when btc jumps. but nearly all alts will benefit as well.
tl;dr. 1 doge = 1 doge. | btc to be worth $100k per coin? $1m? not so sure about that.
even if it does. it doesn't mean anything to dogecoin, we may rise when btc jumps. but nearly all alts will benefit as well.
tl;dr. 1 doge = 1 doge.
| dogecoin | t5_2zcp2 | cm3db4z | btc to be worth $100k per coin? $1m? not so sure about that.
even if it does. it doesn't mean anything to dogecoin, we may rise when btc jumps. but nearly all alts will benefit as well. | 1 doge = 1 doge. |
VexStriker | I've burned through around 5 wireless adapters in 1 month. This is because I needed to download my games which for some reason messed up one and all the other ones failed out of box. I would STRONGLY recommend wiring up the house with Ethernet ports/cables coming out of the wall. This could also mean bonding time with their father or you or even both. In the end it's your choice but I did this with my dad today and it was really fun and the computer has extremely fast internet.
My room is on the 2nd floor and the modem is on the first connected to a of down there that is why it was necessary.
Cat 5e (Ethernet chords) are around $16-$25 USD each for a 100 foot one if you need it that long.
Wireless may work for you but for gaming whenever I called tech supp with the wireless adapter issue they all told me to spend either $100 on an amazing wireless adapter that would possibly fail in the future or just wire up my house.
*TL;DR I think wireless could start issues and you might end up with my case that I had to wire up my house.* | I've burned through around 5 wireless adapters in 1 month. This is because I needed to download my games which for some reason messed up one and all the other ones failed out of box. I would STRONGLY recommend wiring up the house with Ethernet ports/cables coming out of the wall. This could also mean bonding time with their father or you or even both. In the end it's your choice but I did this with my dad today and it was really fun and the computer has extremely fast internet.
My room is on the 2nd floor and the modem is on the first connected to a of down there that is why it was necessary.
Cat 5e (Ethernet chords) are around $16-$25 USD each for a 100 foot one if you need it that long.
Wireless may work for you but for gaming whenever I called tech supp with the wireless adapter issue they all told me to spend either $100 on an amazing wireless adapter that would possibly fail in the future or just wire up my house.
TL;DR I think wireless could start issues and you might end up with my case that I had to wire up my house.
| buildapc | t5_2rnve | cm3kg69 | I've burned through around 5 wireless adapters in 1 month. This is because I needed to download my games which for some reason messed up one and all the other ones failed out of box. I would STRONGLY recommend wiring up the house with Ethernet ports/cables coming out of the wall. This could also mean bonding time with their father or you or even both. In the end it's your choice but I did this with my dad today and it was really fun and the computer has extremely fast internet.
My room is on the 2nd floor and the modem is on the first connected to a of down there that is why it was necessary.
Cat 5e (Ethernet chords) are around $16-$25 USD each for a 100 foot one if you need it that long.
Wireless may work for you but for gaming whenever I called tech supp with the wireless adapter issue they all told me to spend either $100 on an amazing wireless adapter that would possibly fail in the future or just wire up my house. | I think wireless could start issues and you might end up with my case that I had to wire up my house. |
krazy3 | I had this issue earlier today when ordering from tcgplayer as well. What it is, is that there is an option when you click on the optimizer that causes it to search for cards that are tcgplayer direct qualified. If you are ordering multiple cards from different vendors this means that your order will be shipped in 1 package from tcgplayer directly. Of course the drawback to this is that tcgplayer needs to have the cards in their stock in order to send them to you which sometimes results in cards being more expensive.
For example i was trying to order some wurmcoil engines from the new commander set earlier today. When using the optimizer it went from the $7 commander version to the $14 promo version that tcgplayer had in their stock so that i would be able to take advantage of tcgplayer direct.
tldr: uncheck tcgplayer direct when using optimizer | I had this issue earlier today when ordering from tcgplayer as well. What it is, is that there is an option when you click on the optimizer that causes it to search for cards that are tcgplayer direct qualified. If you are ordering multiple cards from different vendors this means that your order will be shipped in 1 package from tcgplayer directly. Of course the drawback to this is that tcgplayer needs to have the cards in their stock in order to send them to you which sometimes results in cards being more expensive.
For example i was trying to order some wurmcoil engines from the new commander set earlier today. When using the optimizer it went from the $7 commander version to the $14 promo version that tcgplayer had in their stock so that i would be able to take advantage of tcgplayer direct.
tldr: uncheck tcgplayer direct when using optimizer
| magicTCG | t5_2qn5f | cm3sovy | I had this issue earlier today when ordering from tcgplayer as well. What it is, is that there is an option when you click on the optimizer that causes it to search for cards that are tcgplayer direct qualified. If you are ordering multiple cards from different vendors this means that your order will be shipped in 1 package from tcgplayer directly. Of course the drawback to this is that tcgplayer needs to have the cards in their stock in order to send them to you which sometimes results in cards being more expensive.
For example i was trying to order some wurmcoil engines from the new commander set earlier today. When using the optimizer it went from the $7 commander version to the $14 promo version that tcgplayer had in their stock so that i would be able to take advantage of tcgplayer direct. | uncheck tcgplayer direct when using optimizer |
x_TDeck_x | Coast are heavy favorites in this tournament. Noone was saying LoLpro was the best or even 2nd best. They 2-0'd today not dropping 1 game. They may have looked shaky but never for a whole game. In every single week of every sport there is a team that should dominate someone but they only end up winning by a small margin.
TLDR: Yea who cares about the results /s | Coast are heavy favorites in this tournament. Noone was saying LoLpro was the best or even 2nd best. They 2-0'd today not dropping 1 game. They may have looked shaky but never for a whole game. In every single week of every sport there is a team that should dominate someone but they only end up winning by a small margin.
TLDR: Yea who cares about the results /s
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cm4jv9y | Coast are heavy favorites in this tournament. Noone was saying LoLpro was the best or even 2nd best. They 2-0'd today not dropping 1 game. They may have looked shaky but never for a whole game. In every single week of every sport there is a team that should dominate someone but they only end up winning by a small margin. | Yea who cares about the results /s |
MonkeyTBone | I played it once with my wife and two of my kids (10 and 12). We played in the Co-op style. I LOVE Indiana Jones, so I knew I would love this game too. Being highly thematic, if you love the theme you will probably like the game too. When we played, we had great time killing nazis and making fun of the sometimes ludicrous combination of treasures/locations that came up. Some people might not like that, but we thought it was humorous. It did take us about four hours to play, but that was mostly because we were new to the rules and kind of walking ourselves through it.
**On time:** At four hours, we were ready to quit! But it was still fun. Perhaps next time it will be faster since we know what we are doing. We did not think that there was a lot of time dragging in between turns though. One reason is that we did a lot of the missions with two people at once. It increases the odds of winning and you got to participate more often.
**On rules:** I found the rules fairly complicated. So I watched some walk-throughs on youtube first. Which was hilarious since in every walk-through they screwed up the rules so there were constant revisions later in the videos. So YES...complicated. Watch the videos. And you actually seems to learn the rules more when they screw up and announce the mistake.
**TL;DR:** If you love the theme, and like thematic games, it's an awesome game and purchase. If you are unsure, use the money and buy some other games until you have more buying power. | I played it once with my wife and two of my kids (10 and 12). We played in the Co-op style. I LOVE Indiana Jones, so I knew I would love this game too. Being highly thematic, if you love the theme you will probably like the game too. When we played, we had great time killing nazis and making fun of the sometimes ludicrous combination of treasures/locations that came up. Some people might not like that, but we thought it was humorous. It did take us about four hours to play, but that was mostly because we were new to the rules and kind of walking ourselves through it.
On time: At four hours, we were ready to quit! But it was still fun. Perhaps next time it will be faster since we know what we are doing. We did not think that there was a lot of time dragging in between turns though. One reason is that we did a lot of the missions with two people at once. It increases the odds of winning and you got to participate more often.
On rules: I found the rules fairly complicated. So I watched some walk-throughs on youtube first. Which was hilarious since in every walk-through they screwed up the rules so there were constant revisions later in the videos. So YES...complicated. Watch the videos. And you actually seems to learn the rules more when they screw up and announce the mistake.
TL;DR: If you love the theme, and like thematic games, it's an awesome game and purchase. If you are unsure, use the money and buy some other games until you have more buying power.
| boardgames | t5_2qmjp | cm4jek3 | I played it once with my wife and two of my kids (10 and 12). We played in the Co-op style. I LOVE Indiana Jones, so I knew I would love this game too. Being highly thematic, if you love the theme you will probably like the game too. When we played, we had great time killing nazis and making fun of the sometimes ludicrous combination of treasures/locations that came up. Some people might not like that, but we thought it was humorous. It did take us about four hours to play, but that was mostly because we were new to the rules and kind of walking ourselves through it.
On time: At four hours, we were ready to quit! But it was still fun. Perhaps next time it will be faster since we know what we are doing. We did not think that there was a lot of time dragging in between turns though. One reason is that we did a lot of the missions with two people at once. It increases the odds of winning and you got to participate more often.
On rules: I found the rules fairly complicated. So I watched some walk-throughs on youtube first. Which was hilarious since in every walk-through they screwed up the rules so there were constant revisions later in the videos. So YES...complicated. Watch the videos. And you actually seems to learn the rules more when they screw up and announce the mistake. | If you love the theme, and like thematic games, it's an awesome game and purchase. If you are unsure, use the money and buy some other games until you have more buying power. |
KnittedCoats | Although most Tumblrinas phrase it like a petulant little child, there actually is (some) truth to this.
Making fun of a man for feminine qualities IS sexist against women, because it implies that feminine qualities are undesirable.
Making fun of a woman for masculine qualities is also sexist against women, as it implies that women can't have certain qualities because they 'belong to men'.
However, that's usually where they stop. They fail to realize that:
Making fun of a man for feminine qualities is ALSO sexist against MEN, as it implies that men can't have certain qualities because they 'belong to women'.
Making fun of a woman for masculine qualities is also sexist against men, because it implies that masculine qualities are undesirable.
Admittedly, I can't stand the term 'sexist against'. I used it for clarity in the above argument, but something can't be 'sexist against' or 'racist against' or 'ableist against'. It either is sexist, racist or ableist, or it isn't. If something is sexist, it applies to BOTH SEXES (or all sexes, depending where you stand on the whole gender binary, something I'm not even going to touch).
If something is sexist 'against' a woman, chances are it's also sexist 'against' a man. It's just 'sexist'. That's it.
Someone tells a female rape victim that it's her fault because she was wearing a miniskirt?
That's sexist as hell, but no, it's not sexist 'against' women. Yes, it implies that a woman is responsible for her attack because of the way she looked, but it ALSO implies that men are rampant sexual animals that can't control their actions when they see an inch of a girl's upper thigh. Sexism is a two-sided coin.
Misandry, and misogyny, however ARE one sided, but should not be freely swapped with the word sexist.
Someone says "Custody of a child should always go to the mother no matter the circumstances"?
Misandry.
"Women shouldn't be allowed to vote"
Yeah that's pretty misogynistic.
"She was raped because of what she was wearing"
Surprise! That's actually sexist because it implies negative things about both men and women!
TL;DR
Tumblr doesn't understand sexism (shocker)
| Although most Tumblrinas phrase it like a petulant little child, there actually is (some) truth to this.
Making fun of a man for feminine qualities IS sexist against women, because it implies that feminine qualities are undesirable.
Making fun of a woman for masculine qualities is also sexist against women, as it implies that women can't have certain qualities because they 'belong to men'.
However, that's usually where they stop. They fail to realize that:
Making fun of a man for feminine qualities is ALSO sexist against MEN, as it implies that men can't have certain qualities because they 'belong to women'.
Making fun of a woman for masculine qualities is also sexist against men, because it implies that masculine qualities are undesirable.
Admittedly, I can't stand the term 'sexist against'. I used it for clarity in the above argument, but something can't be 'sexist against' or 'racist against' or 'ableist against'. It either is sexist, racist or ableist, or it isn't. If something is sexist, it applies to BOTH SEXES (or all sexes, depending where you stand on the whole gender binary, something I'm not even going to touch).
If something is sexist 'against' a woman, chances are it's also sexist 'against' a man. It's just 'sexist'. That's it.
Someone tells a female rape victim that it's her fault because she was wearing a miniskirt?
That's sexist as hell, but no, it's not sexist 'against' women. Yes, it implies that a woman is responsible for her attack because of the way she looked, but it ALSO implies that men are rampant sexual animals that can't control their actions when they see an inch of a girl's upper thigh. Sexism is a two-sided coin.
Misandry, and misogyny, however ARE one sided, but should not be freely swapped with the word sexist.
Someone says "Custody of a child should always go to the mother no matter the circumstances"?
Misandry.
"Women shouldn't be allowed to vote"
Yeah that's pretty misogynistic.
"She was raped because of what she was wearing"
Surprise! That's actually sexist because it implies negative things about both men and women!
TL;DR
Tumblr doesn't understand sexism (shocker)
| TumblrInAction | t5_2vizz | cm514ik | Although most Tumblrinas phrase it like a petulant little child, there actually is (some) truth to this.
Making fun of a man for feminine qualities IS sexist against women, because it implies that feminine qualities are undesirable.
Making fun of a woman for masculine qualities is also sexist against women, as it implies that women can't have certain qualities because they 'belong to men'.
However, that's usually where they stop. They fail to realize that:
Making fun of a man for feminine qualities is ALSO sexist against MEN, as it implies that men can't have certain qualities because they 'belong to women'.
Making fun of a woman for masculine qualities is also sexist against men, because it implies that masculine qualities are undesirable.
Admittedly, I can't stand the term 'sexist against'. I used it for clarity in the above argument, but something can't be 'sexist against' or 'racist against' or 'ableist against'. It either is sexist, racist or ableist, or it isn't. If something is sexist, it applies to BOTH SEXES (or all sexes, depending where you stand on the whole gender binary, something I'm not even going to touch).
If something is sexist 'against' a woman, chances are it's also sexist 'against' a man. It's just 'sexist'. That's it.
Someone tells a female rape victim that it's her fault because she was wearing a miniskirt?
That's sexist as hell, but no, it's not sexist 'against' women. Yes, it implies that a woman is responsible for her attack because of the way she looked, but it ALSO implies that men are rampant sexual animals that can't control their actions when they see an inch of a girl's upper thigh. Sexism is a two-sided coin.
Misandry, and misogyny, however ARE one sided, but should not be freely swapped with the word sexist.
Someone says "Custody of a child should always go to the mother no matter the circumstances"?
Misandry.
"Women shouldn't be allowed to vote"
Yeah that's pretty misogynistic.
"She was raped because of what she was wearing"
Surprise! That's actually sexist because it implies negative things about both men and women! | Tumblr doesn't understand sexism (shocker) |
SaMoSetter | GM Schmeeum, Jimmy Buss needs to relinquish all basketball personnel decision activities. Their so called 'strategy' these last 4 years have been abysmal.
TLDR; More Jeannie, less Jimmy | GM Schmeeum, Jimmy Buss needs to relinquish all basketball personnel decision activities. Their so called 'strategy' these last 4 years have been abysmal.
TLDR; More Jeannie, less Jimmy
| nba | t5_2qo4s | cm4q5yc | GM Schmeeum, Jimmy Buss needs to relinquish all basketball personnel decision activities. Their so called 'strategy' these last 4 years have been abysmal. | More Jeannie, less Jimmy |
agentbigman | Ola and Meru User from Mumbai -
Ola - Never had a booking/Availability problem in the last 2 months since i started using their service. The cabs are clean and always reach on or before time. Their app is really good and i dont pay in cash or via card since i use their Ola Money Wallet. Its so freaking easy. Get in, get out. The fare is so cheap too. They had a really good scheme during Diwali where whatever you put in the Ola Money wallet was doubled. I recharged for 5K and got 10k instantly. i still have about 8k left. This is effectively a 50% discount on their total fares everytime i take an Ola cab! This will last me a long time. I have not taken the Black and Yellow cab since then. The Ola App also allows you to call a Black and Yellow Cab now. Thats pretty good. 4/5 so far for Ola. Ola is the only cab company that does not ask for a destination till you sit in the cab. That's a big plus IMO.
Meru - In the beginning, i was using Meru for long journeys to Thane or beyond every month or so. Used to book by calling their helpline. Then a few times i got the same driver and took his number and called him directly. Apparently they can do that. Whenever he could not make it, he would get his other Meru friends to come. Now he is regular and we dont even need to tell him where to go, he knows it and he is very friendly. Fares are expensive but if you need a car for a long distance, once or twice a month for the whole day, its worth it. The drivers are good, cab is good. They even have a speedometer which alerts the driver with an extremely loud warning. Using since 4 years. Good experience mainly because of the same drivers. They are almost never available for short journeys.
TLDR: I use Ola for shorter jouneys and love them. Long time Meru user for long journeys and it is decent.
TabCabs is the worst cab service in Mumbai. Avoid.
Never used TaxiForSure.
Avoided Uber because of their billing system where i could not use a Debit Card and my Credit Card would be billed before the journey even started. Plus their pricing is not transparent like Ola or other cab companies. That is a pretty important factor for me.
| Ola and Meru User from Mumbai -
Ola - Never had a booking/Availability problem in the last 2 months since i started using their service. The cabs are clean and always reach on or before time. Their app is really good and i dont pay in cash or via card since i use their Ola Money Wallet. Its so freaking easy. Get in, get out. The fare is so cheap too. They had a really good scheme during Diwali where whatever you put in the Ola Money wallet was doubled. I recharged for 5K and got 10k instantly. i still have about 8k left. This is effectively a 50% discount on their total fares everytime i take an Ola cab! This will last me a long time. I have not taken the Black and Yellow cab since then. The Ola App also allows you to call a Black and Yellow Cab now. Thats pretty good. 4/5 so far for Ola. Ola is the only cab company that does not ask for a destination till you sit in the cab. That's a big plus IMO.
Meru - In the beginning, i was using Meru for long journeys to Thane or beyond every month or so. Used to book by calling their helpline. Then a few times i got the same driver and took his number and called him directly. Apparently they can do that. Whenever he could not make it, he would get his other Meru friends to come. Now he is regular and we dont even need to tell him where to go, he knows it and he is very friendly. Fares are expensive but if you need a car for a long distance, once or twice a month for the whole day, its worth it. The drivers are good, cab is good. They even have a speedometer which alerts the driver with an extremely loud warning. Using since 4 years. Good experience mainly because of the same drivers. They are almost never available for short journeys.
TLDR: I use Ola for shorter jouneys and love them. Long time Meru user for long journeys and it is decent.
TabCabs is the worst cab service in Mumbai. Avoid.
Never used TaxiForSure.
Avoided Uber because of their billing system where i could not use a Debit Card and my Credit Card would be billed before the journey even started. Plus their pricing is not transparent like Ola or other cab companies. That is a pretty important factor for me.
| india | t5_2qh1q | cm4rw0t | Ola and Meru User from Mumbai -
Ola - Never had a booking/Availability problem in the last 2 months since i started using their service. The cabs are clean and always reach on or before time. Their app is really good and i dont pay in cash or via card since i use their Ola Money Wallet. Its so freaking easy. Get in, get out. The fare is so cheap too. They had a really good scheme during Diwali where whatever you put in the Ola Money wallet was doubled. I recharged for 5K and got 10k instantly. i still have about 8k left. This is effectively a 50% discount on their total fares everytime i take an Ola cab! This will last me a long time. I have not taken the Black and Yellow cab since then. The Ola App also allows you to call a Black and Yellow Cab now. Thats pretty good. 4/5 so far for Ola. Ola is the only cab company that does not ask for a destination till you sit in the cab. That's a big plus IMO.
Meru - In the beginning, i was using Meru for long journeys to Thane or beyond every month or so. Used to book by calling their helpline. Then a few times i got the same driver and took his number and called him directly. Apparently they can do that. Whenever he could not make it, he would get his other Meru friends to come. Now he is regular and we dont even need to tell him where to go, he knows it and he is very friendly. Fares are expensive but if you need a car for a long distance, once or twice a month for the whole day, its worth it. The drivers are good, cab is good. They even have a speedometer which alerts the driver with an extremely loud warning. Using since 4 years. Good experience mainly because of the same drivers. They are almost never available for short journeys. | I use Ola for shorter jouneys and love them. Long time Meru user for long journeys and it is decent.
TabCabs is the worst cab service in Mumbai. Avoid.
Never used TaxiForSure.
Avoided Uber because of their billing system where i could not use a Debit Card and my Credit Card would be billed before the journey even started. Plus their pricing is not transparent like Ola or other cab companies. That is a pretty important factor for me. |
CorvusPlays | **EDIT:** *I spoke about an idea for their Potential Expansion Implementation Timeline™ on GuildGab and I think I explained my thoughts there a little better but hey, it's like 3am and I'm eating pasta and pesto and I mean, when you think about it, what else is there really to live for, y'know?*
There was also that recent statement that NCSoft made talking GW2's second anniversary and how it's a good time for an expansion. I dunno how likely it is that we'll hear anything about it tomorrow though.
I really want to hear a straight answer on a LS season 3 because it'll give us a good solid idea on what their goals are.
I think it's likely that we'll have a small break after Wintersday (potentially another feature pack) before season 3 begins. In this break they could easily announce expansion which would be due for release around about the 3rd anniversary - just in time for Season 3 to end? That'd also give them potential for a break mid season and I think the workforce would be substantial, seeing as season 2 has been developed with 'limited' devs - others being used as a secret background team.
Then again, maybe we won't get a third season and they'll bring back SAB, Dragonbash and a few other things to tie us over while they dedicated their entire devteam to the expansion?
Actual content is a whole other thing, though, and something I've thought about a lot! They'd no way want to remove the concept of a living world - it's to sewn into their core tapestry (lol, what a shite metaphor). So if we were to assume that the expansion was to be a bought and boxed product, they would essentially alienate a huge chunk of their audience by shifting the living world stuff into any new continent they add in. So then, the best idea would to keep Tyria a living and breathing continent, throw in ANOTHER continent with its own campaign and quests etc and leave it at that?
But then the new, say, Cantha would be stale within a year for a lot of people. Sure, the slowly expanded and living Tyria would be going strong but a lot of folk would be disappointed that their new favourite zones have nothing left for them.
The only obvious option here would be to have a living world that spanned both continents. Story chapters couldn't cross continents, because players without the expansion couldn't experience it, so it'd have to be the same events taking place in both - similar to Season 1 - "oh noes, the bad guy's enemies are in every single map" or something?
It's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY tricky to even think of how they'd handle this, so I can't imagine actually being at Arenanet, hahaha.
Granted, most of what I've said has been assuming the audience for GW2 is hugely complainy and massively over-entitled, but you kinda have to assume the worst when it comes to these things!
I'd be happy with more seasons, if they continue to run at Season 2's quality, and of course I'd absolutely LOVE a brand new campaign set in a new and updated continent as well.
I think the pressure from NCSoft for them to make an expansion is definitely a real and powerful thing, especially because box sales are bound to have decreased a lot 2 years down the line (China helped, but it's not something they're gonna be able to repeat) and personally, I'd love to support them via the ways of an expansion. It'd be more money from my pocket but, in return, I get something so much more engaging for me. The gemstore does the trick for some people, but there's actually not much I want that I don't already have at this point and I don't want them losing money or struggling because A) I think they're great and B) the hassles and problems that diminishing funds can bring would take focus and employees away from the ongoing content that I'm enjoying every few weeks.
**tl;dr thank yourselves every night before you tuck yourself into bed that you're aren't having to make these decisions :P** | EDIT: I spoke about an idea for their Potential Expansion Implementation Timeline™ on GuildGab and I think I explained my thoughts there a little better but hey, it's like 3am and I'm eating pasta and pesto and I mean, when you think about it, what else is there really to live for, y'know?
There was also that recent statement that NCSoft made talking GW2's second anniversary and how it's a good time for an expansion. I dunno how likely it is that we'll hear anything about it tomorrow though.
I really want to hear a straight answer on a LS season 3 because it'll give us a good solid idea on what their goals are.
I think it's likely that we'll have a small break after Wintersday (potentially another feature pack) before season 3 begins. In this break they could easily announce expansion which would be due for release around about the 3rd anniversary - just in time for Season 3 to end? That'd also give them potential for a break mid season and I think the workforce would be substantial, seeing as season 2 has been developed with 'limited' devs - others being used as a secret background team.
Then again, maybe we won't get a third season and they'll bring back SAB, Dragonbash and a few other things to tie us over while they dedicated their entire devteam to the expansion?
Actual content is a whole other thing, though, and something I've thought about a lot! They'd no way want to remove the concept of a living world - it's to sewn into their core tapestry (lol, what a shite metaphor). So if we were to assume that the expansion was to be a bought and boxed product, they would essentially alienate a huge chunk of their audience by shifting the living world stuff into any new continent they add in. So then, the best idea would to keep Tyria a living and breathing continent, throw in ANOTHER continent with its own campaign and quests etc and leave it at that?
But then the new, say, Cantha would be stale within a year for a lot of people. Sure, the slowly expanded and living Tyria would be going strong but a lot of folk would be disappointed that their new favourite zones have nothing left for them.
The only obvious option here would be to have a living world that spanned both continents. Story chapters couldn't cross continents, because players without the expansion couldn't experience it, so it'd have to be the same events taking place in both - similar to Season 1 - "oh noes, the bad guy's enemies are in every single map" or something?
It's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY tricky to even think of how they'd handle this, so I can't imagine actually being at Arenanet, hahaha.
Granted, most of what I've said has been assuming the audience for GW2 is hugely complainy and massively over-entitled, but you kinda have to assume the worst when it comes to these things!
I'd be happy with more seasons, if they continue to run at Season 2's quality, and of course I'd absolutely LOVE a brand new campaign set in a new and updated continent as well.
I think the pressure from NCSoft for them to make an expansion is definitely a real and powerful thing, especially because box sales are bound to have decreased a lot 2 years down the line (China helped, but it's not something they're gonna be able to repeat) and personally, I'd love to support them via the ways of an expansion. It'd be more money from my pocket but, in return, I get something so much more engaging for me. The gemstore does the trick for some people, but there's actually not much I want that I don't already have at this point and I don't want them losing money or struggling because A) I think they're great and B) the hassles and problems that diminishing funds can bring would take focus and employees away from the ongoing content that I'm enjoying every few weeks.
tl;dr thank yourselves every night before you tuck yourself into bed that you're aren't having to make these decisions :P
| WoodenPotatoes | t5_34l7g | cm5m72w | EDIT: I spoke about an idea for their Potential Expansion Implementation Timeline™ on GuildGab and I think I explained my thoughts there a little better but hey, it's like 3am and I'm eating pasta and pesto and I mean, when you think about it, what else is there really to live for, y'know?
There was also that recent statement that NCSoft made talking GW2's second anniversary and how it's a good time for an expansion. I dunno how likely it is that we'll hear anything about it tomorrow though.
I really want to hear a straight answer on a LS season 3 because it'll give us a good solid idea on what their goals are.
I think it's likely that we'll have a small break after Wintersday (potentially another feature pack) before season 3 begins. In this break they could easily announce expansion which would be due for release around about the 3rd anniversary - just in time for Season 3 to end? That'd also give them potential for a break mid season and I think the workforce would be substantial, seeing as season 2 has been developed with 'limited' devs - others being used as a secret background team.
Then again, maybe we won't get a third season and they'll bring back SAB, Dragonbash and a few other things to tie us over while they dedicated their entire devteam to the expansion?
Actual content is a whole other thing, though, and something I've thought about a lot! They'd no way want to remove the concept of a living world - it's to sewn into their core tapestry (lol, what a shite metaphor). So if we were to assume that the expansion was to be a bought and boxed product, they would essentially alienate a huge chunk of their audience by shifting the living world stuff into any new continent they add in. So then, the best idea would to keep Tyria a living and breathing continent, throw in ANOTHER continent with its own campaign and quests etc and leave it at that?
But then the new, say, Cantha would be stale within a year for a lot of people. Sure, the slowly expanded and living Tyria would be going strong but a lot of folk would be disappointed that their new favourite zones have nothing left for them.
The only obvious option here would be to have a living world that spanned both continents. Story chapters couldn't cross continents, because players without the expansion couldn't experience it, so it'd have to be the same events taking place in both - similar to Season 1 - "oh noes, the bad guy's enemies are in every single map" or something?
It's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY tricky to even think of how they'd handle this, so I can't imagine actually being at Arenanet, hahaha.
Granted, most of what I've said has been assuming the audience for GW2 is hugely complainy and massively over-entitled, but you kinda have to assume the worst when it comes to these things!
I'd be happy with more seasons, if they continue to run at Season 2's quality, and of course I'd absolutely LOVE a brand new campaign set in a new and updated continent as well.
I think the pressure from NCSoft for them to make an expansion is definitely a real and powerful thing, especially because box sales are bound to have decreased a lot 2 years down the line (China helped, but it's not something they're gonna be able to repeat) and personally, I'd love to support them via the ways of an expansion. It'd be more money from my pocket but, in return, I get something so much more engaging for me. The gemstore does the trick for some people, but there's actually not much I want that I don't already have at this point and I don't want them losing money or struggling because A) I think they're great and B) the hassles and problems that diminishing funds can bring would take focus and employees away from the ongoing content that I'm enjoying every few weeks. | thank yourselves every night before you tuck yourself into bed that you're aren't having to make these decisions :P |
Aerobus | 1) Why are you on askwomen? That is one of the worst subs to go to. They want politically correct, sugar-coated responses that agree with the hivemind. Anything else is not allowed and will be banned. The mods actively censor whatever the hell they *feel* like censoring.
2) You're comment is logical and makes sense. An opposite generalization could be applied to men. I think this is why it got downvoted so much--your comment used logic, which, as we know, women don't respond well to.
3)
>Most men like women who are thin to average weight, with long hair. Most women like men who are tall and fit.
Yes but with the advent of feminism and the HAES (healthy at every size) bullshit going on, saying this in public violates political correctness and is therefore frowned upon. If I walk up to a fat person and call her fat, I would not be wrong. I'm making a correct observation about that female. But that observation hurts her precious feelings^TM and therefore, thanks to feminism, I'm branded an evil misogynist who can't handle a real woman^TM.
Women do like men that are tall and fit, but they will never admit this. Women have too much pride and so ardently believe in the (false) special snowflake mentality that they will never, for a second, admit that they can be generalized. Men on the other hand have no problem when someone says "Men want thin women!" Yes, we want thin women, they make our dicks hard, fat women don't.
4)
>So, why is this something that angers people so much? Nobody could tell me, on that thread, why I was wrong.
See my explanation for #3 regarding political correctness. In addition to that bit, you *aren't wrong,* which is why they can't explain why you are wrong. You aren't. You just upset them because you (*gasp*) suggested that not all women are special snowflakes, which is threatening the askwomen hivemind.
5)
>All people did was downvote.
That's kind of all they can do. They are strong independent women, after all, and they show just how strong, mature, independent they are by pressing a button on the internet, knowing that it will liberate women across the world.
6)
>And while I know personality is important, that doesn't negate the fact that most men prefer a woman who is in shape to a woman who is 100 lb overweight, and most women prefer a man who is tall and fit to a man who isn't. **It's not really fair, but denying it won't make it not true.**
**And now you've touched upon the heart of the issue. These people, these crazies who believe in HAES bullshit, or that women prefer scrawny skinny guys over tall fit ones, are so crazy that they actually want to deny reality.** Moreover, they want to actively censor people who express this reality. Stop using logic on AW, and stop saying "it's the truth." You will never win on that sub, and if you keep it up, you will be banned I guarantee it.
7)
>Why is this even debated? Isn't it common knowledge that some people are considered more physically attractive by a larger amount of folks than others?
Yes, but it's the big elephant in the room no one wants to admit. Feminists won't admit it because they want people to believe their false notion of reality. Anti-feminists won't admit it because it is not politically correct to do so.
TL;DR Don't argue with women; you don't win. AW is a terrible sub.
| 1) Why are you on askwomen? That is one of the worst subs to go to. They want politically correct, sugar-coated responses that agree with the hivemind. Anything else is not allowed and will be banned. The mods actively censor whatever the hell they feel like censoring.
2) You're comment is logical and makes sense. An opposite generalization could be applied to men. I think this is why it got downvoted so much--your comment used logic, which, as we know, women don't respond well to.
3)
>Most men like women who are thin to average weight, with long hair. Most women like men who are tall and fit.
Yes but with the advent of feminism and the HAES (healthy at every size) bullshit going on, saying this in public violates political correctness and is therefore frowned upon. If I walk up to a fat person and call her fat, I would not be wrong. I'm making a correct observation about that female. But that observation hurts her precious feelings^TM and therefore, thanks to feminism, I'm branded an evil misogynist who can't handle a real woman^TM.
Women do like men that are tall and fit, but they will never admit this. Women have too much pride and so ardently believe in the (false) special snowflake mentality that they will never, for a second, admit that they can be generalized. Men on the other hand have no problem when someone says "Men want thin women!" Yes, we want thin women, they make our dicks hard, fat women don't.
4)
>So, why is this something that angers people so much? Nobody could tell me, on that thread, why I was wrong.
See my explanation for #3 regarding political correctness. In addition to that bit, you aren't wrong, which is why they can't explain why you are wrong. You aren't. You just upset them because you ( gasp ) suggested that not all women are special snowflakes, which is threatening the askwomen hivemind.
5)
>All people did was downvote.
That's kind of all they can do. They are strong independent women, after all, and they show just how strong, mature, independent they are by pressing a button on the internet, knowing that it will liberate women across the world.
6)
>And while I know personality is important, that doesn't negate the fact that most men prefer a woman who is in shape to a woman who is 100 lb overweight, and most women prefer a man who is tall and fit to a man who isn't. It's not really fair, but denying it won't make it not true.
And now you've touched upon the heart of the issue. These people, these crazies who believe in HAES bullshit, or that women prefer scrawny skinny guys over tall fit ones, are so crazy that they actually want to deny reality. Moreover, they want to actively censor people who express this reality. Stop using logic on AW, and stop saying "it's the truth." You will never win on that sub, and if you keep it up, you will be banned I guarantee it.
7)
>Why is this even debated? Isn't it common knowledge that some people are considered more physically attractive by a larger amount of folks than others?
Yes, but it's the big elephant in the room no one wants to admit. Feminists won't admit it because they want people to believe their false notion of reality. Anti-feminists won't admit it because it is not politically correct to do so.
TL;DR Don't argue with women; you don't win. AW is a terrible sub.
| PurplePillDebate | t5_2ya42 | cm5i60i | 1) Why are you on askwomen? That is one of the worst subs to go to. They want politically correct, sugar-coated responses that agree with the hivemind. Anything else is not allowed and will be banned. The mods actively censor whatever the hell they feel like censoring.
2) You're comment is logical and makes sense. An opposite generalization could be applied to men. I think this is why it got downvoted so much--your comment used logic, which, as we know, women don't respond well to.
3)
>Most men like women who are thin to average weight, with long hair. Most women like men who are tall and fit.
Yes but with the advent of feminism and the HAES (healthy at every size) bullshit going on, saying this in public violates political correctness and is therefore frowned upon. If I walk up to a fat person and call her fat, I would not be wrong. I'm making a correct observation about that female. But that observation hurts her precious feelings^TM and therefore, thanks to feminism, I'm branded an evil misogynist who can't handle a real woman^TM.
Women do like men that are tall and fit, but they will never admit this. Women have too much pride and so ardently believe in the (false) special snowflake mentality that they will never, for a second, admit that they can be generalized. Men on the other hand have no problem when someone says "Men want thin women!" Yes, we want thin women, they make our dicks hard, fat women don't.
4)
>So, why is this something that angers people so much? Nobody could tell me, on that thread, why I was wrong.
See my explanation for #3 regarding political correctness. In addition to that bit, you aren't wrong, which is why they can't explain why you are wrong. You aren't. You just upset them because you ( gasp ) suggested that not all women are special snowflakes, which is threatening the askwomen hivemind.
5)
>All people did was downvote.
That's kind of all they can do. They are strong independent women, after all, and they show just how strong, mature, independent they are by pressing a button on the internet, knowing that it will liberate women across the world.
6)
>And while I know personality is important, that doesn't negate the fact that most men prefer a woman who is in shape to a woman who is 100 lb overweight, and most women prefer a man who is tall and fit to a man who isn't. It's not really fair, but denying it won't make it not true.
And now you've touched upon the heart of the issue. These people, these crazies who believe in HAES bullshit, or that women prefer scrawny skinny guys over tall fit ones, are so crazy that they actually want to deny reality. Moreover, they want to actively censor people who express this reality. Stop using logic on AW, and stop saying "it's the truth." You will never win on that sub, and if you keep it up, you will be banned I guarantee it.
7)
>Why is this even debated? Isn't it common knowledge that some people are considered more physically attractive by a larger amount of folks than others?
Yes, but it's the big elephant in the room no one wants to admit. Feminists won't admit it because they want people to believe their false notion of reality. Anti-feminists won't admit it because it is not politically correct to do so. | Don't argue with women; you don't win. AW is a terrible sub. |
khaelian | My dad once got very into poker. He played a bunch of free online poker. He was really bad at it, but got to a point where he could understand motives and dynamics beyond what a newbie would. He'd win more often than not.
Then he moved on to online poker with real money. It turns out that people change a lot when actual money is involved. He'd lose all the time, but once again eventually figured it out and got to a point where he could hold his own.
Next, he went down to the card house a few miles away and played face to face with other people. They wiped the floor with him.
I guess the point I'm getting to here is that dynamics change when real money is involved, and then again when people are presented with each other in real life. **TL;DR>>>** In EVE (unless you bought your character/ship with PLEX), nobody has real money in the game. Nobody knows who these other space people are. | My dad once got very into poker. He played a bunch of free online poker. He was really bad at it, but got to a point where he could understand motives and dynamics beyond what a newbie would. He'd win more often than not.
Then he moved on to online poker with real money. It turns out that people change a lot when actual money is involved. He'd lose all the time, but once again eventually figured it out and got to a point where he could hold his own.
Next, he went down to the card house a few miles away and played face to face with other people. They wiped the floor with him.
I guess the point I'm getting to here is that dynamics change when real money is involved, and then again when people are presented with each other in real life. TL;DR>>> In EVE (unless you bought your character/ship with PLEX), nobody has real money in the game. Nobody knows who these other space people are.
| Eve | t5_2qil9 | cm5ixb7 | My dad once got very into poker. He played a bunch of free online poker. He was really bad at it, but got to a point where he could understand motives and dynamics beyond what a newbie would. He'd win more often than not.
Then he moved on to online poker with real money. It turns out that people change a lot when actual money is involved. He'd lose all the time, but once again eventually figured it out and got to a point where he could hold his own.
Next, he went down to the card house a few miles away and played face to face with other people. They wiped the floor with him.
I guess the point I'm getting to here is that dynamics change when real money is involved, and then again when people are presented with each other in real life. | In EVE (unless you bought your character/ship with PLEX), nobody has real money in the game. Nobody knows who these other space people are. |
boomsc | True - If you look at the entire population of working people. The average earning rate of women is about 3/4 the average earning rate of men
False - This is some kind of sexist discriminatory bias oppression [insert more buzzwords]
In a one to one ratio, looking at identical jobs with identical employees, where the *only* difference is one has a penis and the other has a vagina, there is essentially zero difference. Bob the CEO who has a Harvard 1st, works 70hrs a week, has no children and has been employed for five years earns the exact same wage as Jane the CEO who has a Harvard 1st, works 70hrs a week, has no children and has been employed for five years.
The difference comes into account when you look at 'averages' across huge swathes of people (or, better yet to get that juice 77%, across huge swathes of jobs too). Women typically work more flexible hours, less hours, more likely to take maternity leave etc etc etc. All of this adds up to functionally doing less hours, less overtime, etc.
TL:DR $-per-hour there is a next to zero difference in pay. But women *do* earn less as an averaged, generalized, homogenous mass | True - If you look at the entire population of working people. The average earning rate of women is about 3/4 the average earning rate of men
False - This is some kind of sexist discriminatory bias oppression [insert more buzzwords]
In a one to one ratio, looking at identical jobs with identical employees, where the only difference is one has a penis and the other has a vagina, there is essentially zero difference. Bob the CEO who has a Harvard 1st, works 70hrs a week, has no children and has been employed for five years earns the exact same wage as Jane the CEO who has a Harvard 1st, works 70hrs a week, has no children and has been employed for five years.
The difference comes into account when you look at 'averages' across huge swathes of people (or, better yet to get that juice 77%, across huge swathes of jobs too). Women typically work more flexible hours, less hours, more likely to take maternity leave etc etc etc. All of this adds up to functionally doing less hours, less overtime, etc.
TL:DR $-per-hour there is a next to zero difference in pay. But women do earn less as an averaged, generalized, homogenous mass
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cm6w2jp | True - If you look at the entire population of working people. The average earning rate of women is about 3/4 the average earning rate of men
False - This is some kind of sexist discriminatory bias oppression [insert more buzzwords]
In a one to one ratio, looking at identical jobs with identical employees, where the only difference is one has a penis and the other has a vagina, there is essentially zero difference. Bob the CEO who has a Harvard 1st, works 70hrs a week, has no children and has been employed for five years earns the exact same wage as Jane the CEO who has a Harvard 1st, works 70hrs a week, has no children and has been employed for five years.
The difference comes into account when you look at 'averages' across huge swathes of people (or, better yet to get that juice 77%, across huge swathes of jobs too). Women typically work more flexible hours, less hours, more likely to take maternity leave etc etc etc. All of this adds up to functionally doing less hours, less overtime, etc. | per-hour there is a next to zero difference in pay. But women do earn less as an averaged, generalized, homogenous mass |
ConstableCockBlock | Maybe I'm giving people too much credit in assuming that they can make their own decisions despite "What the media tells them." You obviously know that a lot can change in ~50 years. My mom graduated high school ~1985 as valedictorian as well, and she went on to be an electrical engineer whose company later paid her to go back to college for business so she could be promoted and eventually go on to become VP of a major power company. I'm not sure what kind of adversity she faced in making this decision, but based on what I know about her childhood it was 90% "get me a high income job so I can get the hell out of this house with 6 siblings". Obviously this is just one case, but based on the fact that my mom was an electrical engineer and my dad was a software designer, and seeing how well off we are as a family, I decided to go into electrical/computer engineering for college. Yet, I still know damn well that I could go be a hairstylist if I so choose.
Based on your mom's age I can assume you're probably 30 something years old, so I can't really blame you for not knowing the dynamics of high school now. I can 100% ensure you that high school, at least for me, went out of its way to tell students that they could be whatever the hell they wanted, boy or girl. In fact they made double sure to encourage women to get into STEM simply based off of the male to female ratio, advising that they would have no trouble getting snatched up by a company looking to diversify their workforce; but they always followed up by saying they could still be a stay-at-home mom or whatever else they wanted to be anyway. Every single student was entirely aware of what society "expected" from them, and that they could do whatever the hell they wanted regardless as long as they knew that it was their own decision and not cultural conditioning.
ANYWAY, now that my entirely anecdotal evidence is out of the way, I'd like to respond to your actual proposed solution by saying this: It's already in the works. Seriously, there is enough awareness and media flak to ensure that most movies and TV shows have women in traditionally male dominated fields, (as well as companies and universities going out of their way to include women as well). The characters running the hospital on *House* are ~50% female, *Mythbusters* has (had?) Kari Byron, the lead in *Gravity* was female, I'm pretty sure one of the leads in *Interstellar* is female, one of the leads in *Prometheus* was female (these are just a few off the top of my head); I'm telling you the influence is everywhere. I honestly think that the only thing we have to do is wait; it took 20 years for our mothers to have different opportunities, and I think that with time these gender ratios in STEM fields will even out. Isn't there some study that women aged 20-25 are making just a little more than men of the same demographic nowadays? The movement to include women in STEM fields is still fairly recent, and it's not like women can just switch careers; we have to wait for the women of tomorrow to graduate first.
**TL;DR**: women are represented and included (even preferred over men in many cases), we just need to wait a couple years for women to graduate and join the workforce for statistics to reflect this change.
| Maybe I'm giving people too much credit in assuming that they can make their own decisions despite "What the media tells them." You obviously know that a lot can change in ~50 years. My mom graduated high school ~1985 as valedictorian as well, and she went on to be an electrical engineer whose company later paid her to go back to college for business so she could be promoted and eventually go on to become VP of a major power company. I'm not sure what kind of adversity she faced in making this decision, but based on what I know about her childhood it was 90% "get me a high income job so I can get the hell out of this house with 6 siblings". Obviously this is just one case, but based on the fact that my mom was an electrical engineer and my dad was a software designer, and seeing how well off we are as a family, I decided to go into electrical/computer engineering for college. Yet, I still know damn well that I could go be a hairstylist if I so choose.
Based on your mom's age I can assume you're probably 30 something years old, so I can't really blame you for not knowing the dynamics of high school now. I can 100% ensure you that high school, at least for me, went out of its way to tell students that they could be whatever the hell they wanted, boy or girl. In fact they made double sure to encourage women to get into STEM simply based off of the male to female ratio, advising that they would have no trouble getting snatched up by a company looking to diversify their workforce; but they always followed up by saying they could still be a stay-at-home mom or whatever else they wanted to be anyway. Every single student was entirely aware of what society "expected" from them, and that they could do whatever the hell they wanted regardless as long as they knew that it was their own decision and not cultural conditioning.
ANYWAY, now that my entirely anecdotal evidence is out of the way, I'd like to respond to your actual proposed solution by saying this: It's already in the works. Seriously, there is enough awareness and media flak to ensure that most movies and TV shows have women in traditionally male dominated fields, (as well as companies and universities going out of their way to include women as well). The characters running the hospital on House are ~50% female, Mythbusters has (had?) Kari Byron, the lead in Gravity was female, I'm pretty sure one of the leads in Interstellar is female, one of the leads in Prometheus was female (these are just a few off the top of my head); I'm telling you the influence is everywhere. I honestly think that the only thing we have to do is wait; it took 20 years for our mothers to have different opportunities, and I think that with time these gender ratios in STEM fields will even out. Isn't there some study that women aged 20-25 are making just a little more than men of the same demographic nowadays? The movement to include women in STEM fields is still fairly recent, and it's not like women can just switch careers; we have to wait for the women of tomorrow to graduate first.
TL;DR : women are represented and included (even preferred over men in many cases), we just need to wait a couple years for women to graduate and join the workforce for statistics to reflect this change.
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cm776vk | Maybe I'm giving people too much credit in assuming that they can make their own decisions despite "What the media tells them." You obviously know that a lot can change in ~50 years. My mom graduated high school ~1985 as valedictorian as well, and she went on to be an electrical engineer whose company later paid her to go back to college for business so she could be promoted and eventually go on to become VP of a major power company. I'm not sure what kind of adversity she faced in making this decision, but based on what I know about her childhood it was 90% "get me a high income job so I can get the hell out of this house with 6 siblings". Obviously this is just one case, but based on the fact that my mom was an electrical engineer and my dad was a software designer, and seeing how well off we are as a family, I decided to go into electrical/computer engineering for college. Yet, I still know damn well that I could go be a hairstylist if I so choose.
Based on your mom's age I can assume you're probably 30 something years old, so I can't really blame you for not knowing the dynamics of high school now. I can 100% ensure you that high school, at least for me, went out of its way to tell students that they could be whatever the hell they wanted, boy or girl. In fact they made double sure to encourage women to get into STEM simply based off of the male to female ratio, advising that they would have no trouble getting snatched up by a company looking to diversify their workforce; but they always followed up by saying they could still be a stay-at-home mom or whatever else they wanted to be anyway. Every single student was entirely aware of what society "expected" from them, and that they could do whatever the hell they wanted regardless as long as they knew that it was their own decision and not cultural conditioning.
ANYWAY, now that my entirely anecdotal evidence is out of the way, I'd like to respond to your actual proposed solution by saying this: It's already in the works. Seriously, there is enough awareness and media flak to ensure that most movies and TV shows have women in traditionally male dominated fields, (as well as companies and universities going out of their way to include women as well). The characters running the hospital on House are ~50% female, Mythbusters has (had?) Kari Byron, the lead in Gravity was female, I'm pretty sure one of the leads in Interstellar is female, one of the leads in Prometheus was female (these are just a few off the top of my head); I'm telling you the influence is everywhere. I honestly think that the only thing we have to do is wait; it took 20 years for our mothers to have different opportunities, and I think that with time these gender ratios in STEM fields will even out. Isn't there some study that women aged 20-25 are making just a little more than men of the same demographic nowadays? The movement to include women in STEM fields is still fairly recent, and it's not like women can just switch careers; we have to wait for the women of tomorrow to graduate first. | women are represented and included (even preferred over men in many cases), we just need to wait a couple years for women to graduate and join the workforce for statistics to reflect this change. |
scissor_sister | You would ruin a lot of Nigerian parties, you know that?
We "spray" dollar bills on people (Naira bills in Nigeria) at our parties. Not "in da club" style, but at your wedding, graduation party, etc., your family and friends will surround you on the dance floor and put bills on you [like so](
It's really fun, everyone's dancing with you and cheering whenever someone drops a lot of money on you...people get competitive and drunk, so they aren't tracking how much they're dropping...and all that money gets collected to be given to the newlywed couple or graduate, or whomever.
I went to a wedding in London and since dropping 5 pound notes would get expensive real fast and no one wants pound coins being tossed at them, there was no spraying. It was the saddest fucking thing. All they got were checks, which are about 1% as fun as having people throw money at you while they're lit off Hennessy.
Anyway **TL;DR don't ruin our awesome, drunken fundraising method please :(** | You would ruin a lot of Nigerian parties, you know that?
We "spray" dollar bills on people (Naira bills in Nigeria) at our parties. Not "in da club" style, but at your wedding, graduation party, etc., your family and friends will surround you on the dance floor and put bills on you [like so](
It's really fun, everyone's dancing with you and cheering whenever someone drops a lot of money on you...people get competitive and drunk, so they aren't tracking how much they're dropping...and all that money gets collected to be given to the newlywed couple or graduate, or whomever.
I went to a wedding in London and since dropping 5 pound notes would get expensive real fast and no one wants pound coins being tossed at them, there was no spraying. It was the saddest fucking thing. All they got were checks, which are about 1% as fun as having people throw money at you while they're lit off Hennessy.
Anyway TL;DR don't ruin our awesome, drunken fundraising method please :(
| funny | t5_2qh33 | cm6qkls | You would ruin a lot of Nigerian parties, you know that?
We "spray" dollar bills on people (Naira bills in Nigeria) at our parties. Not "in da club" style, but at your wedding, graduation party, etc., your family and friends will surround you on the dance floor and put bills on you [like so](
It's really fun, everyone's dancing with you and cheering whenever someone drops a lot of money on you...people get competitive and drunk, so they aren't tracking how much they're dropping...and all that money gets collected to be given to the newlywed couple or graduate, or whomever.
I went to a wedding in London and since dropping 5 pound notes would get expensive real fast and no one wants pound coins being tossed at them, there was no spraying. It was the saddest fucking thing. All they got were checks, which are about 1% as fun as having people throw money at you while they're lit off Hennessy.
Anyway | don't ruin our awesome, drunken fundraising method please :( |
Alkabal | One trick for college essays or any creative essay in general is to focus on one particular aspect of your curiosity/passion for engineering. Talking about it in general terms is boring and really generic. I'm sure there are thousands of others out there who feel the exact same way about engineering and could write the exact same essay as you just did. Basically, you need to stand out from the crowd.
As already mentioned, the first paragraph is unnecessary--it tells the application reader nothing about you.
Instead, as I mentioned earlier, I would write an essay that focuses on a specific example of your curiosity--maybe of a time you built something out of Lego and how you dealt with problems etc. Make it interesting and creative! But most importantly, let it be a vehicle to show how you are curious and passionate for engineering.
Tldr: Don't flat out say "I love engineering." Tell us a story that shows WHY and HOW you love engineering.
| One trick for college essays or any creative essay in general is to focus on one particular aspect of your curiosity/passion for engineering. Talking about it in general terms is boring and really generic. I'm sure there are thousands of others out there who feel the exact same way about engineering and could write the exact same essay as you just did. Basically, you need to stand out from the crowd.
As already mentioned, the first paragraph is unnecessary--it tells the application reader nothing about you.
Instead, as I mentioned earlier, I would write an essay that focuses on a specific example of your curiosity--maybe of a time you built something out of Lego and how you dealt with problems etc. Make it interesting and creative! But most importantly, let it be a vehicle to show how you are curious and passionate for engineering.
Tldr: Don't flat out say "I love engineering." Tell us a story that shows WHY and HOW you love engineering.
| writing | t5_2qh2n | cm6o35e | One trick for college essays or any creative essay in general is to focus on one particular aspect of your curiosity/passion for engineering. Talking about it in general terms is boring and really generic. I'm sure there are thousands of others out there who feel the exact same way about engineering and could write the exact same essay as you just did. Basically, you need to stand out from the crowd.
As already mentioned, the first paragraph is unnecessary--it tells the application reader nothing about you.
Instead, as I mentioned earlier, I would write an essay that focuses on a specific example of your curiosity--maybe of a time you built something out of Lego and how you dealt with problems etc. Make it interesting and creative! But most importantly, let it be a vehicle to show how you are curious and passionate for engineering. | Don't flat out say "I love engineering." Tell us a story that shows WHY and HOW you love engineering. |
MrUppercut | Well im screwed. Im about to go deposit $4 dollars in my account so i can buy a whole $10 worth of gas with my card because i only have like $9 total in it. And i need all the gas i can get since my car estimates i only have 7miles left (keeping in mind that one gallon gets me 33.8 miles). So i really need gas to last me until Thursday. And mathematically, im fucked. $10 is going to get me about 3 gallons, which is roughly 100 miles (i drive about 40 of actual distance daily(but with LA traffic i used up about 50miles worth)) which by Thursday is going to leave me with maybe (if im lucky) 10miles worth which is less than a gallon again. It's gonna be close.
TL;DR: I'm not a catch right now. | Well im screwed. Im about to go deposit $4 dollars in my account so i can buy a whole $10 worth of gas with my card because i only have like $9 total in it. And i need all the gas i can get since my car estimates i only have 7miles left (keeping in mind that one gallon gets me 33.8 miles). So i really need gas to last me until Thursday. And mathematically, im fucked. $10 is going to get me about 3 gallons, which is roughly 100 miles (i drive about 40 of actual distance daily(but with LA traffic i used up about 50miles worth)) which by Thursday is going to leave me with maybe (if im lucky) 10miles worth which is less than a gallon again. It's gonna be close.
TL;DR: I'm not a catch right now.
| AdviceAnimals | t5_2s7tt | cm6smj3 | Well im screwed. Im about to go deposit $4 dollars in my account so i can buy a whole $10 worth of gas with my card because i only have like $9 total in it. And i need all the gas i can get since my car estimates i only have 7miles left (keeping in mind that one gallon gets me 33.8 miles). So i really need gas to last me until Thursday. And mathematically, im fucked. $10 is going to get me about 3 gallons, which is roughly 100 miles (i drive about 40 of actual distance daily(but with LA traffic i used up about 50miles worth)) which by Thursday is going to leave me with maybe (if im lucky) 10miles worth which is less than a gallon again. It's gonna be close. | I'm not a catch right now. |
hoserb2k | The mission in which my sister serves was just told by their mission president to "stay in your apartment until you know Joseph Smith was a prophet **as if you had lived when he had lived and had literarily seen him.**"
Ok, lets pause here. You can believe that spiritual "knowledge" is superior to ~~actual~~ physical knowledge. Fine. I think that's ill-conceived, but whatever, you can make whatever value judgements you want. It's simply tautologically incorrect to say that you could get the experience of living around smith by doing anything but, you know, living around smith.
tl;dr i know=i feel | The mission in which my sister serves was just told by their mission president to "stay in your apartment until you know Joseph Smith was a prophet as if you had lived when he had lived and had literarily seen him. "
Ok, lets pause here. You can believe that spiritual "knowledge" is superior to actual physical knowledge. Fine. I think that's ill-conceived, but whatever, you can make whatever value judgements you want. It's simply tautologically incorrect to say that you could get the experience of living around smith by doing anything but, you know, living around smith.
tl;dr i know=i feel
| exmormon | t5_2r0gj | cm6zkdx | The mission in which my sister serves was just told by their mission president to "stay in your apartment until you know Joseph Smith was a prophet as if you had lived when he had lived and had literarily seen him. "
Ok, lets pause here. You can believe that spiritual "knowledge" is superior to actual physical knowledge. Fine. I think that's ill-conceived, but whatever, you can make whatever value judgements you want. It's simply tautologically incorrect to say that you could get the experience of living around smith by doing anything but, you know, living around smith. | i know=i feel |
doublebro7 | I'm actually about ready to break, but it's for a different reason.
Rogers has screwed me for the last time. I just learned about an 'unpaid bill' on my credit report from 2011. The bill had, in fact, been paid as soon as I found out it went to collections. I had moved, asked them for the final bill, which I paid over the phone with my credit card right on the spot. For some reason, there was another ~$200 missing, and they only tracked me down through a collection agency. Well, i paid the collection agency after some arguing with rogers (never actually figured out what the bill was for, but couldn't be fucked to argue anymore). 3 years later, I'm applying for my mortgage, and look who never reported that I paid the bill to the credit bureau! Now it looks like I have had an unpaid bill on my account for 3 years, and, you guessed it, my mortgage was denied. 35% down payment, 6 figure income. Now that is has been straightened out, it still shows up on my credit report as a bill that went unpaid for four years. No mortgage for you.
tl;dr: rogers fucked me so hard that I might not be able to buy a house, and I don't know if I can support a team that they own.
| I'm actually about ready to break, but it's for a different reason.
Rogers has screwed me for the last time. I just learned about an 'unpaid bill' on my credit report from 2011. The bill had, in fact, been paid as soon as I found out it went to collections. I had moved, asked them for the final bill, which I paid over the phone with my credit card right on the spot. For some reason, there was another ~$200 missing, and they only tracked me down through a collection agency. Well, i paid the collection agency after some arguing with rogers (never actually figured out what the bill was for, but couldn't be fucked to argue anymore). 3 years later, I'm applying for my mortgage, and look who never reported that I paid the bill to the credit bureau! Now it looks like I have had an unpaid bill on my account for 3 years, and, you guessed it, my mortgage was denied. 35% down payment, 6 figure income. Now that is has been straightened out, it still shows up on my credit report as a bill that went unpaid for four years. No mortgage for you.
tl;dr: rogers fucked me so hard that I might not be able to buy a house, and I don't know if I can support a team that they own.
| leafs | t5_2r8hf | cm6snv2 | I'm actually about ready to break, but it's for a different reason.
Rogers has screwed me for the last time. I just learned about an 'unpaid bill' on my credit report from 2011. The bill had, in fact, been paid as soon as I found out it went to collections. I had moved, asked them for the final bill, which I paid over the phone with my credit card right on the spot. For some reason, there was another ~$200 missing, and they only tracked me down through a collection agency. Well, i paid the collection agency after some arguing with rogers (never actually figured out what the bill was for, but couldn't be fucked to argue anymore). 3 years later, I'm applying for my mortgage, and look who never reported that I paid the bill to the credit bureau! Now it looks like I have had an unpaid bill on my account for 3 years, and, you guessed it, my mortgage was denied. 35% down payment, 6 figure income. Now that is has been straightened out, it still shows up on my credit report as a bill that went unpaid for four years. No mortgage for you. | rogers fucked me so hard that I might not be able to buy a house, and I don't know if I can support a team that they own. |
Snapop23 | “What are you saying Hellboy? How is that a good idea? They’re likely just as random as we are..”
*Sigh* “Listen Prime.. I’m not going to die here. Now, I see nothing wrong with attacking someone who is my opponent. If you want to break off then do it.”
Mera stood next to Hellboy and Rohan while Prime and Megaman faced them.
“Guys, I’m with Prime on this one. That seems unfair.” Said Megaman.
“heh.. Unfair.” Mera whispered to herself. “Come on, let’s go.” She continued.
Hellboy, Mera, And Rohan began walking back to the tavern where the other team was.
“We should keep an eye out in a bit just in case. They are our teammates after all.” Said Megaman…
**LATER**
The trio arrived, they began to examine it and saw that they were still there. Four women and a weird green man sat at a table, watching tv and drinking.
Rohan approached the bar.
“Hello, whats your name?” Asked Rohan, as he blatantly stared into the bartenders bosom.
“Moxxi, and yours sugar?” She responded, as she sat in her stool, making her face at eye level.
“I’m Rohan.. Give me a shot of your cheapest.” He replied.
“You sure about that?”
“Just do it.”
“Fine, comin right up.”
As she handed him the glass, he grabbed her wrist and wrote. “Give me everything you know about the people at that table”.
Moxxi gave a brief description, though it wasn’t very helpful. She knew most of their names, and a little bit about their powers.
Rohan Rejoined Mera and Hellboy.
“Hellboy, go talk to them. The green guy is Shrek. Bait him.” Rohan commanded.
Hellboy smirked. As he approached the table, he saw them glancing up.
“Hey, Shrek, is it?” He asked.
“Well…. WHOOOOO’S ASKIN?!” Screamed Shrek as he lounged up in front of Hellboy. The warm stench of rotten meat with a tinge of onion filled his nose, as saliva and bits of various other unidentified things slapped him in the face.
Hellboy was annoyed. He sighed, and slowly re-opened his eyes.
“Arent you one of the guys we are going to be fighting in the next tournament?” Asked Elsa.
Hellboy ignored the question, stepped back and walked over to Rohan.
“He doesn’t seem like the type to cooperate.”
“Fuck it, I want to get this over with. Im going to punch you in the face, then I want you to throw me at their table. Once I call out, just do what you guys do best. “ Replied Rohan.
**POP**
Rohan Hit Hellboy.
“YEAHHHH!!! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!” The crowd began to cheer.
“Ha… Looks like they’re not getting along.” Said Paige to Esla.
Hellboy lifted Rohan up, and threw him at the table.
**Crash**Rohan landed on Paige.
“Kill yourself.” He wrote onto her, as Hellboy began charging towards the table.
Everyone Jumped up from the table. Storm and Elsa Began clearing people back as Shrek lifted Rohan off of
Paige, and threw him back at Hellboy.
“Get ahold of yourselves!” Kayle called out, as she stepped up towards them.
“Okay.. Kill them.” Said Rohan to his team.
Hellboy opened fire.
*WHOOSH*
In an instant, Mera drained all the water from Shreks blood. His shriveled body dropped to the floor. She turned
and quickly did the same to Kayle.
Else in shock began sending flurries of snow and ice towards Mera, disorienting her and the rest of Team Bombzoid. An icicle hit Rohan in the head. Mera was trying to send back flurries of water, but it would freeze the second it left her hands. The ice began riding up her arms, and when she would focus on vibrating the molecules to warm up, Elsa would feel the shift in pressure and send larger flurries of ice.
Mera was frozen in position, and slowly working on breaking it.
“What the hell did we get ourselves in to?” Hellboy thought to himself as Rohans spell lifted. He retreated through the doorway behind them.
Elsa and storm began pushing through the crowd while scanning it to make sure nobody was badly hurt, and made their way outside.
Gunfire opened in their direction.
“Shit.” He thought to himself.
Hellboy didn’t know what these two would do. He continued to run and fire, when suddenly,
“Ah fuck!”
Elsa Froze his feet to the ground.
*CRACK CRACK*
Blasts began launching at Storm and Elsas position.
“whats that?!” Shouted Elsa.
“Oh great theres more!” Responded Storm. “and what is that thing?! She continued as she began shooting lightning at Prime.
“Megaman, help me out here!” Called out Hellboy, as Elsa and Storm battled Prime.
*CRASH CRASH*
Lightning smashed into prime’s chest. The wind storm was relentless and overwhelming. Every time he would swing at Storm, She would fly away and strike him with more lightning.
Elsa Began running towards Hellboy and Megaman.
Megaman blasted at Hellboys feet, freeing him of his ice shackles, and began running at Elsa.
Else began piling snow on top of Megaman. He was agile and capable of jumping out of it, but it was enough to distract him from what she was doing.
“You think you can beat me?! Im the ice queen!” Shouted Elsa as she began summoning a giant spear like icicle.
*BOOM*
“Nothing a High caliber gun can’t take care of.” Said Hellboy, as Elsa’s headless corpse fell in front of him.
“People always underestimate guns.. “ He thought to himself.
“Elsa!” Called out Storm.
“Uh-oh.” Said Hellboy as he ran into a nearby ally way.
Storm Followed behind.
“Whats going on!” Mera shouted as she exited the Tavern.
“Mera you’re alive?! Go Chase the lightning lady, shes after Hellboy!” said Megaman
Sounds of thunder filled the air, followed by bright flashes of lightning.
*Sigh* “Its too late.” He thought to himself.
“Meras eyes filled with anger as she charged into the ally.
“Megaman… come here.” Said Prime
Megaman approached Prime.
“Im beaten again. Kill me.”
“What?!”
“Just do it Megaman. I’ll be back for the next round if you do. If we loose here, who knows whats going to happen. Plus.. Megaman.. Im a robot..”
Megamans eyes lit up…
“I cant believe I didn’t think of that..” Replied Megaman.
Megaman began to charge up. He mounted Primes neck and lifted his armor plate. The sound of Mera and Storms battle was brutal.
“Are you ready?” He asked Prime, as Mera and Storms fight got closer to them.
“Yes.” Replied Prime as he watched Storm use Meras Water as a conductor, electrocuting her through it.
*BLAST*
Optimus Primes body began to float and separate..
“YAAAAAAAAA!!” Screamed Megaman as he absorbed Prime. His eyes became red, and his body seemingly grew a hundred times its size.
“New weapon!” He shouted. Storm looked in awe.
*BLAST*
Megaman Shot a huge hole into the city floor. Storm barely dodged it with a swift launch up, but was quickly grabbed and violently thrown to the ground by Megaman.
*BLAST*
Another shot hit her. This time It was Point Blank.
When the Smoke cleared, there wasn’t much left. Giant Megaman stared into the bloody, dusty crater in anger.
He shrunk back to size, and walked back to the tavern.
“That was one hell of a bar fight.” He thought to himself.
**THE END FOR NOW**
TL;DR While typically Mera has morals and standards, Rohan has a much less strict philosophy and likes to get the job done as quickly and easily as possible. Being able to brain wash her ,he can turn her elite level hydrokenesis into a far deadlier weapon, making her able to drain people instantly. That, teamed up with Megaman becoming giant and far stronger after absorbing all of Primes attributes due to his ability to steal the powers of slain machines, makes for an extremely tough team.
Thanks /u/ThrowawayHStone for giving me an awesome fight!
| “What are you saying Hellboy? How is that a good idea? They’re likely just as random as we are..”
Sigh “Listen Prime.. I’m not going to die here. Now, I see nothing wrong with attacking someone who is my opponent. If you want to break off then do it.”
Mera stood next to Hellboy and Rohan while Prime and Megaman faced them.
“Guys, I’m with Prime on this one. That seems unfair.” Said Megaman.
“heh.. Unfair.” Mera whispered to herself. “Come on, let’s go.” She continued.
Hellboy, Mera, And Rohan began walking back to the tavern where the other team was.
“We should keep an eye out in a bit just in case. They are our teammates after all.” Said Megaman…
LATER
The trio arrived, they began to examine it and saw that they were still there. Four women and a weird green man sat at a table, watching tv and drinking.
Rohan approached the bar.
“Hello, whats your name?” Asked Rohan, as he blatantly stared into the bartenders bosom.
“Moxxi, and yours sugar?” She responded, as she sat in her stool, making her face at eye level.
“I’m Rohan.. Give me a shot of your cheapest.” He replied.
“You sure about that?”
“Just do it.”
“Fine, comin right up.”
As she handed him the glass, he grabbed her wrist and wrote. “Give me everything you know about the people at that table”.
Moxxi gave a brief description, though it wasn’t very helpful. She knew most of their names, and a little bit about their powers.
Rohan Rejoined Mera and Hellboy.
“Hellboy, go talk to them. The green guy is Shrek. Bait him.” Rohan commanded.
Hellboy smirked. As he approached the table, he saw them glancing up.
“Hey, Shrek, is it?” He asked.
“Well…. WHOOOOO’S ASKIN?!” Screamed Shrek as he lounged up in front of Hellboy. The warm stench of rotten meat with a tinge of onion filled his nose, as saliva and bits of various other unidentified things slapped him in the face.
Hellboy was annoyed. He sighed, and slowly re-opened his eyes.
“Arent you one of the guys we are going to be fighting in the next tournament?” Asked Elsa.
Hellboy ignored the question, stepped back and walked over to Rohan.
“He doesn’t seem like the type to cooperate.”
“Fuck it, I want to get this over with. Im going to punch you in the face, then I want you to throw me at their table. Once I call out, just do what you guys do best. “ Replied Rohan.
POP
Rohan Hit Hellboy.
“YEAHHHH!!! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!” The crowd began to cheer.
“Ha… Looks like they’re not getting along.” Said Paige to Esla.
Hellboy lifted Rohan up, and threw him at the table.
Crash Rohan landed on Paige.
“Kill yourself.” He wrote onto her, as Hellboy began charging towards the table.
Everyone Jumped up from the table. Storm and Elsa Began clearing people back as Shrek lifted Rohan off of
Paige, and threw him back at Hellboy.
“Get ahold of yourselves!” Kayle called out, as she stepped up towards them.
“Okay.. Kill them.” Said Rohan to his team.
Hellboy opened fire.
WHOOSH
In an instant, Mera drained all the water from Shreks blood. His shriveled body dropped to the floor. She turned
and quickly did the same to Kayle.
Else in shock began sending flurries of snow and ice towards Mera, disorienting her and the rest of Team Bombzoid. An icicle hit Rohan in the head. Mera was trying to send back flurries of water, but it would freeze the second it left her hands. The ice began riding up her arms, and when she would focus on vibrating the molecules to warm up, Elsa would feel the shift in pressure and send larger flurries of ice.
Mera was frozen in position, and slowly working on breaking it.
“What the hell did we get ourselves in to?” Hellboy thought to himself as Rohans spell lifted. He retreated through the doorway behind them.
Elsa and storm began pushing through the crowd while scanning it to make sure nobody was badly hurt, and made their way outside.
Gunfire opened in their direction.
“Shit.” He thought to himself.
Hellboy didn’t know what these two would do. He continued to run and fire, when suddenly,
“Ah fuck!”
Elsa Froze his feet to the ground.
CRACK CRACK
Blasts began launching at Storm and Elsas position.
“whats that?!” Shouted Elsa.
“Oh great theres more!” Responded Storm. “and what is that thing?! She continued as she began shooting lightning at Prime.
“Megaman, help me out here!” Called out Hellboy, as Elsa and Storm battled Prime.
CRASH CRASH
Lightning smashed into prime’s chest. The wind storm was relentless and overwhelming. Every time he would swing at Storm, She would fly away and strike him with more lightning.
Elsa Began running towards Hellboy and Megaman.
Megaman blasted at Hellboys feet, freeing him of his ice shackles, and began running at Elsa.
Else began piling snow on top of Megaman. He was agile and capable of jumping out of it, but it was enough to distract him from what she was doing.
“You think you can beat me?! Im the ice queen!” Shouted Elsa as she began summoning a giant spear like icicle.
BOOM
“Nothing a High caliber gun can’t take care of.” Said Hellboy, as Elsa’s headless corpse fell in front of him.
“People always underestimate guns.. “ He thought to himself.
“Elsa!” Called out Storm.
“Uh-oh.” Said Hellboy as he ran into a nearby ally way.
Storm Followed behind.
“Whats going on!” Mera shouted as she exited the Tavern.
“Mera you’re alive?! Go Chase the lightning lady, shes after Hellboy!” said Megaman
Sounds of thunder filled the air, followed by bright flashes of lightning.
Sigh “Its too late.” He thought to himself.
“Meras eyes filled with anger as she charged into the ally.
“Megaman… come here.” Said Prime
Megaman approached Prime.
“Im beaten again. Kill me.”
“What?!”
“Just do it Megaman. I’ll be back for the next round if you do. If we loose here, who knows whats going to happen. Plus.. Megaman.. Im a robot..”
Megamans eyes lit up…
“I cant believe I didn’t think of that..” Replied Megaman.
Megaman began to charge up. He mounted Primes neck and lifted his armor plate. The sound of Mera and Storms battle was brutal.
“Are you ready?” He asked Prime, as Mera and Storms fight got closer to them.
“Yes.” Replied Prime as he watched Storm use Meras Water as a conductor, electrocuting her through it.
BLAST
Optimus Primes body began to float and separate..
“YAAAAAAAAA!!” Screamed Megaman as he absorbed Prime. His eyes became red, and his body seemingly grew a hundred times its size.
“New weapon!” He shouted. Storm looked in awe.
BLAST
Megaman Shot a huge hole into the city floor. Storm barely dodged it with a swift launch up, but was quickly grabbed and violently thrown to the ground by Megaman.
BLAST
Another shot hit her. This time It was Point Blank.
When the Smoke cleared, there wasn’t much left. Giant Megaman stared into the bloody, dusty crater in anger.
He shrunk back to size, and walked back to the tavern.
“That was one hell of a bar fight.” He thought to himself.
THE END FOR NOW
TL;DR While typically Mera has morals and standards, Rohan has a much less strict philosophy and likes to get the job done as quickly and easily as possible. Being able to brain wash her ,he can turn her elite level hydrokenesis into a far deadlier weapon, making her able to drain people instantly. That, teamed up with Megaman becoming giant and far stronger after absorbing all of Primes attributes due to his ability to steal the powers of slain machines, makes for an extremely tough team.
Thanks /u/ThrowawayHStone for giving me an awesome fight!
| backwardsmusic | t5_33cej | cm6u4jj | What are you saying Hellboy? How is that a good idea? They’re likely just as random as we are..”
Sigh “Listen Prime.. I’m not going to die here. Now, I see nothing wrong with attacking someone who is my opponent. If you want to break off then do it.”
Mera stood next to Hellboy and Rohan while Prime and Megaman faced them.
“Guys, I’m with Prime on this one. That seems unfair.” Said Megaman.
“heh.. Unfair.” Mera whispered to herself. “Come on, let’s go.” She continued.
Hellboy, Mera, And Rohan began walking back to the tavern where the other team was.
“We should keep an eye out in a bit just in case. They are our teammates after all.” Said Megaman…
LATER
The trio arrived, they began to examine it and saw that they were still there. Four women and a weird green man sat at a table, watching tv and drinking.
Rohan approached the bar.
“Hello, whats your name?” Asked Rohan, as he blatantly stared into the bartenders bosom.
“Moxxi, and yours sugar?” She responded, as she sat in her stool, making her face at eye level.
“I’m Rohan.. Give me a shot of your cheapest.” He replied.
“You sure about that?”
“Just do it.”
“Fine, comin right up.”
As she handed him the glass, he grabbed her wrist and wrote. “Give me everything you know about the people at that table”.
Moxxi gave a brief description, though it wasn’t very helpful. She knew most of their names, and a little bit about their powers.
Rohan Rejoined Mera and Hellboy.
“Hellboy, go talk to them. The green guy is Shrek. Bait him.” Rohan commanded.
Hellboy smirked. As he approached the table, he saw them glancing up.
“Hey, Shrek, is it?” He asked.
“Well…. WHOOOOO’S ASKIN?!” Screamed Shrek as he lounged up in front of Hellboy. The warm stench of rotten meat with a tinge of onion filled his nose, as saliva and bits of various other unidentified things slapped him in the face.
Hellboy was annoyed. He sighed, and slowly re-opened his eyes.
“Arent you one of the guys we are going to be fighting in the next tournament?” Asked Elsa.
Hellboy ignored the question, stepped back and walked over to Rohan.
“He doesn’t seem like the type to cooperate.”
“Fuck it, I want to get this over with. Im going to punch you in the face, then I want you to throw me at their table. Once I call out, just do what you guys do best. “ Replied Rohan.
POP
Rohan Hit Hellboy.
“YEAHHHH!!! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!” The crowd began to cheer.
“Ha… Looks like they’re not getting along.” Said Paige to Esla.
Hellboy lifted Rohan up, and threw him at the table.
Crash Rohan landed on Paige.
“Kill yourself.” He wrote onto her, as Hellboy began charging towards the table.
Everyone Jumped up from the table. Storm and Elsa Began clearing people back as Shrek lifted Rohan off of
Paige, and threw him back at Hellboy.
“Get ahold of yourselves!” Kayle called out, as she stepped up towards them.
“Okay.. Kill them.” Said Rohan to his team.
Hellboy opened fire.
WHOOSH
In an instant, Mera drained all the water from Shreks blood. His shriveled body dropped to the floor. She turned
and quickly did the same to Kayle.
Else in shock began sending flurries of snow and ice towards Mera, disorienting her and the rest of Team Bombzoid. An icicle hit Rohan in the head. Mera was trying to send back flurries of water, but it would freeze the second it left her hands. The ice began riding up her arms, and when she would focus on vibrating the molecules to warm up, Elsa would feel the shift in pressure and send larger flurries of ice.
Mera was frozen in position, and slowly working on breaking it.
“What the hell did we get ourselves in to?” Hellboy thought to himself as Rohans spell lifted. He retreated through the doorway behind them.
Elsa and storm began pushing through the crowd while scanning it to make sure nobody was badly hurt, and made their way outside.
Gunfire opened in their direction.
“Shit.” He thought to himself.
Hellboy didn’t know what these two would do. He continued to run and fire, when suddenly,
“Ah fuck!”
Elsa Froze his feet to the ground.
CRACK CRACK
Blasts began launching at Storm and Elsas position.
“whats that?!” Shouted Elsa.
“Oh great theres more!” Responded Storm. “and what is that thing?! She continued as she began shooting lightning at Prime.
“Megaman, help me out here!” Called out Hellboy, as Elsa and Storm battled Prime.
CRASH CRASH
Lightning smashed into prime’s chest. The wind storm was relentless and overwhelming. Every time he would swing at Storm, She would fly away and strike him with more lightning.
Elsa Began running towards Hellboy and Megaman.
Megaman blasted at Hellboys feet, freeing him of his ice shackles, and began running at Elsa.
Else began piling snow on top of Megaman. He was agile and capable of jumping out of it, but it was enough to distract him from what she was doing.
“You think you can beat me?! Im the ice queen!” Shouted Elsa as she began summoning a giant spear like icicle.
BOOM
“Nothing a High caliber gun can’t take care of.” Said Hellboy, as Elsa’s headless corpse fell in front of him.
“People always underestimate guns.. “ He thought to himself.
“Elsa!” Called out Storm.
“Uh-oh.” Said Hellboy as he ran into a nearby ally way.
Storm Followed behind.
“Whats going on!” Mera shouted as she exited the Tavern.
“Mera you’re alive?! Go Chase the lightning lady, shes after Hellboy!” said Megaman
Sounds of thunder filled the air, followed by bright flashes of lightning.
Sigh “Its too late.” He thought to himself.
“Meras eyes filled with anger as she charged into the ally.
“Megaman… come here.” Said Prime
Megaman approached Prime.
“Im beaten again. Kill me.”
“What?!”
“Just do it Megaman. I’ll be back for the next round if you do. If we loose here, who knows whats going to happen. Plus.. Megaman.. Im a robot..”
Megamans eyes lit up…
“I cant believe I didn’t think of that..” Replied Megaman.
Megaman began to charge up. He mounted Primes neck and lifted his armor plate. The sound of Mera and Storms battle was brutal.
“Are you ready?” He asked Prime, as Mera and Storms fight got closer to them.
“Yes.” Replied Prime as he watched Storm use Meras Water as a conductor, electrocuting her through it.
BLAST
Optimus Primes body began to float and separate..
“YAAAAAAAAA!!” Screamed Megaman as he absorbed Prime. His eyes became red, and his body seemingly grew a hundred times its size.
“New weapon!” He shouted. Storm looked in awe.
BLAST
Megaman Shot a huge hole into the city floor. Storm barely dodged it with a swift launch up, but was quickly grabbed and violently thrown to the ground by Megaman.
BLAST
Another shot hit her. This time It was Point Blank.
When the Smoke cleared, there wasn’t much left. Giant Megaman stared into the bloody, dusty crater in anger.
He shrunk back to size, and walked back to the tavern.
“That was one hell of a bar fight.” He thought to himself.
THE END FOR NOW | While typically Mera has morals and standards, Rohan has a much less strict philosophy and likes to get the job done as quickly and easily as possible. Being able to brain wash her ,he can turn her elite level hydrokenesis into a far deadlier weapon, making her able to drain people instantly. That, teamed up with Megaman becoming giant and far stronger after absorbing all of Primes attributes due to his ability to steal the powers of slain machines, makes for an extremely tough team.
Thanks /u/ThrowawayHStone for giving me an awesome fight! |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.