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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trevo91 | Depends on what your definition on winning is I guess. Plus technically, there are kinda 3 sides fighting to gain something in this war, Ukrainians, Pro-Russian Rebels, and Russia itself.
I assume that the Ukrainian side would like to keep all of Ukraine. They really don't want to split up the country. The ceasefire is still in effect for now but spring and summer are basically here so we will see if a new offensive begins. It seems like the Pro-Russians would really like Mariupol at least. There has been mentioning of giving the Pro-Russians more autonomy and kind of let them govern themselves in the East of Ukraine but they would still be apart of Ukraine. That way Ukraine would still be a whole and the Rebels get a little more independence.
I'm not fully sure of what Russia's endgame is but it seems like they keep supplying the rebels with heavy weaponry and equipment in order to keep Ukraine unstable. You have to remember the Ukraine used to be apart of the Soviet Union and it seems like Putins mind is still stuck on that fact. They already annexed Crimea, which I believe is home to Russia's only warm water naval base or something like that. Before they were leasing the land from Ukraine, but now they own it. I'm sure that if they were able to destabilize the whole country of Ukraine, then they would. But I think it would be way to obvious and difficult to hide the fact of what they are doing, even though now it's clear as day what they are doing. Plus now, with all the sanctions that have been put on Russia, their economy is pretty shitty. Sadly it's the citizens who are the ones hurting the most.
TL;DR I'm not sure if anyone is really winning right now, or will win. It's more of who loses the least.
(This is all my opinion just from reading articles and watching the live feed from Ukraine Conflict for the past year or so. I've also watched all of Vices "Russian Roulette" series which is very informative. I'm sure some of the things I've said are incorrect, but I figured I'd put in my two cents. Also sorry for any spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes.)
Why am I being downvoted? I'm the only one who actually tried to give OP an informative answer | Depends on what your definition on winning is I guess. Plus technically, there are kinda 3 sides fighting to gain something in this war, Ukrainians, Pro-Russian Rebels, and Russia itself.
I assume that the Ukrainian side would like to keep all of Ukraine. They really don't want to split up the country. The ceasefire is still in effect for now but spring and summer are basically here so we will see if a new offensive begins. It seems like the Pro-Russians would really like Mariupol at least. There has been mentioning of giving the Pro-Russians more autonomy and kind of let them govern themselves in the East of Ukraine but they would still be apart of Ukraine. That way Ukraine would still be a whole and the Rebels get a little more independence.
I'm not fully sure of what Russia's endgame is but it seems like they keep supplying the rebels with heavy weaponry and equipment in order to keep Ukraine unstable. You have to remember the Ukraine used to be apart of the Soviet Union and it seems like Putins mind is still stuck on that fact. They already annexed Crimea, which I believe is home to Russia's only warm water naval base or something like that. Before they were leasing the land from Ukraine, but now they own it. I'm sure that if they were able to destabilize the whole country of Ukraine, then they would. But I think it would be way to obvious and difficult to hide the fact of what they are doing, even though now it's clear as day what they are doing. Plus now, with all the sanctions that have been put on Russia, their economy is pretty shitty. Sadly it's the citizens who are the ones hurting the most.
TL;DR I'm not sure if anyone is really winning right now, or will win. It's more of who loses the least.
(This is all my opinion just from reading articles and watching the live feed from Ukraine Conflict for the past year or so. I've also watched all of Vices "Russian Roulette" series which is very informative. I'm sure some of the things I've said are incorrect, but I figured I'd put in my two cents. Also sorry for any spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes.)
Why am I being downvoted? I'm the only one who actually tried to give OP an informative answer
| CombatFootage | t5_2v0c6 | cpzjs7q | Depends on what your definition on winning is I guess. Plus technically, there are kinda 3 sides fighting to gain something in this war, Ukrainians, Pro-Russian Rebels, and Russia itself.
I assume that the Ukrainian side would like to keep all of Ukraine. They really don't want to split up the country. The ceasefire is still in effect for now but spring and summer are basically here so we will see if a new offensive begins. It seems like the Pro-Russians would really like Mariupol at least. There has been mentioning of giving the Pro-Russians more autonomy and kind of let them govern themselves in the East of Ukraine but they would still be apart of Ukraine. That way Ukraine would still be a whole and the Rebels get a little more independence.
I'm not fully sure of what Russia's endgame is but it seems like they keep supplying the rebels with heavy weaponry and equipment in order to keep Ukraine unstable. You have to remember the Ukraine used to be apart of the Soviet Union and it seems like Putins mind is still stuck on that fact. They already annexed Crimea, which I believe is home to Russia's only warm water naval base or something like that. Before they were leasing the land from Ukraine, but now they own it. I'm sure that if they were able to destabilize the whole country of Ukraine, then they would. But I think it would be way to obvious and difficult to hide the fact of what they are doing, even though now it's clear as day what they are doing. Plus now, with all the sanctions that have been put on Russia, their economy is pretty shitty. Sadly it's the citizens who are the ones hurting the most. | I'm not sure if anyone is really winning right now, or will win. It's more of who loses the least.
(This is all my opinion just from reading articles and watching the live feed from Ukraine Conflict for the past year or so. I've also watched all of Vices "Russian Roulette" series which is very informative. I'm sure some of the things I've said are incorrect, but I figured I'd put in my two cents. Also sorry for any spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes.)
Why am I being downvoted? I'm the only one who actually tried to give OP an informative answer |
KilrBe3 | Yea that's one reason, they went on a ban spree it seemed awhile ago, even they got called out on it and just said "its on our sidebar, its our rules".
Anyone who seemed to put up any sensible idea or discussion got shit on by a Pro-XXX of whatever side. Then you try and defend yourself or facts you posted and you get banned for arguing with another member or some dumb rule. I was banned there 5 months ago by some chick who lives in the states and post mostly about her cats and how she finds odd shit and post it too /r/mildlyinteresting and has nothing to do with the conflict or live there. I think only few actually live in that area... rest just bandwagon on their fellow mods.
TL:DR place is a shit hole | Yea that's one reason, they went on a ban spree it seemed awhile ago, even they got called out on it and just said "its on our sidebar, its our rules".
Anyone who seemed to put up any sensible idea or discussion got shit on by a Pro-XXX of whatever side. Then you try and defend yourself or facts you posted and you get banned for arguing with another member or some dumb rule. I was banned there 5 months ago by some chick who lives in the states and post mostly about her cats and how she finds odd shit and post it too /r/mildlyinteresting and has nothing to do with the conflict or live there. I think only few actually live in that area... rest just bandwagon on their fellow mods.
TL:DR place is a shit hole
| CombatFootage | t5_2v0c6 | cq009wp | Yea that's one reason, they went on a ban spree it seemed awhile ago, even they got called out on it and just said "its on our sidebar, its our rules".
Anyone who seemed to put up any sensible idea or discussion got shit on by a Pro-XXX of whatever side. Then you try and defend yourself or facts you posted and you get banned for arguing with another member or some dumb rule. I was banned there 5 months ago by some chick who lives in the states and post mostly about her cats and how she finds odd shit and post it too /r/mildlyinteresting and has nothing to do with the conflict or live there. I think only few actually live in that area... rest just bandwagon on their fellow mods. | place is a shit hole |
Stuart444 | >Is it possible my FC leader didn't know what he was talking about?
Yup
>He seemed to recoil in disgust saying I should be LEAST ilvl 70 by now
Besides the fact that it's impossible if you're below level 50 (you say you're 47) to be at that level. Asking that of a player who isn't at level 50 yet is pretty unrealistic. When queueing for a low level dungeon like AV, I'd never expect any player to be anything above the min requirements. It's a low level dungeon/in Low Level Roulette for a reason.
>He explained to me that unless my gear isn't at that level when I hit 50, I'm in for a rough time. He went on about how it's apparently very common to play through level 1-50 once, learn from your mistakes and start again with a new character.
Total BS. Gear wise, you'll gear up very quickly after you hit 50 but playing through 1 - 50 then starting a new character now that you've 'learned from your mistakes' is total BS. I've not heard many people do that. People usually start new characters for a multitude of reasons but this isn't one of them. (at least not commonly)
>Can you screw up your entire playthrough that you'd have to start all over again? Is my ilvl that bad for where I'm at in the game?
1. No, hell they even have a item from the GC person if you mess up your bonus stats and need to respec (useful for SMNs/SCHs that want to switch between classes). There is no way to mess up your character. AT ALL.
2. Your ilvl is perfectly 100% fine for where you are. Don't let anyone tell you different.
So tl;dr: your FC leader is wrong and it almost feels like he is taking pride in the fact that he has played longer than you and thus 'knows more than you' by saying stuff like that.
Don't let him tell you otherwise, you're doing perfectly fine | >Is it possible my FC leader didn't know what he was talking about?
Yup
>He seemed to recoil in disgust saying I should be LEAST ilvl 70 by now
Besides the fact that it's impossible if you're below level 50 (you say you're 47) to be at that level. Asking that of a player who isn't at level 50 yet is pretty unrealistic. When queueing for a low level dungeon like AV, I'd never expect any player to be anything above the min requirements. It's a low level dungeon/in Low Level Roulette for a reason.
>He explained to me that unless my gear isn't at that level when I hit 50, I'm in for a rough time. He went on about how it's apparently very common to play through level 1-50 once, learn from your mistakes and start again with a new character.
Total BS. Gear wise, you'll gear up very quickly after you hit 50 but playing through 1 - 50 then starting a new character now that you've 'learned from your mistakes' is total BS. I've not heard many people do that. People usually start new characters for a multitude of reasons but this isn't one of them. (at least not commonly)
>Can you screw up your entire playthrough that you'd have to start all over again? Is my ilvl that bad for where I'm at in the game?
No, hell they even have a item from the GC person if you mess up your bonus stats and need to respec (useful for SMNs/SCHs that want to switch between classes). There is no way to mess up your character. AT ALL.
Your ilvl is perfectly 100% fine for where you are. Don't let anyone tell you different.
So tl;dr: your FC leader is wrong and it almost feels like he is taking pride in the fact that he has played longer than you and thus 'knows more than you' by saying stuff like that.
Don't let him tell you otherwise, you're doing perfectly fine
| ffxiv | t5_2rgs7 | cpztp3o | Is it possible my FC leader didn't know what he was talking about?
Yup
>He seemed to recoil in disgust saying I should be LEAST ilvl 70 by now
Besides the fact that it's impossible if you're below level 50 (you say you're 47) to be at that level. Asking that of a player who isn't at level 50 yet is pretty unrealistic. When queueing for a low level dungeon like AV, I'd never expect any player to be anything above the min requirements. It's a low level dungeon/in Low Level Roulette for a reason.
>He explained to me that unless my gear isn't at that level when I hit 50, I'm in for a rough time. He went on about how it's apparently very common to play through level 1-50 once, learn from your mistakes and start again with a new character.
Total BS. Gear wise, you'll gear up very quickly after you hit 50 but playing through 1 - 50 then starting a new character now that you've 'learned from your mistakes' is total BS. I've not heard many people do that. People usually start new characters for a multitude of reasons but this isn't one of them. (at least not commonly)
>Can you screw up your entire playthrough that you'd have to start all over again? Is my ilvl that bad for where I'm at in the game?
No, hell they even have a item from the GC person if you mess up your bonus stats and need to respec (useful for SMNs/SCHs that want to switch between classes). There is no way to mess up your character. AT ALL.
Your ilvl is perfectly 100% fine for where you are. Don't let anyone tell you different.
So | your FC leader is wrong and it almost feels like he is taking pride in the fact that he has played longer than you and thus 'knows more than you' by saying stuff like that.
Don't let him tell you otherwise, you're doing perfectly fine |
TopCrakHead | I love how people here are complaining that the mic is horrible because they can hear you typing as well as other things, but do most people not use push-to-talk?
Doesn't matter if you have a $20 or $200 mic, i don't want to hear your pets, family, ect.
TL:DR - Use Push-to-talk please. | I love how people here are complaining that the mic is horrible because they can hear you typing as well as other things, but do most people not use push-to-talk?
Doesn't matter if you have a $20 or $200 mic, i don't want to hear your pets, family, ect.
TL:DR - Use Push-to-talk please.
| pcmasterrace | t5_2sgp1 | cq0145p | I love how people here are complaining that the mic is horrible because they can hear you typing as well as other things, but do most people not use push-to-talk?
Doesn't matter if you have a $20 or $200 mic, i don't want to hear your pets, family, ect. | Use Push-to-talk please. |
rafits | Got as a glow fixed gear for $220 from china, new brakes, tires changed 23cm to 28cm, new seat and shimano nexus 3. Love at first ride made me do it :)
TL;DR Chinese cost effective magic. | Got as a glow fixed gear for $220 from china, new brakes, tires changed 23cm to 28cm, new seat and shimano nexus 3. Love at first ride made me do it :)
TL;DR Chinese cost effective magic.
| FixedGearBicycle | t5_2qo7a | cq0t7qe | Got as a glow fixed gear for $220 from china, new brakes, tires changed 23cm to 28cm, new seat and shimano nexus 3. Love at first ride made me do it :) | Chinese cost effective magic. |
LivingDeadInside | >There were also comments insinuating that all of us on this subreddit are fat, and if we all lost some weight we wouldn't have BBP.
I'm not even chubby and wear a 34J. When I lose weight, it does not make my boobs any smaller. Some girls just have giant tits. It's called genetics, try Googling it. TL;DR fuck those ignorant assholes. | >There were also comments insinuating that all of us on this subreddit are fat, and if we all lost some weight we wouldn't have BBP.
I'm not even chubby and wear a 34J. When I lose weight, it does not make my boobs any smaller. Some girls just have giant tits. It's called genetics, try Googling it. TL;DR fuck those ignorant assholes.
| bigboobproblems | t5_2ubfr | cq0ohn1 | There were also comments insinuating that all of us on this subreddit are fat, and if we all lost some weight we wouldn't have BBP.
I'm not even chubby and wear a 34J. When I lose weight, it does not make my boobs any smaller. Some girls just have giant tits. It's called genetics, try Googling it. | fuck those ignorant assholes. |
madreus | Creo que a lo que /u/keke87v se refiere es que, después de tener cierta cantidad de dinero, puedes seguir ganando dinero sin mayor esfuerzo solamente invirtiendo.
Ejemplo: Inviertes en acciones de bajo riesgo y que paguen buen dividendo aunque sus capital gains sean de muy baja volatilidad. O en puros bonos, o en un index fund con un beta relativamente bajo.
tl;dr Es cierto que después de tener más de cierta cantidad de dinero es muy fácil solamente seguir ganando mucho más sin trabajar. Por lo mismo, entre más tengas es más pendejo el quedarte con poco. | Creo que a lo que /u/keke87v se refiere es que, después de tener cierta cantidad de dinero, puedes seguir ganando dinero sin mayor esfuerzo solamente invirtiendo.
Ejemplo: Inviertes en acciones de bajo riesgo y que paguen buen dividendo aunque sus capital gains sean de muy baja volatilidad. O en puros bonos, o en un index fund con un beta relativamente bajo.
tl;dr Es cierto que después de tener más de cierta cantidad de dinero es muy fácil solamente seguir ganando mucho más sin trabajar. Por lo mismo, entre más tengas es más pendejo el quedarte con poco.
| mexico | t5_2qhv7 | cq2pmrj | Creo que a lo que /u/keke87v se refiere es que, después de tener cierta cantidad de dinero, puedes seguir ganando dinero sin mayor esfuerzo solamente invirtiendo.
Ejemplo: Inviertes en acciones de bajo riesgo y que paguen buen dividendo aunque sus capital gains sean de muy baja volatilidad. O en puros bonos, o en un index fund con un beta relativamente bajo. | Es cierto que después de tener más de cierta cantidad de dinero es muy fácil solamente seguir ganando mucho más sin trabajar. Por lo mismo, entre más tengas es más pendejo el quedarte con poco. |
partty1 | I had a 4 second break between a car and me. He slammed on his brakes 100% in the middle of the road, staring straight at him I couldn't stop at 35mph. Tl;Dr: Jeep brakes suck absolute dick. | I had a 4 second break between a car and me. He slammed on his brakes 100% in the middle of the road, staring straight at him I couldn't stop at 35mph. Tl;Dr: Jeep brakes suck absolute dick.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq0rx4z | I had a 4 second break between a car and me. He slammed on his brakes 100% in the middle of the road, staring straight at him I couldn't stop at 35mph. | Jeep brakes suck absolute dick. |
mattstrayer | apparently none of you guys are developers. this dude is working his ass off to get a large-scale beta going for an app that he's been cultivating for a while now. He'll give it to us when he's ready. Giving yourself hard deadlines is extremely stressful when you're the only one you have to help estimate how long part of the dev project will take. "Yeah, setting up the users for the beta should only take like an hour" .... 4 hours later after struggling with the ShitShow that is iTunesConnect you've pulled out half of your hair. This constant "HEY WHERE IS MY APP" posting is not doing anything helpful for him. We're supposed to be making his life easier, not harder or more stressful. TL;DR. grow up, errybody. | apparently none of you guys are developers. this dude is working his ass off to get a large-scale beta going for an app that he's been cultivating for a while now. He'll give it to us when he's ready. Giving yourself hard deadlines is extremely stressful when you're the only one you have to help estimate how long part of the dev project will take. "Yeah, setting up the users for the beta should only take like an hour" .... 4 hours later after struggling with the ShitShow that is iTunesConnect you've pulled out half of your hair. This constant "HEY WHERE IS MY APP" posting is not doing anything helpful for him. We're supposed to be making his life easier, not harder or more stressful. TL;DR. grow up, errybody.
| apolloapp | t5_363lq | cq0cofv | apparently none of you guys are developers. this dude is working his ass off to get a large-scale beta going for an app that he's been cultivating for a while now. He'll give it to us when he's ready. Giving yourself hard deadlines is extremely stressful when you're the only one you have to help estimate how long part of the dev project will take. "Yeah, setting up the users for the beta should only take like an hour" .... 4 hours later after struggling with the ShitShow that is iTunesConnect you've pulled out half of your hair. This constant "HEY WHERE IS MY APP" posting is not doing anything helpful for him. We're supposed to be making his life easier, not harder or more stressful. | grow up, errybody. |
looz4q | Top - usually tanks (Gnar, Maokai) or AP mage (Lissandra, Rumble)
Jungle - either earlygame based jungler, that snowballs other lanes with his huge damage earlygame (Lee Sin, Rek Sai) or utility tank (Sejuani, Zac) that shines in lategame.
Mid - mostly AP sustain damage (Orianna, Ziggs) or AP burst mages (Annie, Viktor etc.) or assassins (Zed, Katarina, LeBlanc). Most of mids stay by their supports and marksmans to peel each other, but assassins need to damage enemy backline.
ADC - physical damage carries, super squishy but he's main source of damage (Lucian, Graves, Caitlyn)
Support - adc's support (Thresh, Janna, Nami). He controls vision and makes plays by catching enemies, by engaging teamfights etc.
I'm mid main so I can tell you that mid is mostly about outfarming, outplaying (killing) and outroaming your opponent. The best champions right now are: Zed, Xerath, Ahri, LeBlanc, Viktor, Katarina, Annie (random order)
Laning phase takes place from start to about 10 or 20 minutes (really depends on how lanes are going and roaming). After that teams should be focused on taking objectives (Towers, Dragons, Baron;
Towers give map control and global gold,
Dragons give permament stacks, that gives you combat/movement/pushing stats (taking dragons is really good, because it pays off in lategame), but give no gold.
Baron gives same gold as 2 towers to everyone on team and gives a buff to everyone on team that gives you 40ap/40ad and faster recalling (4sec instead of 8sec) AND aura that makes your minions faster and stronger, but only when someone with baron buff is in range.
Tldr - win lane by csing, roaming and killing ur enemy(not needed tho), then take objectives with your team or solo(split push). | Top - usually tanks (Gnar, Maokai) or AP mage (Lissandra, Rumble)
Jungle - either earlygame based jungler, that snowballs other lanes with his huge damage earlygame (Lee Sin, Rek Sai) or utility tank (Sejuani, Zac) that shines in lategame.
Mid - mostly AP sustain damage (Orianna, Ziggs) or AP burst mages (Annie, Viktor etc.) or assassins (Zed, Katarina, LeBlanc). Most of mids stay by their supports and marksmans to peel each other, but assassins need to damage enemy backline.
ADC - physical damage carries, super squishy but he's main source of damage (Lucian, Graves, Caitlyn)
Support - adc's support (Thresh, Janna, Nami). He controls vision and makes plays by catching enemies, by engaging teamfights etc.
I'm mid main so I can tell you that mid is mostly about outfarming, outplaying (killing) and outroaming your opponent. The best champions right now are: Zed, Xerath, Ahri, LeBlanc, Viktor, Katarina, Annie (random order)
Laning phase takes place from start to about 10 or 20 minutes (really depends on how lanes are going and roaming). After that teams should be focused on taking objectives (Towers, Dragons, Baron;
Towers give map control and global gold,
Dragons give permament stacks, that gives you combat/movement/pushing stats (taking dragons is really good, because it pays off in lategame), but give no gold.
Baron gives same gold as 2 towers to everyone on team and gives a buff to everyone on team that gives you 40ap/40ad and faster recalling (4sec instead of 8sec) AND aura that makes your minions faster and stronger, but only when someone with baron buff is in range.
Tldr - win lane by csing, roaming and killing ur enemy(not needed tho), then take objectives with your team or solo(split push).
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cq0f8px | Top - usually tanks (Gnar, Maokai) or AP mage (Lissandra, Rumble)
Jungle - either earlygame based jungler, that snowballs other lanes with his huge damage earlygame (Lee Sin, Rek Sai) or utility tank (Sejuani, Zac) that shines in lategame.
Mid - mostly AP sustain damage (Orianna, Ziggs) or AP burst mages (Annie, Viktor etc.) or assassins (Zed, Katarina, LeBlanc). Most of mids stay by their supports and marksmans to peel each other, but assassins need to damage enemy backline.
ADC - physical damage carries, super squishy but he's main source of damage (Lucian, Graves, Caitlyn)
Support - adc's support (Thresh, Janna, Nami). He controls vision and makes plays by catching enemies, by engaging teamfights etc.
I'm mid main so I can tell you that mid is mostly about outfarming, outplaying (killing) and outroaming your opponent. The best champions right now are: Zed, Xerath, Ahri, LeBlanc, Viktor, Katarina, Annie (random order)
Laning phase takes place from start to about 10 or 20 minutes (really depends on how lanes are going and roaming). After that teams should be focused on taking objectives (Towers, Dragons, Baron;
Towers give map control and global gold,
Dragons give permament stacks, that gives you combat/movement/pushing stats (taking dragons is really good, because it pays off in lategame), but give no gold.
Baron gives same gold as 2 towers to everyone on team and gives a buff to everyone on team that gives you 40ap/40ad and faster recalling (4sec instead of 8sec) AND aura that makes your minions faster and stronger, but only when someone with baron buff is in range. | win lane by csing, roaming and killing ur enemy(not needed tho), then take objectives with your team or solo(split push). |
Barboron | > Well, I would urge you to do some testing first.
As someone who has played WAR since beta, I have plenty of experience when using macros.
> Macros for non-GCD abilities do not impact gameplay enough to matter.
This is wrong because I have seen so many Provoke Macros fail due to not provoke activating at expected times. Either they are late or do not trigger at all. This is really bad considering quite a number of tank swaps have strict timing. For example, Ramuh EX, FCoB T2 & T3, Thornmarch, Ifrit EX. A slow tank swap due to a failed provoke macro can be detrimental.
> The loss of 'DPS' that everyone freaks out about comes from not being able to queue an ability beforehand that Macros eliminate. You can't queue off-GCD abilities to begin with like you can your combo attacks or weaponskills so you don't lose anything. At all.
Another problem here that mixes with the last point is that the actions may not necessarily go off in order. A line in the macro may be skipped due to an action currently being performed whilst pressing the button. Yes, I tested this, and yes I seen the problem.
> As far as the Flash and Steel Cyclone goes, both of those are used sparingly enough that it really doesn't impact anything and it frees up button real estate. In that case I would say the benefits outweigh the cost.
These are not necessarily interchangeable. Flash, on WAR, is good only for AoE enmity generation, and a low amount at that. On top of that, it's enmity generation which won't break sleep or some binds. Steel Cyclone, on the other hand, generates far more aggro but will break these. It's also a DPS increase so having flash activate instead would not be really good at all.
[Edit]
To add, macroing Foresight and Featherfoot is one of the worst things you can combine. You are negating the use of Foresight if you evade an attack.
[/EDIT]
TL;DR: Macros are bad and perhaps *you* should do some testing. | > Well, I would urge you to do some testing first.
As someone who has played WAR since beta, I have plenty of experience when using macros.
> Macros for non-GCD abilities do not impact gameplay enough to matter.
This is wrong because I have seen so many Provoke Macros fail due to not provoke activating at expected times. Either they are late or do not trigger at all. This is really bad considering quite a number of tank swaps have strict timing. For example, Ramuh EX, FCoB T2 & T3, Thornmarch, Ifrit EX. A slow tank swap due to a failed provoke macro can be detrimental.
> The loss of 'DPS' that everyone freaks out about comes from not being able to queue an ability beforehand that Macros eliminate. You can't queue off-GCD abilities to begin with like you can your combo attacks or weaponskills so you don't lose anything. At all.
Another problem here that mixes with the last point is that the actions may not necessarily go off in order. A line in the macro may be skipped due to an action currently being performed whilst pressing the button. Yes, I tested this, and yes I seen the problem.
> As far as the Flash and Steel Cyclone goes, both of those are used sparingly enough that it really doesn't impact anything and it frees up button real estate. In that case I would say the benefits outweigh the cost.
These are not necessarily interchangeable. Flash, on WAR, is good only for AoE enmity generation, and a low amount at that. On top of that, it's enmity generation which won't break sleep or some binds. Steel Cyclone, on the other hand, generates far more aggro but will break these. It's also a DPS increase so having flash activate instead would not be really good at all.
[Edit]
To add, macroing Foresight and Featherfoot is one of the worst things you can combine. You are negating the use of Foresight if you evade an attack.
[/EDIT]
TL;DR: Macros are bad and perhaps you should do some testing.
| ffxiv | t5_2rgs7 | cq1h55h | Well, I would urge you to do some testing first.
As someone who has played WAR since beta, I have plenty of experience when using macros.
> Macros for non-GCD abilities do not impact gameplay enough to matter.
This is wrong because I have seen so many Provoke Macros fail due to not provoke activating at expected times. Either they are late or do not trigger at all. This is really bad considering quite a number of tank swaps have strict timing. For example, Ramuh EX, FCoB T2 & T3, Thornmarch, Ifrit EX. A slow tank swap due to a failed provoke macro can be detrimental.
> The loss of 'DPS' that everyone freaks out about comes from not being able to queue an ability beforehand that Macros eliminate. You can't queue off-GCD abilities to begin with like you can your combo attacks or weaponskills so you don't lose anything. At all.
Another problem here that mixes with the last point is that the actions may not necessarily go off in order. A line in the macro may be skipped due to an action currently being performed whilst pressing the button. Yes, I tested this, and yes I seen the problem.
> As far as the Flash and Steel Cyclone goes, both of those are used sparingly enough that it really doesn't impact anything and it frees up button real estate. In that case I would say the benefits outweigh the cost.
These are not necessarily interchangeable. Flash, on WAR, is good only for AoE enmity generation, and a low amount at that. On top of that, it's enmity generation which won't break sleep or some binds. Steel Cyclone, on the other hand, generates far more aggro but will break these. It's also a DPS increase so having flash activate instead would not be really good at all.
[Edit]
To add, macroing Foresight and Featherfoot is one of the worst things you can combine. You are negating the use of Foresight if you evade an attack.
[/EDIT] | Macros are bad and perhaps you should do some testing. |
brokensaint82 | NASCAR I know has the reputation for being "The sport where rednecks gather to drink and watch fast cars." And in part its true, you go to a track and 9 times out of 10 you'll see shit like [this]( And on TV I know it looks rather boring, until you look at it like any other "ball" sport.
There are teams out there, and they are all going at it, 42 at a time instead of one on one. Now if you know anything about nascar you'll say; "But there are only a few teams out there, other drivers are in teams together!" And you're right, but on the last lap, two teammates, lets say Jimmy Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr, are 1 and 2. Now are they just going to bow out and let the other win? Hell no. They might have worked together to get to that position, but that last lap its every man for himself out there. To continue with the team explanation; each team is out there for themselves. Each driver has his pit crew. They are all athletes. "They're just driving!" I can hear you say. Yeah they are, at almost 200 miles per hour, in temperatures of over 120 degrees, in a cramped space akin to a closet, for 3 to 4 hours at a time, with 40 other drivers around them. Concentration is a must. Endurance as well. Plus it takes strength to handle a car that weighs 3,300 pounds at speeds over 150 mph, or at 100 if you're at a short track. Ok what about the pit crew? They're all just rednecks who change tires fast. Not rednecks, but skilled people who train almost year round. The average pit stop time for a four tire and fuel stop is between 14 - 17 seconds. I can barely make a cup of coffee in that time, let alone change 1 tire. Plus you have to compete against 40 other pit crews to do it as fast as you can so you're driver can get out ahead of them. So the race isn't exclusive to being on the track.
On TV pit stops are some of the more exciting times during a race, especially if it happens during green flag racing. For those of you who don't know different color flags indicate different stages of the race. Green for regular racing, yellow for caution after a wreck or debris on the track, red for a race stoppage for a particularly bad wreck or weather. White for the last lap of a race. Checkered for the end of the race. Then the dreaded black flag. The black flag is for one driver in particular. This means the driver has to pull into his pit stall for infractions on the rules. Usually for exceeding pit road speed, which is usually 45mph. Now imagine having to slow down from a speed of over 150 mph to 45.
The cars themselves don't have speedometers either. They measure speed by the tachometer along with laptimes. Plus each car, other than paint scheme, is unique.
The best races are usually short track races. A track like Bristol especially. 0.533 mi (0.858 km) long, with a banking of 26-30° in the turns and 6-10° on the straights. 43 cars on that short of a track, with limited space makes for some extremely exciting racing. No car gets out of that race fully clean and scratch free.
Then you have the exact opposite, Talledega.
2.666 mi (4.28 km) long. Banking varies; Turns 1 and 2: 33° Turn 3: 32.4° Turn 4: 32.5° Tri-oval: 16.5° Back straight: 3°. With speeds upwards of 200 mph in small packs of 3 to 10 cars. If you slip up and barely touch another car in the wrong way, it can set off a chain of events like [this]( Or like [this]( Now the last wreck was before they instituted roof flaps on the car. Roof flaps help keep downforce on the top of the car so it prevents the car from flipping like this.
Ofcourse in person it is a spectacle like almost no other. On TV though, it can be a tad boring until the final few laps, I admit. but for me it's a showcase of technological prowess combined with endurance and concentration. Rednecks are in the crowd, but rarely will they be driving.
TL;DR fuck you, read that shit. | NASCAR I know has the reputation for being "The sport where rednecks gather to drink and watch fast cars." And in part its true, you go to a track and 9 times out of 10 you'll see shit like [this]( And on TV I know it looks rather boring, until you look at it like any other "ball" sport.
There are teams out there, and they are all going at it, 42 at a time instead of one on one. Now if you know anything about nascar you'll say; "But there are only a few teams out there, other drivers are in teams together!" And you're right, but on the last lap, two teammates, lets say Jimmy Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr, are 1 and 2. Now are they just going to bow out and let the other win? Hell no. They might have worked together to get to that position, but that last lap its every man for himself out there. To continue with the team explanation; each team is out there for themselves. Each driver has his pit crew. They are all athletes. "They're just driving!" I can hear you say. Yeah they are, at almost 200 miles per hour, in temperatures of over 120 degrees, in a cramped space akin to a closet, for 3 to 4 hours at a time, with 40 other drivers around them. Concentration is a must. Endurance as well. Plus it takes strength to handle a car that weighs 3,300 pounds at speeds over 150 mph, or at 100 if you're at a short track. Ok what about the pit crew? They're all just rednecks who change tires fast. Not rednecks, but skilled people who train almost year round. The average pit stop time for a four tire and fuel stop is between 14 - 17 seconds. I can barely make a cup of coffee in that time, let alone change 1 tire. Plus you have to compete against 40 other pit crews to do it as fast as you can so you're driver can get out ahead of them. So the race isn't exclusive to being on the track.
On TV pit stops are some of the more exciting times during a race, especially if it happens during green flag racing. For those of you who don't know different color flags indicate different stages of the race. Green for regular racing, yellow for caution after a wreck or debris on the track, red for a race stoppage for a particularly bad wreck or weather. White for the last lap of a race. Checkered for the end of the race. Then the dreaded black flag. The black flag is for one driver in particular. This means the driver has to pull into his pit stall for infractions on the rules. Usually for exceeding pit road speed, which is usually 45mph. Now imagine having to slow down from a speed of over 150 mph to 45.
The cars themselves don't have speedometers either. They measure speed by the tachometer along with laptimes. Plus each car, other than paint scheme, is unique.
The best races are usually short track races. A track like Bristol especially. 0.533 mi (0.858 km) long, with a banking of 26-30° in the turns and 6-10° on the straights. 43 cars on that short of a track, with limited space makes for some extremely exciting racing. No car gets out of that race fully clean and scratch free.
Then you have the exact opposite, Talledega.
2.666 mi (4.28 km) long. Banking varies; Turns 1 and 2: 33° Turn 3: 32.4° Turn 4: 32.5° Tri-oval: 16.5° Back straight: 3°. With speeds upwards of 200 mph in small packs of 3 to 10 cars. If you slip up and barely touch another car in the wrong way, it can set off a chain of events like [this]( Or like [this]( Now the last wreck was before they instituted roof flaps on the car. Roof flaps help keep downforce on the top of the car so it prevents the car from flipping like this.
Ofcourse in person it is a spectacle like almost no other. On TV though, it can be a tad boring until the final few laps, I admit. but for me it's a showcase of technological prowess combined with endurance and concentration. Rednecks are in the crowd, but rarely will they be driving.
TL;DR fuck you, read that shit.
| SquaredCircle | t5_2sljg | cq0xwgu | NASCAR I know has the reputation for being "The sport where rednecks gather to drink and watch fast cars." And in part its true, you go to a track and 9 times out of 10 you'll see shit like [this]( And on TV I know it looks rather boring, until you look at it like any other "ball" sport.
There are teams out there, and they are all going at it, 42 at a time instead of one on one. Now if you know anything about nascar you'll say; "But there are only a few teams out there, other drivers are in teams together!" And you're right, but on the last lap, two teammates, lets say Jimmy Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr, are 1 and 2. Now are they just going to bow out and let the other win? Hell no. They might have worked together to get to that position, but that last lap its every man for himself out there. To continue with the team explanation; each team is out there for themselves. Each driver has his pit crew. They are all athletes. "They're just driving!" I can hear you say. Yeah they are, at almost 200 miles per hour, in temperatures of over 120 degrees, in a cramped space akin to a closet, for 3 to 4 hours at a time, with 40 other drivers around them. Concentration is a must. Endurance as well. Plus it takes strength to handle a car that weighs 3,300 pounds at speeds over 150 mph, or at 100 if you're at a short track. Ok what about the pit crew? They're all just rednecks who change tires fast. Not rednecks, but skilled people who train almost year round. The average pit stop time for a four tire and fuel stop is between 14 - 17 seconds. I can barely make a cup of coffee in that time, let alone change 1 tire. Plus you have to compete against 40 other pit crews to do it as fast as you can so you're driver can get out ahead of them. So the race isn't exclusive to being on the track.
On TV pit stops are some of the more exciting times during a race, especially if it happens during green flag racing. For those of you who don't know different color flags indicate different stages of the race. Green for regular racing, yellow for caution after a wreck or debris on the track, red for a race stoppage for a particularly bad wreck or weather. White for the last lap of a race. Checkered for the end of the race. Then the dreaded black flag. The black flag is for one driver in particular. This means the driver has to pull into his pit stall for infractions on the rules. Usually for exceeding pit road speed, which is usually 45mph. Now imagine having to slow down from a speed of over 150 mph to 45.
The cars themselves don't have speedometers either. They measure speed by the tachometer along with laptimes. Plus each car, other than paint scheme, is unique.
The best races are usually short track races. A track like Bristol especially. 0.533 mi (0.858 km) long, with a banking of 26-30° in the turns and 6-10° on the straights. 43 cars on that short of a track, with limited space makes for some extremely exciting racing. No car gets out of that race fully clean and scratch free.
Then you have the exact opposite, Talledega.
2.666 mi (4.28 km) long. Banking varies; Turns 1 and 2: 33° Turn 3: 32.4° Turn 4: 32.5° Tri-oval: 16.5° Back straight: 3°. With speeds upwards of 200 mph in small packs of 3 to 10 cars. If you slip up and barely touch another car in the wrong way, it can set off a chain of events like [this]( Or like [this]( Now the last wreck was before they instituted roof flaps on the car. Roof flaps help keep downforce on the top of the car so it prevents the car from flipping like this.
Ofcourse in person it is a spectacle like almost no other. On TV though, it can be a tad boring until the final few laps, I admit. but for me it's a showcase of technological prowess combined with endurance and concentration. Rednecks are in the crowd, but rarely will they be driving. | fuck you, read that shit. |
pseudogentry | [MFW OP expects the Lib Dems to deliver on promises made on the premise of a majority as a minority government.](
God knows I won't vote Lib Dem in May, but I don't think Clegg entered the coalition to willingly renege on his policies and deliberately make life worse for his voters.
Anyone who criticises him for 'a lack of effort' and the like should spend a month in his position and try and get some extremely left-wing legislation of their own passed in the Commons. Good fucking luck.
What else were they supposed to do, contradict their much larger coalition partner at the first hurdle? Yes it was a flagship policy that won them a lot of support, but on the premise that they would have a majority, like all political policies.
You're criticising them for not enacting a policy that they couldn't enact in the first place. They didn't have a majority, and their dominant coalition partners were hostile to the proposal.
Yeah, he could have ended it by switching sides and working with the opposition to force a vote of no confidence on his own government, which would have been perhaps the single greatest act of political suicide ever seen in Westminster.
No one would ever agree to work with him again after he had deliberately co-operated with the leader of the opposition.
It would tarnish the Lib Dem's reputation as a party, and they would undoubtedly lose seats in the subsequent election because who would vote for a party that doesn't have confidence in its own position?
There would never be a Con/Lab coalition, especially not after a Labour-backed vote of no confidence. So what result could you possibly have except the same coalition as before, but with Clegg hounded out of Parliament and the Lib Dems having fewer seats (thus less influence in the Commons) than they had in the first place?
**TL;DR: Stop ragging on Clegg guys, I won't vote for the man but holy shit you couldn't do any fucking better in his position** | [MFW OP expects the Lib Dems to deliver on promises made on the premise of a majority as a minority government.](
God knows I won't vote Lib Dem in May, but I don't think Clegg entered the coalition to willingly renege on his policies and deliberately make life worse for his voters.
Anyone who criticises him for 'a lack of effort' and the like should spend a month in his position and try and get some extremely left-wing legislation of their own passed in the Commons. Good fucking luck.
What else were they supposed to do, contradict their much larger coalition partner at the first hurdle? Yes it was a flagship policy that won them a lot of support, but on the premise that they would have a majority, like all political policies.
You're criticising them for not enacting a policy that they couldn't enact in the first place. They didn't have a majority, and their dominant coalition partners were hostile to the proposal.
Yeah, he could have ended it by switching sides and working with the opposition to force a vote of no confidence on his own government, which would have been perhaps the single greatest act of political suicide ever seen in Westminster.
No one would ever agree to work with him again after he had deliberately co-operated with the leader of the opposition.
It would tarnish the Lib Dem's reputation as a party, and they would undoubtedly lose seats in the subsequent election because who would vote for a party that doesn't have confidence in its own position?
There would never be a Con/Lab coalition, especially not after a Labour-backed vote of no confidence. So what result could you possibly have except the same coalition as before, but with Clegg hounded out of Parliament and the Lib Dems having fewer seats (thus less influence in the Commons) than they had in the first place?
TL;DR: Stop ragging on Clegg guys, I won't vote for the man but holy shit you couldn't do any fucking better in his position
| ukpolitics | t5_2qhcv | cq1gaqa | MFW OP expects the Lib Dems to deliver on promises made on the premise of a majority as a minority government.](
God knows I won't vote Lib Dem in May, but I don't think Clegg entered the coalition to willingly renege on his policies and deliberately make life worse for his voters.
Anyone who criticises him for 'a lack of effort' and the like should spend a month in his position and try and get some extremely left-wing legislation of their own passed in the Commons. Good fucking luck.
What else were they supposed to do, contradict their much larger coalition partner at the first hurdle? Yes it was a flagship policy that won them a lot of support, but on the premise that they would have a majority, like all political policies.
You're criticising them for not enacting a policy that they couldn't enact in the first place. They didn't have a majority, and their dominant coalition partners were hostile to the proposal.
Yeah, he could have ended it by switching sides and working with the opposition to force a vote of no confidence on his own government, which would have been perhaps the single greatest act of political suicide ever seen in Westminster.
No one would ever agree to work with him again after he had deliberately co-operated with the leader of the opposition.
It would tarnish the Lib Dem's reputation as a party, and they would undoubtedly lose seats in the subsequent election because who would vote for a party that doesn't have confidence in its own position?
There would never be a Con/Lab coalition, especially not after a Labour-backed vote of no confidence. So what result could you possibly have except the same coalition as before, but with Clegg hounded out of Parliament and the Lib Dems having fewer seats (thus less influence in the Commons) than they had in the first place? | Stop ragging on Clegg guys, I won't vote for the man but holy shit you couldn't do any fucking better in his position |
JDub_Scrub | It's a highly person decision that should be based on an individual's circumstances, values and desires. Just like many things in life. To me, it's no different than "should I smoke a cigarette?" or "should I drink on the weekends." Sure none of that stuff is particularly *good* for you, and pornography is definitely far less harmful than both of them. But they're all things that are a large part of human life, across all cultures and are engaged in with relative safety on a daily basis worldwide. Sometimes it results in tragedy, but that's no reason to deny it from everyone.
tl;dr - it's a personal decision like everything else. The less you view it as a danger, the less dangerous it becomes. | It's a highly person decision that should be based on an individual's circumstances, values and desires. Just like many things in life. To me, it's no different than "should I smoke a cigarette?" or "should I drink on the weekends." Sure none of that stuff is particularly good for you, and pornography is definitely far less harmful than both of them. But they're all things that are a large part of human life, across all cultures and are engaged in with relative safety on a daily basis worldwide. Sometimes it results in tragedy, but that's no reason to deny it from everyone.
tl;dr - it's a personal decision like everything else. The less you view it as a danger, the less dangerous it becomes.
| exjw | t5_2qp5l | cq17jfv | It's a highly person decision that should be based on an individual's circumstances, values and desires. Just like many things in life. To me, it's no different than "should I smoke a cigarette?" or "should I drink on the weekends." Sure none of that stuff is particularly good for you, and pornography is definitely far less harmful than both of them. But they're all things that are a large part of human life, across all cultures and are engaged in with relative safety on a daily basis worldwide. Sometimes it results in tragedy, but that's no reason to deny it from everyone. | it's a personal decision like everything else. The less you view it as a danger, the less dangerous it becomes. |
Miotoss | I can see both sides, I can see how one is a deeply held belief, and the other is how they were born as humans.
I believe people should be open and honest who they are and what they believe. I dont believe in shamming people for thinking differently. It only leads to closet bigotry which is much worse than out in the open bigotry.
tldr: let people be dicks, than we know who they are. | I can see both sides, I can see how one is a deeply held belief, and the other is how they were born as humans.
I believe people should be open and honest who they are and what they believe. I dont believe in shamming people for thinking differently. It only leads to closet bigotry which is much worse than out in the open bigotry.
tldr: let people be dicks, than we know who they are.
| news | t5_2qh3l | cq1e8eu | I can see both sides, I can see how one is a deeply held belief, and the other is how they were born as humans.
I believe people should be open and honest who they are and what they believe. I dont believe in shamming people for thinking differently. It only leads to closet bigotry which is much worse than out in the open bigotry. | let people be dicks, than we know who they are. |
toast_disaster | After reading a few of the top comments I realize my story might not fit in, but I would still like to tell it to give a different perspective on a complex issue.
I have a brother who is not quite two years older than me. We never got along, and I would follow that up with the phrase 'as siblings do', except it wasn't. For most of my life until I was 14 he made my life a living hell. He knew all my buttons and pushed them relentlessly, but if I ever became upset or was caught arguing with him, my mother would blame me for it. I never understood why, but quickly learned it was easier to hide from him than anything else. Thus, the back of my bedroom door became a constant feature of my life.
The truth is that I knew next to nothing about my brothers conditions. My parents confided nothing in me, in an attempt to shelter me from him. All I knew was that my parents were struggling to pay the bills for his therapy, his medication, and special schooling and tutoring. A self-abnegating streak that i got from my mother made me very independent. Behind my closed bedroom door I figured out any problems I had. I saw the pain and stress my brothers challenges cause the rest of the family, and so sheltered them from all of mine. Im still sort of processing how this exact bit has effected me.
Skip ahead 5 years during which I left home for boarding school, then university, and all the pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together. I am learning a little more about my brothers conditions as well as about myself, and the more I learn the more i realize that my brother and I are the exact same person. He had adhd, dyslexia, depression and anxiety. Years later, I am being diagnosed with all the same things, but without the years of therapy under my belt that he has. My brother was older, so my parents recognized he had problems first, and then when I seemed fine my parents thought nothing of it and had no clue what was happening to me behind that closed bedroom door (years of self harm, attempted suicides, eating disorders, and ingrained dedication to solitude and abnegation).
I used to pity my brother, grateful I was not as bad off as he is, needing therapy and to place all his problems on the overladen shoulders of my parents. But the conditions he was suffering from were hereditary, and my parents were warned of this, but for reasons i have not yet determined, I never got therapy, I never got anti depressants, and I never got a shoulder to cry on.
Edit: TLDR: Parents, be warned if one of your children suffers from a hereditary mental illness or handicap, that the others may be suffering as well. | After reading a few of the top comments I realize my story might not fit in, but I would still like to tell it to give a different perspective on a complex issue.
I have a brother who is not quite two years older than me. We never got along, and I would follow that up with the phrase 'as siblings do', except it wasn't. For most of my life until I was 14 he made my life a living hell. He knew all my buttons and pushed them relentlessly, but if I ever became upset or was caught arguing with him, my mother would blame me for it. I never understood why, but quickly learned it was easier to hide from him than anything else. Thus, the back of my bedroom door became a constant feature of my life.
The truth is that I knew next to nothing about my brothers conditions. My parents confided nothing in me, in an attempt to shelter me from him. All I knew was that my parents were struggling to pay the bills for his therapy, his medication, and special schooling and tutoring. A self-abnegating streak that i got from my mother made me very independent. Behind my closed bedroom door I figured out any problems I had. I saw the pain and stress my brothers challenges cause the rest of the family, and so sheltered them from all of mine. Im still sort of processing how this exact bit has effected me.
Skip ahead 5 years during which I left home for boarding school, then university, and all the pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together. I am learning a little more about my brothers conditions as well as about myself, and the more I learn the more i realize that my brother and I are the exact same person. He had adhd, dyslexia, depression and anxiety. Years later, I am being diagnosed with all the same things, but without the years of therapy under my belt that he has. My brother was older, so my parents recognized he had problems first, and then when I seemed fine my parents thought nothing of it and had no clue what was happening to me behind that closed bedroom door (years of self harm, attempted suicides, eating disorders, and ingrained dedication to solitude and abnegation).
I used to pity my brother, grateful I was not as bad off as he is, needing therapy and to place all his problems on the overladen shoulders of my parents. But the conditions he was suffering from were hereditary, and my parents were warned of this, but for reasons i have not yet determined, I never got therapy, I never got anti depressants, and I never got a shoulder to cry on.
Edit: TLDR: Parents, be warned if one of your children suffers from a hereditary mental illness or handicap, that the others may be suffering as well.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq21678 | After reading a few of the top comments I realize my story might not fit in, but I would still like to tell it to give a different perspective on a complex issue.
I have a brother who is not quite two years older than me. We never got along, and I would follow that up with the phrase 'as siblings do', except it wasn't. For most of my life until I was 14 he made my life a living hell. He knew all my buttons and pushed them relentlessly, but if I ever became upset or was caught arguing with him, my mother would blame me for it. I never understood why, but quickly learned it was easier to hide from him than anything else. Thus, the back of my bedroom door became a constant feature of my life.
The truth is that I knew next to nothing about my brothers conditions. My parents confided nothing in me, in an attempt to shelter me from him. All I knew was that my parents were struggling to pay the bills for his therapy, his medication, and special schooling and tutoring. A self-abnegating streak that i got from my mother made me very independent. Behind my closed bedroom door I figured out any problems I had. I saw the pain and stress my brothers challenges cause the rest of the family, and so sheltered them from all of mine. Im still sort of processing how this exact bit has effected me.
Skip ahead 5 years during which I left home for boarding school, then university, and all the pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together. I am learning a little more about my brothers conditions as well as about myself, and the more I learn the more i realize that my brother and I are the exact same person. He had adhd, dyslexia, depression and anxiety. Years later, I am being diagnosed with all the same things, but without the years of therapy under my belt that he has. My brother was older, so my parents recognized he had problems first, and then when I seemed fine my parents thought nothing of it and had no clue what was happening to me behind that closed bedroom door (years of self harm, attempted suicides, eating disorders, and ingrained dedication to solitude and abnegation).
I used to pity my brother, grateful I was not as bad off as he is, needing therapy and to place all his problems on the overladen shoulders of my parents. But the conditions he was suffering from were hereditary, and my parents were warned of this, but for reasons i have not yet determined, I never got therapy, I never got anti depressants, and I never got a shoulder to cry on.
Edit: | Parents, be warned if one of your children suffers from a hereditary mental illness or handicap, that the others may be suffering as well. |
Tired-Swine | This is a bit long, but read it if you're looking for an honest answer with detail.
I'm the oldest of four kids. The youngest one is autistic.
Thhe best things? That's what you try and see, the best things, but theres really not many great things that come along with it. I'm 23, he's turning 14 in June, though he looks like he's maybe 8-10 because he is malnourished and eats nearly nothing other than processed carbs or sugars. Sometimes he'll eat other things happily, but most of the time it's an hour long battle at *least* to get him to eat one piece of broccoli. So he's pretty on the small side/looks real young.
Growing up with him, it was interesting. You don't really *know* what autism means for you or your family or for him or for the dude standing next to you in line at the store until you realize it in that very moment. You never really expect some kid to come up to your table at a restaurant and snatch your burger off your plate and walk away. Autism is something that I had to learn over years and years of dealing with it and watching it do it's thing. There was times where my family would take turns staying by his door each night, all night, telling him to go back to bed, because if we didn't, he may run away (which he had done, several times).
It makes everythign 110% more difficult. You know slumber parties? Yeah, those were fun, when your friends wouldn't know what the fuck was going on and would leave, not come back, or make fun of him. When you have to explain to every person you meet that you have an autistic brother if they're ever going to meet your family, that gets old.
You wanna go to the store? Okay, who's going? Is Ben going? Who's going to watch him if he's not? Is he okay to go to the store right now? Which store? What day is it? Sunday? Nah, way too many people. DO we have the money to buy him something if it means we can sleep that night? Will it even matter? It's a constant onslaught of questioning things. Things you never think about if you don't have to take care of an autistic person every day of your life.
I'll still do this, when I ask a friend what they did last night, and I hear "Oh you know, had a beer, watched a movie, jacked off, went on a walk, etc" and I just sit there and think "holy shit. During that entire time he/she probably wasn't thinking about who's watching their autistic brother, or what he's doing, or if the person taking care of him isn't about to go into a psychotic break"
It really takes a toll on your psyche. He's low functioning, so he's never going to be able to leave, get a job, graduate high school like a normal student and apply to college, get a girlfriend or boyfriend, get married, have kids, etc. Any opportunity a normal functioning person has, he has less than half of that. And not only does he have so little, my parents will have to take care of him until they can't. Every decision they've made within the past 14 years has most certainly had the influence of an autistic person in their life. My father went through some depression, which was certainly partly due to Ben and his disability. My mother's anger issues went rampant when Ben got to his worse. Basically, my family has been dysfunctional/functional off and on since he was born. He's also violent, which si just not going to fair well in a year or two here. When he's pissed off and pounds and hits and kicks everything in sight while the blood curtling screaming has got your nerves wrecked and you're shaking, and he walks out and kicks you in the nuts (yes, literally) it's really not a good time. All the while you want to smack him back but know you can't, and then wondering if the neighbors are going to call child protection services because it sounds like you're beating the fuck out of this little kid. But they just don't know.
We got into a program through our county that allows him to get in-home support roughly 40 hours a week +respite for a decent wage. Guess who that Person Support Worker is? Me! Yeah, I worked for another person with autism a few years back who was actually lower functioning than my brother is. I quit that job as it became far too stressful (Lower functioning, and epileptic) and I was working upwards of 60 hours per week. I went home and my parents hired me to take after Ben and now We're finally in a program where I get paid for the work I actually do. It works out well for the family, we all get along pretty well, and no one will do this job better than I will because I have the experience, and he's my little bro, so we get each other.
Now I feel like I've only been focusing on the bad, but that's so easy to do. He is still a person, he's got a personality, he's a funny dude. He loves to copy my actions, I hate it when anyone else does it, but when he does I love it. It's a tiny window into what my little brother might be like if he wasn't afflicted with this terrible dysfunction. He makes jokes sometimes, he laughs with me, gives me hugs, etc. He messages me on his little ipod a couple times a day through google hangouts. He's a cool guy, and enjoyable to be around for the most part. I hope he gets better. Puberty is supposedly the worst for autistic persons.
I want my folks to be able to chill the fuck out without him, or any of us really. Unlikely, but you gotta think about it from time to time. I don't know that when my parents can't care for him anymore, if I'm going to. I don't even know if I want to have kids, partially due to the fact that if I had an autistic child, I would literally contemplate suicide. Irrational, but goddamn. I do not want to ever do that more than I have been.
Do I get mad sometimes? Yeah, often. It's all so unfair, to everybody, especially him. Either way, he's my little brother, and I love him, just the same as the other two. It's a constant every day battle, you go into every day not knowing what will happen or for how long. Some days my job is easy, where I sit and mess around with music on my laptop. Some days I'm stopping him from smacking his face against the wall repeatedly, nearly giving himself a concussion because he can't eat the entire tub of ice cream, or we can't take Amtrak from Portland to Chicago.
I guess one great thing I've taken out of this is that, I've learned what it's like to be in that weird minority, where you meet someone, something they have is different, or sucks. I'm sorta in that now, I have been. It's that thing that people say things like "Oh that must be so hard for you. I'm sorry" or "yeah I get it man, shit sucks." No, you don't fucking get it. If you got it you wouldn't even be saying that. It's taught me a hell of a lot of patience, that's for sure. I almost never think someone is just *weird* now. I do live in a city so theres that, yeah, but I can sniff out developmental disabilities like a hound now, and it's actually allowed me to help people that I see are having issues. Last but not least, I understand how fortunate I am to be a functioning person wit my fair share to an average life just as anybody else.
As for me, well, I do enjoy this line of work, but I am getting burnt out on it. My current patient is my brother, and that makes the job easier at times. He's my little bro, I'm his favorite, and I've got his back.
TLDR: Read that shit. | This is a bit long, but read it if you're looking for an honest answer with detail.
I'm the oldest of four kids. The youngest one is autistic.
Thhe best things? That's what you try and see, the best things, but theres really not many great things that come along with it. I'm 23, he's turning 14 in June, though he looks like he's maybe 8-10 because he is malnourished and eats nearly nothing other than processed carbs or sugars. Sometimes he'll eat other things happily, but most of the time it's an hour long battle at least to get him to eat one piece of broccoli. So he's pretty on the small side/looks real young.
Growing up with him, it was interesting. You don't really know what autism means for you or your family or for him or for the dude standing next to you in line at the store until you realize it in that very moment. You never really expect some kid to come up to your table at a restaurant and snatch your burger off your plate and walk away. Autism is something that I had to learn over years and years of dealing with it and watching it do it's thing. There was times where my family would take turns staying by his door each night, all night, telling him to go back to bed, because if we didn't, he may run away (which he had done, several times).
It makes everythign 110% more difficult. You know slumber parties? Yeah, those were fun, when your friends wouldn't know what the fuck was going on and would leave, not come back, or make fun of him. When you have to explain to every person you meet that you have an autistic brother if they're ever going to meet your family, that gets old.
You wanna go to the store? Okay, who's going? Is Ben going? Who's going to watch him if he's not? Is he okay to go to the store right now? Which store? What day is it? Sunday? Nah, way too many people. DO we have the money to buy him something if it means we can sleep that night? Will it even matter? It's a constant onslaught of questioning things. Things you never think about if you don't have to take care of an autistic person every day of your life.
I'll still do this, when I ask a friend what they did last night, and I hear "Oh you know, had a beer, watched a movie, jacked off, went on a walk, etc" and I just sit there and think "holy shit. During that entire time he/she probably wasn't thinking about who's watching their autistic brother, or what he's doing, or if the person taking care of him isn't about to go into a psychotic break"
It really takes a toll on your psyche. He's low functioning, so he's never going to be able to leave, get a job, graduate high school like a normal student and apply to college, get a girlfriend or boyfriend, get married, have kids, etc. Any opportunity a normal functioning person has, he has less than half of that. And not only does he have so little, my parents will have to take care of him until they can't. Every decision they've made within the past 14 years has most certainly had the influence of an autistic person in their life. My father went through some depression, which was certainly partly due to Ben and his disability. My mother's anger issues went rampant when Ben got to his worse. Basically, my family has been dysfunctional/functional off and on since he was born. He's also violent, which si just not going to fair well in a year or two here. When he's pissed off and pounds and hits and kicks everything in sight while the blood curtling screaming has got your nerves wrecked and you're shaking, and he walks out and kicks you in the nuts (yes, literally) it's really not a good time. All the while you want to smack him back but know you can't, and then wondering if the neighbors are going to call child protection services because it sounds like you're beating the fuck out of this little kid. But they just don't know.
We got into a program through our county that allows him to get in-home support roughly 40 hours a week +respite for a decent wage. Guess who that Person Support Worker is? Me! Yeah, I worked for another person with autism a few years back who was actually lower functioning than my brother is. I quit that job as it became far too stressful (Lower functioning, and epileptic) and I was working upwards of 60 hours per week. I went home and my parents hired me to take after Ben and now We're finally in a program where I get paid for the work I actually do. It works out well for the family, we all get along pretty well, and no one will do this job better than I will because I have the experience, and he's my little bro, so we get each other.
Now I feel like I've only been focusing on the bad, but that's so easy to do. He is still a person, he's got a personality, he's a funny dude. He loves to copy my actions, I hate it when anyone else does it, but when he does I love it. It's a tiny window into what my little brother might be like if he wasn't afflicted with this terrible dysfunction. He makes jokes sometimes, he laughs with me, gives me hugs, etc. He messages me on his little ipod a couple times a day through google hangouts. He's a cool guy, and enjoyable to be around for the most part. I hope he gets better. Puberty is supposedly the worst for autistic persons.
I want my folks to be able to chill the fuck out without him, or any of us really. Unlikely, but you gotta think about it from time to time. I don't know that when my parents can't care for him anymore, if I'm going to. I don't even know if I want to have kids, partially due to the fact that if I had an autistic child, I would literally contemplate suicide. Irrational, but goddamn. I do not want to ever do that more than I have been.
Do I get mad sometimes? Yeah, often. It's all so unfair, to everybody, especially him. Either way, he's my little brother, and I love him, just the same as the other two. It's a constant every day battle, you go into every day not knowing what will happen or for how long. Some days my job is easy, where I sit and mess around with music on my laptop. Some days I'm stopping him from smacking his face against the wall repeatedly, nearly giving himself a concussion because he can't eat the entire tub of ice cream, or we can't take Amtrak from Portland to Chicago.
I guess one great thing I've taken out of this is that, I've learned what it's like to be in that weird minority, where you meet someone, something they have is different, or sucks. I'm sorta in that now, I have been. It's that thing that people say things like "Oh that must be so hard for you. I'm sorry" or "yeah I get it man, shit sucks." No, you don't fucking get it. If you got it you wouldn't even be saying that. It's taught me a hell of a lot of patience, that's for sure. I almost never think someone is just weird now. I do live in a city so theres that, yeah, but I can sniff out developmental disabilities like a hound now, and it's actually allowed me to help people that I see are having issues. Last but not least, I understand how fortunate I am to be a functioning person wit my fair share to an average life just as anybody else.
As for me, well, I do enjoy this line of work, but I am getting burnt out on it. My current patient is my brother, and that makes the job easier at times. He's my little bro, I'm his favorite, and I've got his back.
TLDR: Read that shit.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq276qn | This is a bit long, but read it if you're looking for an honest answer with detail.
I'm the oldest of four kids. The youngest one is autistic.
Thhe best things? That's what you try and see, the best things, but theres really not many great things that come along with it. I'm 23, he's turning 14 in June, though he looks like he's maybe 8-10 because he is malnourished and eats nearly nothing other than processed carbs or sugars. Sometimes he'll eat other things happily, but most of the time it's an hour long battle at least to get him to eat one piece of broccoli. So he's pretty on the small side/looks real young.
Growing up with him, it was interesting. You don't really know what autism means for you or your family or for him or for the dude standing next to you in line at the store until you realize it in that very moment. You never really expect some kid to come up to your table at a restaurant and snatch your burger off your plate and walk away. Autism is something that I had to learn over years and years of dealing with it and watching it do it's thing. There was times where my family would take turns staying by his door each night, all night, telling him to go back to bed, because if we didn't, he may run away (which he had done, several times).
It makes everythign 110% more difficult. You know slumber parties? Yeah, those were fun, when your friends wouldn't know what the fuck was going on and would leave, not come back, or make fun of him. When you have to explain to every person you meet that you have an autistic brother if they're ever going to meet your family, that gets old.
You wanna go to the store? Okay, who's going? Is Ben going? Who's going to watch him if he's not? Is he okay to go to the store right now? Which store? What day is it? Sunday? Nah, way too many people. DO we have the money to buy him something if it means we can sleep that night? Will it even matter? It's a constant onslaught of questioning things. Things you never think about if you don't have to take care of an autistic person every day of your life.
I'll still do this, when I ask a friend what they did last night, and I hear "Oh you know, had a beer, watched a movie, jacked off, went on a walk, etc" and I just sit there and think "holy shit. During that entire time he/she probably wasn't thinking about who's watching their autistic brother, or what he's doing, or if the person taking care of him isn't about to go into a psychotic break"
It really takes a toll on your psyche. He's low functioning, so he's never going to be able to leave, get a job, graduate high school like a normal student and apply to college, get a girlfriend or boyfriend, get married, have kids, etc. Any opportunity a normal functioning person has, he has less than half of that. And not only does he have so little, my parents will have to take care of him until they can't. Every decision they've made within the past 14 years has most certainly had the influence of an autistic person in their life. My father went through some depression, which was certainly partly due to Ben and his disability. My mother's anger issues went rampant when Ben got to his worse. Basically, my family has been dysfunctional/functional off and on since he was born. He's also violent, which si just not going to fair well in a year or two here. When he's pissed off and pounds and hits and kicks everything in sight while the blood curtling screaming has got your nerves wrecked and you're shaking, and he walks out and kicks you in the nuts (yes, literally) it's really not a good time. All the while you want to smack him back but know you can't, and then wondering if the neighbors are going to call child protection services because it sounds like you're beating the fuck out of this little kid. But they just don't know.
We got into a program through our county that allows him to get in-home support roughly 40 hours a week +respite for a decent wage. Guess who that Person Support Worker is? Me! Yeah, I worked for another person with autism a few years back who was actually lower functioning than my brother is. I quit that job as it became far too stressful (Lower functioning, and epileptic) and I was working upwards of 60 hours per week. I went home and my parents hired me to take after Ben and now We're finally in a program where I get paid for the work I actually do. It works out well for the family, we all get along pretty well, and no one will do this job better than I will because I have the experience, and he's my little bro, so we get each other.
Now I feel like I've only been focusing on the bad, but that's so easy to do. He is still a person, he's got a personality, he's a funny dude. He loves to copy my actions, I hate it when anyone else does it, but when he does I love it. It's a tiny window into what my little brother might be like if he wasn't afflicted with this terrible dysfunction. He makes jokes sometimes, he laughs with me, gives me hugs, etc. He messages me on his little ipod a couple times a day through google hangouts. He's a cool guy, and enjoyable to be around for the most part. I hope he gets better. Puberty is supposedly the worst for autistic persons.
I want my folks to be able to chill the fuck out without him, or any of us really. Unlikely, but you gotta think about it from time to time. I don't know that when my parents can't care for him anymore, if I'm going to. I don't even know if I want to have kids, partially due to the fact that if I had an autistic child, I would literally contemplate suicide. Irrational, but goddamn. I do not want to ever do that more than I have been.
Do I get mad sometimes? Yeah, often. It's all so unfair, to everybody, especially him. Either way, he's my little brother, and I love him, just the same as the other two. It's a constant every day battle, you go into every day not knowing what will happen or for how long. Some days my job is easy, where I sit and mess around with music on my laptop. Some days I'm stopping him from smacking his face against the wall repeatedly, nearly giving himself a concussion because he can't eat the entire tub of ice cream, or we can't take Amtrak from Portland to Chicago.
I guess one great thing I've taken out of this is that, I've learned what it's like to be in that weird minority, where you meet someone, something they have is different, or sucks. I'm sorta in that now, I have been. It's that thing that people say things like "Oh that must be so hard for you. I'm sorry" or "yeah I get it man, shit sucks." No, you don't fucking get it. If you got it you wouldn't even be saying that. It's taught me a hell of a lot of patience, that's for sure. I almost never think someone is just weird now. I do live in a city so theres that, yeah, but I can sniff out developmental disabilities like a hound now, and it's actually allowed me to help people that I see are having issues. Last but not least, I understand how fortunate I am to be a functioning person wit my fair share to an average life just as anybody else.
As for me, well, I do enjoy this line of work, but I am getting burnt out on it. My current patient is my brother, and that makes the job easier at times. He's my little bro, I'm his favorite, and I've got his back. | Read that shit. |
qwertykitty | My mother's brother is disabled, so we're about to deal with this situation, but I'm seeing it from your kids point of view. Please place her in a home. the thought of having my uncle completely take over all my mom's time terrifies me. I need my mom and my normal home situation. I need it. It's going to be a big change for my uncle when my grandfather can't take care of him anymore no matter where he goes. In a home he'll be more able to feel normal, and he'll be free from the guilt of being a burden and be able to make friends. (he has mental age of about 8, can read children's books and play video games, but also has physical handicaps and can't take care of himself).
TL;DR put your own marriage and children first. It's only best for your sibling if it's also what's best for your family. | My mother's brother is disabled, so we're about to deal with this situation, but I'm seeing it from your kids point of view. Please place her in a home. the thought of having my uncle completely take over all my mom's time terrifies me. I need my mom and my normal home situation. I need it. It's going to be a big change for my uncle when my grandfather can't take care of him anymore no matter where he goes. In a home he'll be more able to feel normal, and he'll be free from the guilt of being a burden and be able to make friends. (he has mental age of about 8, can read children's books and play video games, but also has physical handicaps and can't take care of himself).
TL;DR put your own marriage and children first. It's only best for your sibling if it's also what's best for your family.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq2dxnu | My mother's brother is disabled, so we're about to deal with this situation, but I'm seeing it from your kids point of view. Please place her in a home. the thought of having my uncle completely take over all my mom's time terrifies me. I need my mom and my normal home situation. I need it. It's going to be a big change for my uncle when my grandfather can't take care of him anymore no matter where he goes. In a home he'll be more able to feel normal, and he'll be free from the guilt of being a burden and be able to make friends. (he has mental age of about 8, can read children's books and play video games, but also has physical handicaps and can't take care of himself). | put your own marriage and children first. It's only best for your sibling if it's also what's best for your family. |
laughingbat | Seconded! I had a relative who lived at a place that sounds a lot like this once she moved out. It's a set of apartment buildings, and the residents had case workers and nurses, who I'm pretty sure were there 24/7 also, and they were allowed to visit family and had rides there provided, allowed to get their own jobs, and her parents/caretaker were notified of her health and any other important events. It made it very nice and pleasant for us to visit her. The aides were always nice and courteous to both her and her visitors, and made sure she took her meds regularly, etc. She often didn't really want to come home for very long during the holidays, since it was more fun there, lol. She was proud of having her own apartment and job, and we know she's safe. All in all it was pretty a good option for everyone.
TL;DR: Not sure what type of facility this is but it's a great idea under the right conditions. | Seconded! I had a relative who lived at a place that sounds a lot like this once she moved out. It's a set of apartment buildings, and the residents had case workers and nurses, who I'm pretty sure were there 24/7 also, and they were allowed to visit family and had rides there provided, allowed to get their own jobs, and her parents/caretaker were notified of her health and any other important events. It made it very nice and pleasant for us to visit her. The aides were always nice and courteous to both her and her visitors, and made sure she took her meds regularly, etc. She often didn't really want to come home for very long during the holidays, since it was more fun there, lol. She was proud of having her own apartment and job, and we know she's safe. All in all it was pretty a good option for everyone.
TL;DR: Not sure what type of facility this is but it's a great idea under the right conditions.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq2e8av | Seconded! I had a relative who lived at a place that sounds a lot like this once she moved out. It's a set of apartment buildings, and the residents had case workers and nurses, who I'm pretty sure were there 24/7 also, and they were allowed to visit family and had rides there provided, allowed to get their own jobs, and her parents/caretaker were notified of her health and any other important events. It made it very nice and pleasant for us to visit her. The aides were always nice and courteous to both her and her visitors, and made sure she took her meds regularly, etc. She often didn't really want to come home for very long during the holidays, since it was more fun there, lol. She was proud of having her own apartment and job, and we know she's safe. All in all it was pretty a good option for everyone. | Not sure what type of facility this is but it's a great idea under the right conditions. |
avaflava1 | Forgive any errors, I'm on mobile and this will probably be long.
My twin brother and I are 15. We were born at 25 weeks, so my brother has some complications from that. Nothing physical (aside from bad eyesight, but that's not really significant), but we don't really know what's "wrong" with him. He's been misdiagnosed with many different things (bipolar disorder, adhd, etc.), but we don't know.
With that said: growing up I know that he was different because he took medication every day and I didn't, but I never really registered it because he had always been like that, that was normal for him. I would see other kids give him funny looks for being weird and he would get upset over little things that I wouldn't. But that was just how he was and I never thought anything of it.
He always had more attention than I did, which bothered me a lot up until a few years ago, but at the same time I understood that he needed it, even though I would've liked to have my family notice me a bit more.
I'll add more later if anyone is interested, because again, I'm on mobile and my thumbs are starting to hurt.
TL;DR My twin brother has mental problems, and it's effected me a lot, but at the same time it sort of hasn't. | Forgive any errors, I'm on mobile and this will probably be long.
My twin brother and I are 15. We were born at 25 weeks, so my brother has some complications from that. Nothing physical (aside from bad eyesight, but that's not really significant), but we don't really know what's "wrong" with him. He's been misdiagnosed with many different things (bipolar disorder, adhd, etc.), but we don't know.
With that said: growing up I know that he was different because he took medication every day and I didn't, but I never really registered it because he had always been like that, that was normal for him. I would see other kids give him funny looks for being weird and he would get upset over little things that I wouldn't. But that was just how he was and I never thought anything of it.
He always had more attention than I did, which bothered me a lot up until a few years ago, but at the same time I understood that he needed it, even though I would've liked to have my family notice me a bit more.
I'll add more later if anyone is interested, because again, I'm on mobile and my thumbs are starting to hurt.
TL;DR My twin brother has mental problems, and it's effected me a lot, but at the same time it sort of hasn't.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq2llab | Forgive any errors, I'm on mobile and this will probably be long.
My twin brother and I are 15. We were born at 25 weeks, so my brother has some complications from that. Nothing physical (aside from bad eyesight, but that's not really significant), but we don't really know what's "wrong" with him. He's been misdiagnosed with many different things (bipolar disorder, adhd, etc.), but we don't know.
With that said: growing up I know that he was different because he took medication every day and I didn't, but I never really registered it because he had always been like that, that was normal for him. I would see other kids give him funny looks for being weird and he would get upset over little things that I wouldn't. But that was just how he was and I never thought anything of it.
He always had more attention than I did, which bothered me a lot up until a few years ago, but at the same time I understood that he needed it, even though I would've liked to have my family notice me a bit more.
I'll add more later if anyone is interested, because again, I'm on mobile and my thumbs are starting to hurt. | My twin brother has mental problems, and it's effected me a lot, but at the same time it sort of hasn't. |
abe-solotely-social | My older sister is autistic.
It was strange as a child, because I never really understood why she spoke the way she spoke or acted the way she acted. Up until I was 7/8 years old I never really interacted with her because I didn't know how to. Over time I became more aware, and now I hold a lot of responsibility for her. Freshman year of high school my brother left for college, and with my parents running a small business they're always gone from morning to evening. I was blindsided with responsibility because being home alone with her left me as her caretaker.
I know my tone makes it sound otherwise, but make no mistake I enjoy every day I spend with her. No matter what happens at school, no matter how few minutes of playing time I got in the soccer game, no matter how mad my parents were-- every time I walked through my front door she'd light up my day with a "Hi /u/abe-solotely-social!". Anger and sadness is foreign to her, and she's just so graceful to be around. If I'm ever sad, she says "what's the matter?" even though she wouldn't understand. A lot of what she says, she takes from movies and TV shows. It's amazing because she'll use the quotes in the right situations that match the film. Also, she has this amazing talent of memorizing everyone's birthdays. You tell her your birthday once, she'll remember it. There's so much more--she's the light of my family.
**TLDR** Worst: Honestly it's not even a negative effect, because it's bettered me as a person. Just increased responsibility has taken away from my social life/potential, but I don't regret it.
Best: She's the best sister I could ever ask for. | My older sister is autistic.
It was strange as a child, because I never really understood why she spoke the way she spoke or acted the way she acted. Up until I was 7/8 years old I never really interacted with her because I didn't know how to. Over time I became more aware, and now I hold a lot of responsibility for her. Freshman year of high school my brother left for college, and with my parents running a small business they're always gone from morning to evening. I was blindsided with responsibility because being home alone with her left me as her caretaker.
I know my tone makes it sound otherwise, but make no mistake I enjoy every day I spend with her. No matter what happens at school, no matter how few minutes of playing time I got in the soccer game, no matter how mad my parents were-- every time I walked through my front door she'd light up my day with a "Hi /u/abe-solotely-social!". Anger and sadness is foreign to her, and she's just so graceful to be around. If I'm ever sad, she says "what's the matter?" even though she wouldn't understand. A lot of what she says, she takes from movies and TV shows. It's amazing because she'll use the quotes in the right situations that match the film. Also, she has this amazing talent of memorizing everyone's birthdays. You tell her your birthday once, she'll remember it. There's so much more--she's the light of my family.
TLDR Worst: Honestly it's not even a negative effect, because it's bettered me as a person. Just increased responsibility has taken away from my social life/potential, but I don't regret it.
Best: She's the best sister I could ever ask for.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq2n4hq | My older sister is autistic.
It was strange as a child, because I never really understood why she spoke the way she spoke or acted the way she acted. Up until I was 7/8 years old I never really interacted with her because I didn't know how to. Over time I became more aware, and now I hold a lot of responsibility for her. Freshman year of high school my brother left for college, and with my parents running a small business they're always gone from morning to evening. I was blindsided with responsibility because being home alone with her left me as her caretaker.
I know my tone makes it sound otherwise, but make no mistake I enjoy every day I spend with her. No matter what happens at school, no matter how few minutes of playing time I got in the soccer game, no matter how mad my parents were-- every time I walked through my front door she'd light up my day with a "Hi /u/abe-solotely-social!". Anger and sadness is foreign to her, and she's just so graceful to be around. If I'm ever sad, she says "what's the matter?" even though she wouldn't understand. A lot of what she says, she takes from movies and TV shows. It's amazing because she'll use the quotes in the right situations that match the film. Also, she has this amazing talent of memorizing everyone's birthdays. You tell her your birthday once, she'll remember it. There's so much more--she's the light of my family. | Worst: Honestly it's not even a negative effect, because it's bettered me as a person. Just increased responsibility has taken away from my social life/potential, but I don't regret it.
Best: She's the best sister I could ever ask for. |
KnownSoldier04 | I'm most likely late, but I'll give it a try
When we were kids I feared him, he has asperger's or some kind of autism, I'm not really sure if asperger's is a valid diagnosis anymore.
Anyway, I feared him, we fought constantly to dangerous extremes. He had no restraint so often he would have this rage in his eyes, that at least in my young naïveté (I hope!) made me fear for my life. I hated and feared him. Once I was so scared that I had to resort to using big spray as impromptu mace. Glad I didn't cause him any injury. The scary part was that after spraying his face, he kept coming at me with more rage, so I kept spraying.
He is 20 months younger than me, so not much of a size difference most of the time.
Well, when we both hit puberty, my parents were more aware of what was wrong with him (yes, I said it because as I remember it was borderline psychopathic behavior) so they got him help, and then came a period of calm, like the phony war, where neither of us did anything but still resented each other a lot. Eventually we grew out of it and I love him. He's no longer violent, unless provoked, which no one ever does because he's like 3 cm short of 2 m. We talk regularly cUse we share a room and it has taught me patience and non-violence are very important traits in human relationships.
Nowadays, what hurts me the most is that he is borderline retarded too. Like the mind of a 12 year old, so he wants to do adult stuff like go to college, drive, date someone, but he is just not there mentally.
TL;DR: hated him, then resented him then loved him. | I'm most likely late, but I'll give it a try
When we were kids I feared him, he has asperger's or some kind of autism, I'm not really sure if asperger's is a valid diagnosis anymore.
Anyway, I feared him, we fought constantly to dangerous extremes. He had no restraint so often he would have this rage in his eyes, that at least in my young naïveté (I hope!) made me fear for my life. I hated and feared him. Once I was so scared that I had to resort to using big spray as impromptu mace. Glad I didn't cause him any injury. The scary part was that after spraying his face, he kept coming at me with more rage, so I kept spraying.
He is 20 months younger than me, so not much of a size difference most of the time.
Well, when we both hit puberty, my parents were more aware of what was wrong with him (yes, I said it because as I remember it was borderline psychopathic behavior) so they got him help, and then came a period of calm, like the phony war, where neither of us did anything but still resented each other a lot. Eventually we grew out of it and I love him. He's no longer violent, unless provoked, which no one ever does because he's like 3 cm short of 2 m. We talk regularly cUse we share a room and it has taught me patience and non-violence are very important traits in human relationships.
Nowadays, what hurts me the most is that he is borderline retarded too. Like the mind of a 12 year old, so he wants to do adult stuff like go to college, drive, date someone, but he is just not there mentally.
TL;DR: hated him, then resented him then loved him.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq1ywbz | I'm most likely late, but I'll give it a try
When we were kids I feared him, he has asperger's or some kind of autism, I'm not really sure if asperger's is a valid diagnosis anymore.
Anyway, I feared him, we fought constantly to dangerous extremes. He had no restraint so often he would have this rage in his eyes, that at least in my young naïveté (I hope!) made me fear for my life. I hated and feared him. Once I was so scared that I had to resort to using big spray as impromptu mace. Glad I didn't cause him any injury. The scary part was that after spraying his face, he kept coming at me with more rage, so I kept spraying.
He is 20 months younger than me, so not much of a size difference most of the time.
Well, when we both hit puberty, my parents were more aware of what was wrong with him (yes, I said it because as I remember it was borderline psychopathic behavior) so they got him help, and then came a period of calm, like the phony war, where neither of us did anything but still resented each other a lot. Eventually we grew out of it and I love him. He's no longer violent, unless provoked, which no one ever does because he's like 3 cm short of 2 m. We talk regularly cUse we share a room and it has taught me patience and non-violence are very important traits in human relationships.
Nowadays, what hurts me the most is that he is borderline retarded too. Like the mind of a 12 year old, so he wants to do adult stuff like go to college, drive, date someone, but he is just not there mentally. | hated him, then resented him then loved him. |
PhantomOfTheBroadway | I don't have a sibling with anything, I AM the sibling. I have Asperger's. I know it's not terrible, but I can't really go anywhere without freaking out from loud noises, lines and crowds. Also, I faint when accused/confronted with something. I really try to stay calm, but it's so hard. My brother can't grasp my Asperger's yet, but I hope he grows up knowing that I'm not broken. I'm not violent, more of quiet and reclusive. I like attention/affection, but if it's not my family/people I trust, I'm like "...no...".
TL;DR: Have Asperger's, very annoying. | I don't have a sibling with anything, I AM the sibling. I have Asperger's. I know it's not terrible, but I can't really go anywhere without freaking out from loud noises, lines and crowds. Also, I faint when accused/confronted with something. I really try to stay calm, but it's so hard. My brother can't grasp my Asperger's yet, but I hope he grows up knowing that I'm not broken. I'm not violent, more of quiet and reclusive. I like attention/affection, but if it's not my family/people I trust, I'm like "...no...".
TL;DR: Have Asperger's, very annoying.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq21iyp | I don't have a sibling with anything, I AM the sibling. I have Asperger's. I know it's not terrible, but I can't really go anywhere without freaking out from loud noises, lines and crowds. Also, I faint when accused/confronted with something. I really try to stay calm, but it's so hard. My brother can't grasp my Asperger's yet, but I hope he grows up knowing that I'm not broken. I'm not violent, more of quiet and reclusive. I like attention/affection, but if it's not my family/people I trust, I'm like "...no...". | Have Asperger's, very annoying. |
Aneadith | Late to the show, but here we go. This is going to be long, so buckle up. My younger sister (shes almost 19, Im 20) lived with us until I turned 18, at which point she was moved in to a group home. TBH the hardest part was probably keeping her safe. She has always had a developmental disability which caused stunted growth as well as issues with her brain development, which was heightened by the fact that she fell out of a shopping cart as a small child. She was sitting correctly with her seatbelt on, and then she unbuckled herself, stood up and leaned forward while my mom was browsing through the rack for new coats for us for school. I believe I was 5 and she was 3 at the time. She was in a medically induced coma for 3 weeks after that.
That was just some background on her, now to answer the question. In a family of 7, she was my only full sister, and because of that I always felt responsible for her. She was a handful at times, getting in to trouble by spray painting neighbors cars or stealing anything she could get her hands on from teachers at school. She would come in to my room while I slept and cut my hair. I still keep my hair long to this day because of that. She would relieve herself out the window or in different parts of her room when she was upset or didnt feel like using the toilet. I am sorry to say that I yelled at her sometimes when I was a kid. Then one day, all my sisters and I went down to the creek.
I was 15 at the time, and the only boy. We had a deep part, which went to about 8 feet deep, and nearby it shallowed to about 6 inches, where she would play with our younger sisters. I was swimming and I heard a splash from that side, and turning to look, I saw nothing but my youngest two sisters. That set off an alarm in my head, as that meant that I was missing someone. As I swam back, I saw huge bubbles come up to the surface in front of me right where the creek dropped of to the deeper part I was in. My heart sank. She was down there.
I swam as hard as I could back and started yelling for her, hoping I was wrong, hoping that she would come from behind a tree or something. I swam for where I thought I saw the bubbles and went straight down. Against all odds, I found her foot with my hands down there, in the murky dark. She wasnt moving. I turned her upright and swam back to the surface with her. I dont know if it was the bright sun, or the rocks scraping on her back as I dragged her to the surface, but she started coughing. I started crying.
After that, she followed me around like a puppy dog, and I protected her as much as I could from anything that might harm her. Then she moved to a group home in Colorado a few years back, and shes been doing awesome ever since. She plays basketball with the other clients in her company, and she's really good. I live in PA, so I dont see her often, but we speak on the phone and skype.
She gave me the compassion, patience, and empathy that I have now. I work at a group home in the area now with guys that are far worse off than she ever was, and I love every day of it because of her.
TL;DR: Why would you go to
r/askreddit and not read the answers? Come on. | Late to the show, but here we go. This is going to be long, so buckle up. My younger sister (shes almost 19, Im 20) lived with us until I turned 18, at which point she was moved in to a group home. TBH the hardest part was probably keeping her safe. She has always had a developmental disability which caused stunted growth as well as issues with her brain development, which was heightened by the fact that she fell out of a shopping cart as a small child. She was sitting correctly with her seatbelt on, and then she unbuckled herself, stood up and leaned forward while my mom was browsing through the rack for new coats for us for school. I believe I was 5 and she was 3 at the time. She was in a medically induced coma for 3 weeks after that.
That was just some background on her, now to answer the question. In a family of 7, she was my only full sister, and because of that I always felt responsible for her. She was a handful at times, getting in to trouble by spray painting neighbors cars or stealing anything she could get her hands on from teachers at school. She would come in to my room while I slept and cut my hair. I still keep my hair long to this day because of that. She would relieve herself out the window or in different parts of her room when she was upset or didnt feel like using the toilet. I am sorry to say that I yelled at her sometimes when I was a kid. Then one day, all my sisters and I went down to the creek.
I was 15 at the time, and the only boy. We had a deep part, which went to about 8 feet deep, and nearby it shallowed to about 6 inches, where she would play with our younger sisters. I was swimming and I heard a splash from that side, and turning to look, I saw nothing but my youngest two sisters. That set off an alarm in my head, as that meant that I was missing someone. As I swam back, I saw huge bubbles come up to the surface in front of me right where the creek dropped of to the deeper part I was in. My heart sank. She was down there.
I swam as hard as I could back and started yelling for her, hoping I was wrong, hoping that she would come from behind a tree or something. I swam for where I thought I saw the bubbles and went straight down. Against all odds, I found her foot with my hands down there, in the murky dark. She wasnt moving. I turned her upright and swam back to the surface with her. I dont know if it was the bright sun, or the rocks scraping on her back as I dragged her to the surface, but she started coughing. I started crying.
After that, she followed me around like a puppy dog, and I protected her as much as I could from anything that might harm her. Then she moved to a group home in Colorado a few years back, and shes been doing awesome ever since. She plays basketball with the other clients in her company, and she's really good. I live in PA, so I dont see her often, but we speak on the phone and skype.
She gave me the compassion, patience, and empathy that I have now. I work at a group home in the area now with guys that are far worse off than she ever was, and I love every day of it because of her.
TL;DR: Why would you go to
r/askreddit and not read the answers? Come on.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq23cxz | Late to the show, but here we go. This is going to be long, so buckle up. My younger sister (shes almost 19, Im 20) lived with us until I turned 18, at which point she was moved in to a group home. TBH the hardest part was probably keeping her safe. She has always had a developmental disability which caused stunted growth as well as issues with her brain development, which was heightened by the fact that she fell out of a shopping cart as a small child. She was sitting correctly with her seatbelt on, and then she unbuckled herself, stood up and leaned forward while my mom was browsing through the rack for new coats for us for school. I believe I was 5 and she was 3 at the time. She was in a medically induced coma for 3 weeks after that.
That was just some background on her, now to answer the question. In a family of 7, she was my only full sister, and because of that I always felt responsible for her. She was a handful at times, getting in to trouble by spray painting neighbors cars or stealing anything she could get her hands on from teachers at school. She would come in to my room while I slept and cut my hair. I still keep my hair long to this day because of that. She would relieve herself out the window or in different parts of her room when she was upset or didnt feel like using the toilet. I am sorry to say that I yelled at her sometimes when I was a kid. Then one day, all my sisters and I went down to the creek.
I was 15 at the time, and the only boy. We had a deep part, which went to about 8 feet deep, and nearby it shallowed to about 6 inches, where she would play with our younger sisters. I was swimming and I heard a splash from that side, and turning to look, I saw nothing but my youngest two sisters. That set off an alarm in my head, as that meant that I was missing someone. As I swam back, I saw huge bubbles come up to the surface in front of me right where the creek dropped of to the deeper part I was in. My heart sank. She was down there.
I swam as hard as I could back and started yelling for her, hoping I was wrong, hoping that she would come from behind a tree or something. I swam for where I thought I saw the bubbles and went straight down. Against all odds, I found her foot with my hands down there, in the murky dark. She wasnt moving. I turned her upright and swam back to the surface with her. I dont know if it was the bright sun, or the rocks scraping on her back as I dragged her to the surface, but she started coughing. I started crying.
After that, she followed me around like a puppy dog, and I protected her as much as I could from anything that might harm her. Then she moved to a group home in Colorado a few years back, and shes been doing awesome ever since. She plays basketball with the other clients in her company, and she's really good. I live in PA, so I dont see her often, but we speak on the phone and skype.
She gave me the compassion, patience, and empathy that I have now. I work at a group home in the area now with guys that are far worse off than she ever was, and I love every day of it because of her. | Why would you go to
r/askreddit and not read the answers? Come on. |
nleib27 | I have a brother who is 2 years older than me and has asperger's. I never realized something was wrong until I was about 8 (something like that) and I began to notice his "oddities" (for lack of a better word). I realized that the way he behaved was different than the way that most kids his age and even my age behaved, so I asked my dad and was told that he was autistic. My experience growing up with him was really jealousy because I was always jealous of the relationships my friends had with their siblings. I just couldn't relate to him no matter how much I tried. He was into sports and planes and I was into video games and theatre, and to this day we don't share interests. We were distant from each other and he was very to himself. It also made having my friends over challenging because he would always give me a hard time when I tried to have friends over. He didn't--and still doesn't--like to see them in the house so I always just tell my friends "Oh my house is small there's no place to put everyone." Even when he's at college I still find myself saying that because after so many years of not having people over, I don't even know what to do when they would come over, so I don't even bother. He's high functioning, which I'm thankful for. It's just that social situations challenge him and his comprehension skills are a bit behind others.
I really can't think of any terrible effects that his asperger's have had on my life. Sometimes I get concerned about him because he gets down on himself for having asperger's. I would say most of the "terrible" effects were when I was younger and didn't fully understand having an autistic sibling. Being treated like the older sibling while not being the older sibling kind of put me in limbo (and it still does). The jealousy is something I got over because I learned that we both care deeply about each other, we just show it in different ways than most other sibling pairs do.
As for the greatest effects, I've learned quite a bit of patience and tolerance. Because my brother struggles to make friends, I am drawn to people that tend to have very few or no friends. Most people I know would just dismiss them as annoying--and some people with no friends are, and that's WHY they have no friends. But I know that these people can feel very alone and all it takes is one person to reach out to them. It makes them feel like they have someone. Some people also call this behavior of mine "being fake" (can you tell I'm still in high school?) but I genuinely care about these people so that isn't the case.
My time with him has also taught me to turn a negative experience on its head. I'll never say "a blessing in disguise" because that is not something I believe in. I've learned a lot from my brother, but I will never say "Autism? Yeah that's a blessing." A blessing is a gift. Asperger's is not. That being said, I plan on going to college and using engineering to help the mentally and/or physically disabled. I know how challenging growing up with a disabled sibling was, and for that reason I want people in my situation to not have to go through what I have--or at least go through it with more ease.
All in all, my brother is great. I really do look up to him. He's hardworking and compassionate. Most of all, he's a great friend and he's always been good to me.
(Can't condense so no TL;DR sorry) | I have a brother who is 2 years older than me and has asperger's. I never realized something was wrong until I was about 8 (something like that) and I began to notice his "oddities" (for lack of a better word). I realized that the way he behaved was different than the way that most kids his age and even my age behaved, so I asked my dad and was told that he was autistic. My experience growing up with him was really jealousy because I was always jealous of the relationships my friends had with their siblings. I just couldn't relate to him no matter how much I tried. He was into sports and planes and I was into video games and theatre, and to this day we don't share interests. We were distant from each other and he was very to himself. It also made having my friends over challenging because he would always give me a hard time when I tried to have friends over. He didn't--and still doesn't--like to see them in the house so I always just tell my friends "Oh my house is small there's no place to put everyone." Even when he's at college I still find myself saying that because after so many years of not having people over, I don't even know what to do when they would come over, so I don't even bother. He's high functioning, which I'm thankful for. It's just that social situations challenge him and his comprehension skills are a bit behind others.
I really can't think of any terrible effects that his asperger's have had on my life. Sometimes I get concerned about him because he gets down on himself for having asperger's. I would say most of the "terrible" effects were when I was younger and didn't fully understand having an autistic sibling. Being treated like the older sibling while not being the older sibling kind of put me in limbo (and it still does). The jealousy is something I got over because I learned that we both care deeply about each other, we just show it in different ways than most other sibling pairs do.
As for the greatest effects, I've learned quite a bit of patience and tolerance. Because my brother struggles to make friends, I am drawn to people that tend to have very few or no friends. Most people I know would just dismiss them as annoying--and some people with no friends are, and that's WHY they have no friends. But I know that these people can feel very alone and all it takes is one person to reach out to them. It makes them feel like they have someone. Some people also call this behavior of mine "being fake" (can you tell I'm still in high school?) but I genuinely care about these people so that isn't the case.
My time with him has also taught me to turn a negative experience on its head. I'll never say "a blessing in disguise" because that is not something I believe in. I've learned a lot from my brother, but I will never say "Autism? Yeah that's a blessing." A blessing is a gift. Asperger's is not. That being said, I plan on going to college and using engineering to help the mentally and/or physically disabled. I know how challenging growing up with a disabled sibling was, and for that reason I want people in my situation to not have to go through what I have--or at least go through it with more ease.
All in all, my brother is great. I really do look up to him. He's hardworking and compassionate. Most of all, he's a great friend and he's always been good to me.
(Can't condense so no TL;DR sorry)
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq25g5l | I have a brother who is 2 years older than me and has asperger's. I never realized something was wrong until I was about 8 (something like that) and I began to notice his "oddities" (for lack of a better word). I realized that the way he behaved was different than the way that most kids his age and even my age behaved, so I asked my dad and was told that he was autistic. My experience growing up with him was really jealousy because I was always jealous of the relationships my friends had with their siblings. I just couldn't relate to him no matter how much I tried. He was into sports and planes and I was into video games and theatre, and to this day we don't share interests. We were distant from each other and he was very to himself. It also made having my friends over challenging because he would always give me a hard time when I tried to have friends over. He didn't--and still doesn't--like to see them in the house so I always just tell my friends "Oh my house is small there's no place to put everyone." Even when he's at college I still find myself saying that because after so many years of not having people over, I don't even know what to do when they would come over, so I don't even bother. He's high functioning, which I'm thankful for. It's just that social situations challenge him and his comprehension skills are a bit behind others.
I really can't think of any terrible effects that his asperger's have had on my life. Sometimes I get concerned about him because he gets down on himself for having asperger's. I would say most of the "terrible" effects were when I was younger and didn't fully understand having an autistic sibling. Being treated like the older sibling while not being the older sibling kind of put me in limbo (and it still does). The jealousy is something I got over because I learned that we both care deeply about each other, we just show it in different ways than most other sibling pairs do.
As for the greatest effects, I've learned quite a bit of patience and tolerance. Because my brother struggles to make friends, I am drawn to people that tend to have very few or no friends. Most people I know would just dismiss them as annoying--and some people with no friends are, and that's WHY they have no friends. But I know that these people can feel very alone and all it takes is one person to reach out to them. It makes them feel like they have someone. Some people also call this behavior of mine "being fake" (can you tell I'm still in high school?) but I genuinely care about these people so that isn't the case.
My time with him has also taught me to turn a negative experience on its head. I'll never say "a blessing in disguise" because that is not something I believe in. I've learned a lot from my brother, but I will never say "Autism? Yeah that's a blessing." A blessing is a gift. Asperger's is not. That being said, I plan on going to college and using engineering to help the mentally and/or physically disabled. I know how challenging growing up with a disabled sibling was, and for that reason I want people in my situation to not have to go through what I have--or at least go through it with more ease.
All in all, my brother is great. I really do look up to him. He's hardworking and compassionate. Most of all, he's a great friend and he's always been good to me.
(Can't condense so no | sorry) |
Entey | My younger brother by 2 years is autistic. I'd say he's about a 6 on a scale of 0 being "normal" (I hate phrasing it that way) and 10 being the extreme case. He's 18 now, and though he's definitely come out of his shell, growing up with him was tough.
When we were young I wasn't really aware of his condition and got annoyed at our parents giving him what seemed like special attention. As I got older, I got to be more understanding and protective of him, especially as kids in our school were massive dicks to him. That made me despise bullies more than anything else in the world. I even got in a few fights when others were either picking on him directly or I heard them make fun of him behind his back. He never really had friends growing up. He'd just go to school and back, him not being able to easily interact with others and nobody wanting to be with him. My friends did what they could to look out for him, but once we graduated he was well and truly alone. It saddened me to see him go through his school years basically by himself.
A common trend with autistic kids is to get really caught up in specific interests, and for my brother it was world history and Pokemon. A strange combo, I know, but he was into it so our family did what they could to make him happy. Luckily, I fucking loved Pokemon as a kid and we still play the games today. This common interest made it easier for me to communicate with him, and we're pretty close, but we've definitely had our own issues.
He's always been a momma's boy. I think it's because our mom babied him too much for too long, but I can't really blame her. The thing is that he's much less close to our dad, who he regularly tells "I HATE YOU!", "I HOPE YOU DIE!", "I WISH YOU WEREN'T MY DAD!" etc for the smallest things. Our dad's great, he's done so much for us, and I can tell that whenever my brother says stuff like that it kills him inside. To raise a kid for 18 years for them to fluctuate between loving you, being silent, and outright despising you must be harder than I can imagine. He's even acted the same way to me a few times, and it gives the worst feeling.
Now, **this part may sound awful, and I feel terrible writing it.** But having an autistic brother has made me more understanding of parents who want to give up, or even abort, children with genetic and mental handicaps. Political correctness aside, whenever I read an article about people criticising someone for not wanting to care for a handicapped child I think that they're full of shit and could never understand the hardships. My brother isn't even close to being the extreme, but I've grown up seeing my parents struggle massively. I love him with every fibre of my being, I'm not at all saying I wish he was gotten rid of. He's my boy, my bro, my homie, my reason for working hard. All I'm saying is that I can appreciate how daunting it can be for someone to find out that the child they wanted to be healthy is born with an issue that 1) Will leave the child at a disadvantage compared to others and 2) make being a parent even more difficult than normal.
I know that autism is genetic, and as a result I have a higher chance of having an autistic child. Honestly, I don't think I could raise one if their's was more severe than my brothers. I feel awful typing that, but it's true.
**TL;DR**:
* Younger autistic bro
* Love him, hate bullies
* Flips between happy, silent, and telling my dad and I that he hates us
* Has made me slightly sympathetic to parents not wanting to raise handicapped children
| My younger brother by 2 years is autistic. I'd say he's about a 6 on a scale of 0 being "normal" (I hate phrasing it that way) and 10 being the extreme case. He's 18 now, and though he's definitely come out of his shell, growing up with him was tough.
When we were young I wasn't really aware of his condition and got annoyed at our parents giving him what seemed like special attention. As I got older, I got to be more understanding and protective of him, especially as kids in our school were massive dicks to him. That made me despise bullies more than anything else in the world. I even got in a few fights when others were either picking on him directly or I heard them make fun of him behind his back. He never really had friends growing up. He'd just go to school and back, him not being able to easily interact with others and nobody wanting to be with him. My friends did what they could to look out for him, but once we graduated he was well and truly alone. It saddened me to see him go through his school years basically by himself.
A common trend with autistic kids is to get really caught up in specific interests, and for my brother it was world history and Pokemon. A strange combo, I know, but he was into it so our family did what they could to make him happy. Luckily, I fucking loved Pokemon as a kid and we still play the games today. This common interest made it easier for me to communicate with him, and we're pretty close, but we've definitely had our own issues.
He's always been a momma's boy. I think it's because our mom babied him too much for too long, but I can't really blame her. The thing is that he's much less close to our dad, who he regularly tells "I HATE YOU!", "I HOPE YOU DIE!", "I WISH YOU WEREN'T MY DAD!" etc for the smallest things. Our dad's great, he's done so much for us, and I can tell that whenever my brother says stuff like that it kills him inside. To raise a kid for 18 years for them to fluctuate between loving you, being silent, and outright despising you must be harder than I can imagine. He's even acted the same way to me a few times, and it gives the worst feeling.
Now, this part may sound awful, and I feel terrible writing it. But having an autistic brother has made me more understanding of parents who want to give up, or even abort, children with genetic and mental handicaps. Political correctness aside, whenever I read an article about people criticising someone for not wanting to care for a handicapped child I think that they're full of shit and could never understand the hardships. My brother isn't even close to being the extreme, but I've grown up seeing my parents struggle massively. I love him with every fibre of my being, I'm not at all saying I wish he was gotten rid of. He's my boy, my bro, my homie, my reason for working hard. All I'm saying is that I can appreciate how daunting it can be for someone to find out that the child they wanted to be healthy is born with an issue that 1) Will leave the child at a disadvantage compared to others and 2) make being a parent even more difficult than normal.
I know that autism is genetic, and as a result I have a higher chance of having an autistic child. Honestly, I don't think I could raise one if their's was more severe than my brothers. I feel awful typing that, but it's true.
TL;DR :
Younger autistic bro
Love him, hate bullies
Flips between happy, silent, and telling my dad and I that he hates us
Has made me slightly sympathetic to parents not wanting to raise handicapped children
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq3dupv | My younger brother by 2 years is autistic. I'd say he's about a 6 on a scale of 0 being "normal" (I hate phrasing it that way) and 10 being the extreme case. He's 18 now, and though he's definitely come out of his shell, growing up with him was tough.
When we were young I wasn't really aware of his condition and got annoyed at our parents giving him what seemed like special attention. As I got older, I got to be more understanding and protective of him, especially as kids in our school were massive dicks to him. That made me despise bullies more than anything else in the world. I even got in a few fights when others were either picking on him directly or I heard them make fun of him behind his back. He never really had friends growing up. He'd just go to school and back, him not being able to easily interact with others and nobody wanting to be with him. My friends did what they could to look out for him, but once we graduated he was well and truly alone. It saddened me to see him go through his school years basically by himself.
A common trend with autistic kids is to get really caught up in specific interests, and for my brother it was world history and Pokemon. A strange combo, I know, but he was into it so our family did what they could to make him happy. Luckily, I fucking loved Pokemon as a kid and we still play the games today. This common interest made it easier for me to communicate with him, and we're pretty close, but we've definitely had our own issues.
He's always been a momma's boy. I think it's because our mom babied him too much for too long, but I can't really blame her. The thing is that he's much less close to our dad, who he regularly tells "I HATE YOU!", "I HOPE YOU DIE!", "I WISH YOU WEREN'T MY DAD!" etc for the smallest things. Our dad's great, he's done so much for us, and I can tell that whenever my brother says stuff like that it kills him inside. To raise a kid for 18 years for them to fluctuate between loving you, being silent, and outright despising you must be harder than I can imagine. He's even acted the same way to me a few times, and it gives the worst feeling.
Now, this part may sound awful, and I feel terrible writing it. But having an autistic brother has made me more understanding of parents who want to give up, or even abort, children with genetic and mental handicaps. Political correctness aside, whenever I read an article about people criticising someone for not wanting to care for a handicapped child I think that they're full of shit and could never understand the hardships. My brother isn't even close to being the extreme, but I've grown up seeing my parents struggle massively. I love him with every fibre of my being, I'm not at all saying I wish he was gotten rid of. He's my boy, my bro, my homie, my reason for working hard. All I'm saying is that I can appreciate how daunting it can be for someone to find out that the child they wanted to be healthy is born with an issue that 1) Will leave the child at a disadvantage compared to others and 2) make being a parent even more difficult than normal.
I know that autism is genetic, and as a result I have a higher chance of having an autistic child. Honestly, I don't think I could raise one if their's was more severe than my brothers. I feel awful typing that, but it's true. | Younger autistic bro
Love him, hate bullies
Flips between happy, silent, and telling my dad and I that he hates us
Has made me slightly sympathetic to parents not wanting to raise handicapped children |
SkywalkerLego | to keep it simple: If the passive has a name, it will not stack. if it just says Unique passive, it will stack. :)
So I Lichbane and a triforce, wont stack. A ghost blade and a Black cleaver armor pen, will stack! :D
So rememeber TL;DR - Has passive name, no stacking, no name, will stack! | to keep it simple: If the passive has a name, it will not stack. if it just says Unique passive, it will stack. :)
So I Lichbane and a triforce, wont stack. A ghost blade and a Black cleaver armor pen, will stack! :D
So rememeber TL;DR - Has passive name, no stacking, no name, will stack!
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cq1vpgk | to keep it simple: If the passive has a name, it will not stack. if it just says Unique passive, it will stack. :)
So I Lichbane and a triforce, wont stack. A ghost blade and a Black cleaver armor pen, will stack! :D
So rememeber | Has passive name, no stacking, no name, will stack! |
NicholasMD | Yes, took the virginity of two sisters. First one was okay I suppose? We did it in a field on the land that her house was on. Her sister I ended up doing it in my bed and was a little lackluster. Now after that she came over a few more times, which were better. But then, unbeknownst to me, her dad finds out, presses her for answers and she buckles and tells them I raped her! So when I talked to the cops I told them what happened and added, "if I did rape her, she must have liked it, because she came back a few more times." needless to say, they knew it was bullshit. But then some time after that, I slept with the first one again and by that time she had become experienced and was quite a pleasure in bed. So, needless to say the first one was better.
TLDR: Slept with two sisters, the youngest one tried to turn me in for rape, it didn't stick. And I had sex with the older one again, which was much better. | Yes, took the virginity of two sisters. First one was okay I suppose? We did it in a field on the land that her house was on. Her sister I ended up doing it in my bed and was a little lackluster. Now after that she came over a few more times, which were better. But then, unbeknownst to me, her dad finds out, presses her for answers and she buckles and tells them I raped her! So when I talked to the cops I told them what happened and added, "if I did rape her, she must have liked it, because she came back a few more times." needless to say, they knew it was bullshit. But then some time after that, I slept with the first one again and by that time she had become experienced and was quite a pleasure in bed. So, needless to say the first one was better.
TLDR: Slept with two sisters, the youngest one tried to turn me in for rape, it didn't stick. And I had sex with the older one again, which was much better.
| AskRedditAfterDark | t5_2vh2s | cq2hauw | Yes, took the virginity of two sisters. First one was okay I suppose? We did it in a field on the land that her house was on. Her sister I ended up doing it in my bed and was a little lackluster. Now after that she came over a few more times, which were better. But then, unbeknownst to me, her dad finds out, presses her for answers and she buckles and tells them I raped her! So when I talked to the cops I told them what happened and added, "if I did rape her, she must have liked it, because she came back a few more times." needless to say, they knew it was bullshit. But then some time after that, I slept with the first one again and by that time she had become experienced and was quite a pleasure in bed. So, needless to say the first one was better. | Slept with two sisters, the youngest one tried to turn me in for rape, it didn't stick. And I had sex with the older one again, which was much better. |
AgnosticThalassocnus | I'm 18 and an Atheist. This is my last year living with my super religious parents before I leave for college. Every Sunday morning, my father, brother, and I organize the parking lot at our local church, much to my disdain. Being Easter, we were expecting an excess of "twice-a-year" Christians dressed up all nice for their biannual dose of Jesus juice. As I was setting up the orange cones in the far corner of the parking lot, I found this little guy, cold, wet, and shivering, staring up at me from a muddy puddle. He tried to fly away, but only managed to hit the concrete even harder. I spent the next two hours in the church's laundry room with a bucket, towels, and a blow dryer, scared that his wing was broken and he wouldn't make it. When my father came in looking for me, he said "We don't have time for this today. There are more important things to do", I said "No. No there isn't." By the end of the second service, I was standing in the woods nearby with "Bandit" perched on my arm. A few minutes after I took this picture he jumped vertically into the air and took off above the trees. When I walked back to church, the second service had already ended and a few of the people I showed this photo to told me that "Jesus was grateful for what I did." In my heart, I know that the life of one small Waxtail is worth so much more than the gratitude of a mythical Jewish carpenter.
If you don't feel like this post belongs on this subreddit, then that's fine. I just felt like there needed to be one more anecdotal Easter story with a happy ending.
TLDR; Instead of attending my last Easter Sunday, I saved the life of a little bird and feel so much better for it. | I'm 18 and an Atheist. This is my last year living with my super religious parents before I leave for college. Every Sunday morning, my father, brother, and I organize the parking lot at our local church, much to my disdain. Being Easter, we were expecting an excess of "twice-a-year" Christians dressed up all nice for their biannual dose of Jesus juice. As I was setting up the orange cones in the far corner of the parking lot, I found this little guy, cold, wet, and shivering, staring up at me from a muddy puddle. He tried to fly away, but only managed to hit the concrete even harder. I spent the next two hours in the church's laundry room with a bucket, towels, and a blow dryer, scared that his wing was broken and he wouldn't make it. When my father came in looking for me, he said "We don't have time for this today. There are more important things to do", I said "No. No there isn't." By the end of the second service, I was standing in the woods nearby with "Bandit" perched on my arm. A few minutes after I took this picture he jumped vertically into the air and took off above the trees. When I walked back to church, the second service had already ended and a few of the people I showed this photo to told me that "Jesus was grateful for what I did." In my heart, I know that the life of one small Waxtail is worth so much more than the gratitude of a mythical Jewish carpenter.
If you don't feel like this post belongs on this subreddit, then that's fine. I just felt like there needed to be one more anecdotal Easter story with a happy ending.
TLDR; Instead of attending my last Easter Sunday, I saved the life of a little bird and feel so much better for it.
| atheism | t5_2qh2p | cq2j53c | I'm 18 and an Atheist. This is my last year living with my super religious parents before I leave for college. Every Sunday morning, my father, brother, and I organize the parking lot at our local church, much to my disdain. Being Easter, we were expecting an excess of "twice-a-year" Christians dressed up all nice for their biannual dose of Jesus juice. As I was setting up the orange cones in the far corner of the parking lot, I found this little guy, cold, wet, and shivering, staring up at me from a muddy puddle. He tried to fly away, but only managed to hit the concrete even harder. I spent the next two hours in the church's laundry room with a bucket, towels, and a blow dryer, scared that his wing was broken and he wouldn't make it. When my father came in looking for me, he said "We don't have time for this today. There are more important things to do", I said "No. No there isn't." By the end of the second service, I was standing in the woods nearby with "Bandit" perched on my arm. A few minutes after I took this picture he jumped vertically into the air and took off above the trees. When I walked back to church, the second service had already ended and a few of the people I showed this photo to told me that "Jesus was grateful for what I did." In my heart, I know that the life of one small Waxtail is worth so much more than the gratitude of a mythical Jewish carpenter.
If you don't feel like this post belongs on this subreddit, then that's fine. I just felt like there needed to be one more anecdotal Easter story with a happy ending. | Instead of attending my last Easter Sunday, I saved the life of a little bird and feel so much better for it. |
saxmantestify | I disagree.
They are prime examples that your kids shouldn't idolize athletes and celebrities.
BUT, they have qualities that your kids should be striving to imitate.
Ronda is a ridiculously hard worker and loyal to her friends (to a fault admittedly but that's where balance comes in)
Jon is an example of putting on a game face when you have a job to do. Jon might be a d-bag off camera but he knows how to turn it on when he needs to. And despite how important people think "keeping it real" is, you need to be able to play the game when you need to. Every successful person has done it.
TL;DR not everyone has to be a good example, but you can learn a good lesson from anyone. | I disagree.
They are prime examples that your kids shouldn't idolize athletes and celebrities.
BUT, they have qualities that your kids should be striving to imitate.
Ronda is a ridiculously hard worker and loyal to her friends (to a fault admittedly but that's where balance comes in)
Jon is an example of putting on a game face when you have a job to do. Jon might be a d-bag off camera but he knows how to turn it on when he needs to. And despite how important people think "keeping it real" is, you need to be able to play the game when you need to. Every successful person has done it.
TL;DR not everyone has to be a good example, but you can learn a good lesson from anyone.
| MMA | t5_2qhj4 | cq2ll91 | I disagree.
They are prime examples that your kids shouldn't idolize athletes and celebrities.
BUT, they have qualities that your kids should be striving to imitate.
Ronda is a ridiculously hard worker and loyal to her friends (to a fault admittedly but that's where balance comes in)
Jon is an example of putting on a game face when you have a job to do. Jon might be a d-bag off camera but he knows how to turn it on when he needs to. And despite how important people think "keeping it real" is, you need to be able to play the game when you need to. Every successful person has done it. | not everyone has to be a good example, but you can learn a good lesson from anyone. |
Peas_Nuts | I'll do something on the US side. In CST. It is a good idea.
For the streaming aspect if it something your considering maybe have a stream tag for it so we can identify our network.
Communication for the multiple groups so they know which front to push would also help. Something a bit more instant aside from Reddit.
TL:DR PM me I'm willing to help. | I'll do something on the US side. In CST. It is a good idea.
For the streaming aspect if it something your considering maybe have a stream tag for it so we can identify our network.
Communication for the multiple groups so they know which front to push would also help. Something a bit more instant aside from Reddit.
TL:DR PM me I'm willing to help.
| Helldivers | t5_2ya0t | cq3obc5 | I'll do something on the US side. In CST. It is a good idea.
For the streaming aspect if it something your considering maybe have a stream tag for it so we can identify our network.
Communication for the multiple groups so they know which front to push would also help. Something a bit more instant aside from Reddit. | PM me I'm willing to help. |
thatguyinconverse | I was like this a couple years ago. Stereotypical skinny dude, 55-60 kg (120-130 lbs). Always complained that I couldn't build mass even though I went to the gym and ate a lot. Looking back, I never worked out for more than a month straight and my idea of eating a lot was twice a day. People around me enabled that point of view. Girls said they preferred skinnier guys and friends said that was just my metabolism.
Last year I met a girl that didn't take that from me. She said that she loved me but didn't like my physique. She was constantly saying how she wanted her man to be strong and big, always saying stuff like "oh look, you're arm is as skinny as mine".
So I started eating five times a day and working out three times a week. I am now 75 kg (160 lbs) of muscles, and firmly stays at this level. Doctors visit confirmed that this is my ideal weight. No dietary supplements, no steroids, no protein shakes. Just eating more or less healthy, eating a lot and working out. Even my silhouette changed. I like looking in the mirror right now.
And the most fuck up thing - now when I meet my ex girlfriends and old friends, the same people who said that they liked me skinny, all comment on how much better I look.
Tl;dr not being able to change your weight Is bullshit that people say not to actually put any work into it. | I was like this a couple years ago. Stereotypical skinny dude, 55-60 kg (120-130 lbs). Always complained that I couldn't build mass even though I went to the gym and ate a lot. Looking back, I never worked out for more than a month straight and my idea of eating a lot was twice a day. People around me enabled that point of view. Girls said they preferred skinnier guys and friends said that was just my metabolism.
Last year I met a girl that didn't take that from me. She said that she loved me but didn't like my physique. She was constantly saying how she wanted her man to be strong and big, always saying stuff like "oh look, you're arm is as skinny as mine".
So I started eating five times a day and working out three times a week. I am now 75 kg (160 lbs) of muscles, and firmly stays at this level. Doctors visit confirmed that this is my ideal weight. No dietary supplements, no steroids, no protein shakes. Just eating more or less healthy, eating a lot and working out. Even my silhouette changed. I like looking in the mirror right now.
And the most fuck up thing - now when I meet my ex girlfriends and old friends, the same people who said that they liked me skinny, all comment on how much better I look.
Tl;dr not being able to change your weight Is bullshit that people say not to actually put any work into it.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | cq3qr9f | I was like this a couple years ago. Stereotypical skinny dude, 55-60 kg (120-130 lbs). Always complained that I couldn't build mass even though I went to the gym and ate a lot. Looking back, I never worked out for more than a month straight and my idea of eating a lot was twice a day. People around me enabled that point of view. Girls said they preferred skinnier guys and friends said that was just my metabolism.
Last year I met a girl that didn't take that from me. She said that she loved me but didn't like my physique. She was constantly saying how she wanted her man to be strong and big, always saying stuff like "oh look, you're arm is as skinny as mine".
So I started eating five times a day and working out three times a week. I am now 75 kg (160 lbs) of muscles, and firmly stays at this level. Doctors visit confirmed that this is my ideal weight. No dietary supplements, no steroids, no protein shakes. Just eating more or less healthy, eating a lot and working out. Even my silhouette changed. I like looking in the mirror right now.
And the most fuck up thing - now when I meet my ex girlfriends and old friends, the same people who said that they liked me skinny, all comment on how much better I look. | not being able to change your weight Is bullshit that people say not to actually put any work into it. |
druganswer | genetics is one thing but if you eat enough you will put on weight (muscle and fat) ... a lot of people underestimate what they need to eat to put on that weight though... if you count your calories and you're skinny you'll realize your normal day is probably under 2k calories... to put on weight around the age of 20 and 6' tall you'll need to eat over 3500 a day.... that's a LOT of meals and HARD to do without eating like complete shit... it's actually pretty hard to do even eating terrible foods...
TLDR: eating enough calories to gain weight isn't easy - especially for the naturally skinny, but it's not some fucking impossible task... once you eat enough to see constant weight gain you just keep doing that. | genetics is one thing but if you eat enough you will put on weight (muscle and fat) ... a lot of people underestimate what they need to eat to put on that weight though... if you count your calories and you're skinny you'll realize your normal day is probably under 2k calories... to put on weight around the age of 20 and 6' tall you'll need to eat over 3500 a day.... that's a LOT of meals and HARD to do without eating like complete shit... it's actually pretty hard to do even eating terrible foods...
TLDR: eating enough calories to gain weight isn't easy - especially for the naturally skinny, but it's not some fucking impossible task... once you eat enough to see constant weight gain you just keep doing that.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | cq3hqlg | genetics is one thing but if you eat enough you will put on weight (muscle and fat) ... a lot of people underestimate what they need to eat to put on that weight though... if you count your calories and you're skinny you'll realize your normal day is probably under 2k calories... to put on weight around the age of 20 and 6' tall you'll need to eat over 3500 a day.... that's a LOT of meals and HARD to do without eating like complete shit... it's actually pretty hard to do even eating terrible foods... | eating enough calories to gain weight isn't easy - especially for the naturally skinny, but it's not some fucking impossible task... once you eat enough to see constant weight gain you just keep doing that. |
effseven | True, I came home on leave and me and two friends went to this waterfall in Northern Calif. very near the PCT, my friend just jumped off a cliff into the Falls torrent and swam around for a few min. then came up with his Vuarnets! It was impressive to say the least; they were down there for weeks. This was really a payback, because a couple of years before I borrowed his and was fucked up, jumped off the boat into the Lake and forgot I was wearing his original pair of glasses. TLDR; gotta keep the shades. | True, I came home on leave and me and two friends went to this waterfall in Northern Calif. very near the PCT, my friend just jumped off a cliff into the Falls torrent and swam around for a few min. then came up with his Vuarnets! It was impressive to say the least; they were down there for weeks. This was really a payback, because a couple of years before I borrowed his and was fucked up, jumped off the boat into the Lake and forgot I was wearing his original pair of glasses. TLDR; gotta keep the shades.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | cq3lcil | True, I came home on leave and me and two friends went to this waterfall in Northern Calif. very near the PCT, my friend just jumped off a cliff into the Falls torrent and swam around for a few min. then came up with his Vuarnets! It was impressive to say the least; they were down there for weeks. This was really a payback, because a couple of years before I borrowed his and was fucked up, jumped off the boat into the Lake and forgot I was wearing his original pair of glasses. | gotta keep the shades. |
Disimpaction | It's more like they want to know about gaps in employment. But some sample questions I've fielded over 30 years: what school accomplishment are you most proud of? What non work and no school accomplishment are you proud of? What's a work pet peeve of yours? How do you respond to criticism? Tell us about a time you messed up at work & what you did? Tell us about an innovation at work or school that you helped with? How do you approach difficult decisions?
TL;DR: make yourself well-rounded and learn to bullshit a little. Smile. Eye contact. You got this. | It's more like they want to know about gaps in employment. But some sample questions I've fielded over 30 years: what school accomplishment are you most proud of? What non work and no school accomplishment are you proud of? What's a work pet peeve of yours? How do you respond to criticism? Tell us about a time you messed up at work & what you did? Tell us about an innovation at work or school that you helped with? How do you approach difficult decisions?
TL;DR: make yourself well-rounded and learn to bullshit a little. Smile. Eye contact. You got this.
| pics | t5_2qh0u | cq3mqji | It's more like they want to know about gaps in employment. But some sample questions I've fielded over 30 years: what school accomplishment are you most proud of? What non work and no school accomplishment are you proud of? What's a work pet peeve of yours? How do you respond to criticism? Tell us about a time you messed up at work & what you did? Tell us about an innovation at work or school that you helped with? How do you approach difficult decisions? | make yourself well-rounded and learn to bullshit a little. Smile. Eye contact. You got this. |
tetefather | This is a great post. Even though I have come to embrace all of these ideals, I never knew that they existed under the name "Secular Humanism". Thank you, juliokirk, for adding to my being.
WARNING - A little off-topic:
I would also like to provide a newer perspective. My path of self-discovery has led me unto the "undiscovered country", to borrow the euphemism from our beloved movie. Although I wholeheartedly agree and embrace 99.99% of these principles, I have come to discover the importance of consciousness and the contradictions it imposes thereof. I believe that the path of scientific discovery of humanity took a wrong turn starting with Descartes.
Descartes, called the father of philosophy by many, started us on a "disconnected worldview" that supports the notion that the universe and all the material objects within it behave like a machine, the analysis of which is through successive reduction of its components into smaller and smaller parts, that there is no underlying organizing framework which eliminates the need to consider one within the fundamental model of physics; AS OPPOSED TO a "connected worldview" where the universe and all the matter/energy it is comprised of behave as a unified whole system, the analysis of which is through understanding the fundamental patterns of wholeness that are synergetically expressed in fractal repetition at all scales.
Consciousness lies at the core of this worldview and unfortunately the disconnected worldview that is inherent to our current prevalent understanding of our reality profoundly obstructs the exploration of consciousness by conveniently labeling any such endeavour as "pseudoscience". I am proud, however, to see that there is an exponential growth in the number of people who are questioning the status quo.
TL:DR
I have reservations against the carelessly used label "pseudoscience" and the confines of what we currently describe as science with regards to our flawed worldview.
Edit: In further research of "secular humanism" I have better understood its inner workings and details and that I might not agree with it as much as I have stated above and that my stance is more aligned with COSMIC humanism rather than secular humanism.
| This is a great post. Even though I have come to embrace all of these ideals, I never knew that they existed under the name "Secular Humanism". Thank you, juliokirk, for adding to my being.
WARNING - A little off-topic:
I would also like to provide a newer perspective. My path of self-discovery has led me unto the "undiscovered country", to borrow the euphemism from our beloved movie. Although I wholeheartedly agree and embrace 99.99% of these principles, I have come to discover the importance of consciousness and the contradictions it imposes thereof. I believe that the path of scientific discovery of humanity took a wrong turn starting with Descartes.
Descartes, called the father of philosophy by many, started us on a "disconnected worldview" that supports the notion that the universe and all the material objects within it behave like a machine, the analysis of which is through successive reduction of its components into smaller and smaller parts, that there is no underlying organizing framework which eliminates the need to consider one within the fundamental model of physics; AS OPPOSED TO a "connected worldview" where the universe and all the matter/energy it is comprised of behave as a unified whole system, the analysis of which is through understanding the fundamental patterns of wholeness that are synergetically expressed in fractal repetition at all scales.
Consciousness lies at the core of this worldview and unfortunately the disconnected worldview that is inherent to our current prevalent understanding of our reality profoundly obstructs the exploration of consciousness by conveniently labeling any such endeavour as "pseudoscience". I am proud, however, to see that there is an exponential growth in the number of people who are questioning the status quo.
TL:DR
I have reservations against the carelessly used label "pseudoscience" and the confines of what we currently describe as science with regards to our flawed worldview.
Edit: In further research of "secular humanism" I have better understood its inner workings and details and that I might not agree with it as much as I have stated above and that my stance is more aligned with COSMIC humanism rather than secular humanism.
| DaystromInstitute | t5_2whek | cq3o1yr | This is a great post. Even though I have come to embrace all of these ideals, I never knew that they existed under the name "Secular Humanism". Thank you, juliokirk, for adding to my being.
WARNING - A little off-topic:
I would also like to provide a newer perspective. My path of self-discovery has led me unto the "undiscovered country", to borrow the euphemism from our beloved movie. Although I wholeheartedly agree and embrace 99.99% of these principles, I have come to discover the importance of consciousness and the contradictions it imposes thereof. I believe that the path of scientific discovery of humanity took a wrong turn starting with Descartes.
Descartes, called the father of philosophy by many, started us on a "disconnected worldview" that supports the notion that the universe and all the material objects within it behave like a machine, the analysis of which is through successive reduction of its components into smaller and smaller parts, that there is no underlying organizing framework which eliminates the need to consider one within the fundamental model of physics; AS OPPOSED TO a "connected worldview" where the universe and all the matter/energy it is comprised of behave as a unified whole system, the analysis of which is through understanding the fundamental patterns of wholeness that are synergetically expressed in fractal repetition at all scales.
Consciousness lies at the core of this worldview and unfortunately the disconnected worldview that is inherent to our current prevalent understanding of our reality profoundly obstructs the exploration of consciousness by conveniently labeling any such endeavour as "pseudoscience". I am proud, however, to see that there is an exponential growth in the number of people who are questioning the status quo. | I have reservations against the carelessly used label "pseudoscience" and the confines of what we currently describe as science with regards to our flawed worldview.
Edit: In further research of "secular humanism" I have better understood its inner workings and details and that I might not agree with it as much as I have stated above and that my stance is more aligned with COSMIC humanism rather than secular humanism. |
ldarquel | AD corki provides substantial AP damage (half his end-game damage is magic damage) on top of augmenting sustained AD damage for your team, which is why some full AD teams would run ADC corki (bot) over any other ADC on occasion, as well as being a reasonable mid substitute for sieging comps.
In the context you're providing of Fenix' AP corki mid in the TL-CLG game, AP corki was built on top of the Juggermaw comp as a poking force before or between engagements. What does this mean? When the two teams were *dancing around each other*, CLG trying to get a good engage off and TL dealing damage kiting at a distance; AP corki sends a barrage of missiles, poking CLG down and [deterring them from engaging at a lower health](
[As long as AP corki can keep his distance and have rockets up]( he will continue to deal damage; And even if he gets in the midst of things, Phos-bomb serves as a [zoning tool]( and [does so much damage]( in teamfights (+missiles) on multiple members at choke points. He's essentially setting up kills for the Juggermaw to mow down.
What AP corki sacrifices in comparison to other mids is CC and duelling potential. It'd be difficult for him to duel any of the non-tanks upfront without having poked them down somewhat; CC itself isn't as necessary in the comp he's playing into since they aren't playing to pick someone off, and Lulu/nunu/janna provides enough peel force for juggermaw comp.
In terms of alternatives to how AP corki was played, Xerath or Ziggs would have been the closest thing they'd be looking for, however both lack the mobility that corki has to escape dangerous situations; this is especially against a sej.
**By no means is this the new meta mid pick**; this was only viable because of TL's team comp and understanding that they could break CLG's comp by poking CLG while they manoeuvre for an engage, leaving CLG with nothing but worse decisions as each missile connects.
TL;DR:-
AP Corki was built by Fenix specifically for the Juggermaw comp as a poke-sieger with triforce+AP items to break the pre-engage dance and leave CLG with only bad choices: To engage at low health or to back off entirely and let TL siege structures while they recall. | AD corki provides substantial AP damage (half his end-game damage is magic damage) on top of augmenting sustained AD damage for your team, which is why some full AD teams would run ADC corki (bot) over any other ADC on occasion, as well as being a reasonable mid substitute for sieging comps.
In the context you're providing of Fenix' AP corki mid in the TL-CLG game, AP corki was built on top of the Juggermaw comp as a poking force before or between engagements. What does this mean? When the two teams were dancing around each other , CLG trying to get a good engage off and TL dealing damage kiting at a distance; AP corki sends a barrage of missiles, poking CLG down and deterring them from engaging at a lower health on multiple members at choke points. He's essentially setting up kills for the Juggermaw to mow down.
What AP corki sacrifices in comparison to other mids is CC and duelling potential. It'd be difficult for him to duel any of the non-tanks upfront without having poked them down somewhat; CC itself isn't as necessary in the comp he's playing into since they aren't playing to pick someone off, and Lulu/nunu/janna provides enough peel force for juggermaw comp.
In terms of alternatives to how AP corki was played, Xerath or Ziggs would have been the closest thing they'd be looking for, however both lack the mobility that corki has to escape dangerous situations; this is especially against a sej.
By no means is this the new meta mid pick ; this was only viable because of TL's team comp and understanding that they could break CLG's comp by poking CLG while they manoeuvre for an engage, leaving CLG with nothing but worse decisions as each missile connects.
TL;DR:-
AP Corki was built by Fenix specifically for the Juggermaw comp as a poke-sieger with triforce+AP items to break the pre-engage dance and leave CLG with only bad choices: To engage at low health or to back off entirely and let TL siege structures while they recall.
| LeagueofLegendsMeta | t5_2smhl | cq50v8z | AD corki provides substantial AP damage (half his end-game damage is magic damage) on top of augmenting sustained AD damage for your team, which is why some full AD teams would run ADC corki (bot) over any other ADC on occasion, as well as being a reasonable mid substitute for sieging comps.
In the context you're providing of Fenix' AP corki mid in the TL-CLG game, AP corki was built on top of the Juggermaw comp as a poking force before or between engagements. What does this mean? When the two teams were dancing around each other , CLG trying to get a good engage off and TL dealing damage kiting at a distance; AP corki sends a barrage of missiles, poking CLG down and deterring them from engaging at a lower health on multiple members at choke points. He's essentially setting up kills for the Juggermaw to mow down.
What AP corki sacrifices in comparison to other mids is CC and duelling potential. It'd be difficult for him to duel any of the non-tanks upfront without having poked them down somewhat; CC itself isn't as necessary in the comp he's playing into since they aren't playing to pick someone off, and Lulu/nunu/janna provides enough peel force for juggermaw comp.
In terms of alternatives to how AP corki was played, Xerath or Ziggs would have been the closest thing they'd be looking for, however both lack the mobility that corki has to escape dangerous situations; this is especially against a sej.
By no means is this the new meta mid pick ; this was only viable because of TL's team comp and understanding that they could break CLG's comp by poking CLG while they manoeuvre for an engage, leaving CLG with nothing but worse decisions as each missile connects. | AP Corki was built by Fenix specifically for the Juggermaw comp as a poke-sieger with triforce+AP items to break the pre-engage dance and leave CLG with only bad choices: To engage at low health or to back off entirely and let TL siege structures while they recall. |
itrywriting | I was a moody bitch as a kid. I would play baseball year-round and thought I was the shit but I struck out once and threw my helmet. My dad was my coach and chewed me out in front of everyone. I got pissed and went over and punched his truck. Put a dent in his door and busted my hand up pretty good. He made me keep playing with busted, bleeding knuckles.
TL:DR, I know how bad a busted hand feels. | I was a moody bitch as a kid. I would play baseball year-round and thought I was the shit but I struck out once and threw my helmet. My dad was my coach and chewed me out in front of everyone. I got pissed and went over and punched his truck. Put a dent in his door and busted my hand up pretty good. He made me keep playing with busted, bleeding knuckles.
TL:DR, I know how bad a busted hand feels.
| bodybuilding | t5_2ql8s | cq4d7tt | I was a moody bitch as a kid. I would play baseball year-round and thought I was the shit but I struck out once and threw my helmet. My dad was my coach and chewed me out in front of everyone. I got pissed and went over and punched his truck. Put a dent in his door and busted my hand up pretty good. He made me keep playing with busted, bleeding knuckles. | I know how bad a busted hand feels. |
Hnnnnnn | It is.
In short: I hated brushing teeth since the childhood. I didn't make a habit when I was young. Sometimes I was motivated (girls and stuff), but I couldn't keep myself disciplined. And problem was growing and growing. I saw it as a huge obstacle that I can't jump over easily. Like a fobia.
Yeah, I was stupidly justifying myself, but so what? Nobody I cared was going to judge me, so all I had to do is to accept my life with shitty teeth (so I was suppresing smile, didn't have any relations with girls etc).
Now I have my own job with not bad money, so at least this is not my excuse.
It didn't help that I was sure since very early that I can't properly solve my problem, I'm gonna have sick up teeth no matter what and even if I start doing well right now, I'm probably gonna lose them in 10 years. And it's getting worse with every moment. It was an effect of my mother and sister and other people using fear to motivate m.
TL;DR it happens when parents make mistake. Take care of your children, but be cautious to not make them hate habits you're teaching them. | It is.
In short: I hated brushing teeth since the childhood. I didn't make a habit when I was young. Sometimes I was motivated (girls and stuff), but I couldn't keep myself disciplined. And problem was growing and growing. I saw it as a huge obstacle that I can't jump over easily. Like a fobia.
Yeah, I was stupidly justifying myself, but so what? Nobody I cared was going to judge me, so all I had to do is to accept my life with shitty teeth (so I was suppresing smile, didn't have any relations with girls etc).
Now I have my own job with not bad money, so at least this is not my excuse.
It didn't help that I was sure since very early that I can't properly solve my problem, I'm gonna have sick up teeth no matter what and even if I start doing well right now, I'm probably gonna lose them in 10 years. And it's getting worse with every moment. It was an effect of my mother and sister and other people using fear to motivate m.
TL;DR it happens when parents make mistake. Take care of your children, but be cautious to not make them hate habits you're teaching them.
| Dentistry | t5_2rpgi | cq48izm | It is.
In short: I hated brushing teeth since the childhood. I didn't make a habit when I was young. Sometimes I was motivated (girls and stuff), but I couldn't keep myself disciplined. And problem was growing and growing. I saw it as a huge obstacle that I can't jump over easily. Like a fobia.
Yeah, I was stupidly justifying myself, but so what? Nobody I cared was going to judge me, so all I had to do is to accept my life with shitty teeth (so I was suppresing smile, didn't have any relations with girls etc).
Now I have my own job with not bad money, so at least this is not my excuse.
It didn't help that I was sure since very early that I can't properly solve my problem, I'm gonna have sick up teeth no matter what and even if I start doing well right now, I'm probably gonna lose them in 10 years. And it's getting worse with every moment. It was an effect of my mother and sister and other people using fear to motivate m. | it happens when parents make mistake. Take care of your children, but be cautious to not make them hate habits you're teaching them. |
Raptor1210 | No they wouldn't stop her, here's why: If we assume the reverse engineering "Future Tech" results in a better understanding of principles that go into that tech (a seemingly fair assumption considering that's one of the main points in reverse engineering something), then it stands to reason that the 29th century Temporal Observers before the Admiral went back were less advanced than they were after she went back becuase those advancements should ripple up-stream to the 29th century creating more advanced 29th century Temporal Observers.
In other words, the reason why no one from the 29th stopped her was because it was in their best interest that 24th century Star Fleet be able to kick the Borg's collective nuts up into their teeth.
TL;DR No one stopped her because they were all benefiting from what she was doing. | No they wouldn't stop her, here's why: If we assume the reverse engineering "Future Tech" results in a better understanding of principles that go into that tech (a seemingly fair assumption considering that's one of the main points in reverse engineering something), then it stands to reason that the 29th century Temporal Observers before the Admiral went back were less advanced than they were after she went back becuase those advancements should ripple up-stream to the 29th century creating more advanced 29th century Temporal Observers.
In other words, the reason why no one from the 29th stopped her was because it was in their best interest that 24th century Star Fleet be able to kick the Borg's collective nuts up into their teeth.
TL;DR No one stopped her because they were all benefiting from what she was doing.
| DaystromInstitute | t5_2whek | cq4bw6h | No they wouldn't stop her, here's why: If we assume the reverse engineering "Future Tech" results in a better understanding of principles that go into that tech (a seemingly fair assumption considering that's one of the main points in reverse engineering something), then it stands to reason that the 29th century Temporal Observers before the Admiral went back were less advanced than they were after she went back becuase those advancements should ripple up-stream to the 29th century creating more advanced 29th century Temporal Observers.
In other words, the reason why no one from the 29th stopped her was because it was in their best interest that 24th century Star Fleet be able to kick the Borg's collective nuts up into their teeth. | No one stopped her because they were all benefiting from what she was doing. |
ShaggyHaggers | I've always been somewhat active, but even more pale, weak, depressed, anxious. Around three years ago I started seriously getting into lifting, and then martial arts. I'm never going to be huge just because my frame is tiny (my wrists are like 5" diameter). To answer your question though I think my personality is what's holding me back. Women often tell me that I'm very attractive, and I can even see them flirting with me. However, I'd rather stay at home a lurk or reddit or write creatively. So now I don't fit well into any groups, because my old nerd friends upset me and my new fit friends are these extroverted demigods. Even on the internet I feel a bit excluded because many of you talk as if your lives are only about being online.
Tl,dr: I feel like I'm in a weird middle world where no one else lives. | I've always been somewhat active, but even more pale, weak, depressed, anxious. Around three years ago I started seriously getting into lifting, and then martial arts. I'm never going to be huge just because my frame is tiny (my wrists are like 5" diameter). To answer your question though I think my personality is what's holding me back. Women often tell me that I'm very attractive, and I can even see them flirting with me. However, I'd rather stay at home a lurk or reddit or write creatively. So now I don't fit well into any groups, because my old nerd friends upset me and my new fit friends are these extroverted demigods. Even on the internet I feel a bit excluded because many of you talk as if your lives are only about being online.
Tl,dr: I feel like I'm in a weird middle world where no one else lives.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq49wgq | I've always been somewhat active, but even more pale, weak, depressed, anxious. Around three years ago I started seriously getting into lifting, and then martial arts. I'm never going to be huge just because my frame is tiny (my wrists are like 5" diameter). To answer your question though I think my personality is what's holding me back. Women often tell me that I'm very attractive, and I can even see them flirting with me. However, I'd rather stay at home a lurk or reddit or write creatively. So now I don't fit well into any groups, because my old nerd friends upset me and my new fit friends are these extroverted demigods. Even on the internet I feel a bit excluded because many of you talk as if your lives are only about being online. | I feel like I'm in a weird middle world where no one else lives. |
SilverBallsOnMyChest | Seeing them live was one of the great memories of my life. It was a few years ago and they came to my little town in Alabama. At the venue, my friends and I were the young ones. We didn't know how to hardcore dance or any of that stuff so we were always kind of shunned and laughed at. Well, despite that, I went. I REALLY wanted to see them. I always loved the message they gave off in their songs and really, I was a decently big fan. Well, fast forward and my friend and I were at the venue a couple hours early because we wanted to go skate (I was goddamn awful but it was so much fun to me and this shows later on). So, we hopped on and swung around to the backside of the venue and noticed about 5 others skating around. I look towards my bud and tell him "I'm about 80% sure that's Stick To Your Guns."
One of them starts walking up to us which at that point, I knew it was Jesse. He comes up to us and asks if we knew of any local spots and of course, we said yes and showed him. On the way, man, for some reason I was wearing a backpack and I remember at one point saying FUCK IT and started running with the board in my hand as they skate down to the spot so I looked like a total idiot. We skated for a little bit and just talked to him. Was a SERIOUSLY nice guy and just an awesome person to meet. As far as the show, it was easily one of the best shows I've ever been to despite the other...not so good..metalcore bands they were touring with. Hah, it was the first show I actually staged dived at which sounds really stupid but whatever. After the show, I went up to the busy ass merch table where everyone was just trying to get shirts and shit because, like I said, they played an excellent show. I pointed at this white one where it had that guy holding a sign saying "Fuck This Guy" next to the Westboro "God Hates Fags" fuckers.
Asked him how much it was and he just tosses it to me and says "Keep it, dude!"
I really fucking wish I knew where that shirt was but that really put a huge impression on me. It kind of took a lot to go to that venue with how shitty the people usually are but I don't regret it at all. I love the band. The music is great, they're great live, and as far as I've seen, the band is made up of really cool and very nice people.
Kind of a rant and it all probably sounds pretty stupid to you all, but that day really did mean a lot to me.
Tl;DR They're excellent live and they're incredibly nice guys. Even if the entire band isn't edge, they're worth seeing and listening to. | Seeing them live was one of the great memories of my life. It was a few years ago and they came to my little town in Alabama. At the venue, my friends and I were the young ones. We didn't know how to hardcore dance or any of that stuff so we were always kind of shunned and laughed at. Well, despite that, I went. I REALLY wanted to see them. I always loved the message they gave off in their songs and really, I was a decently big fan. Well, fast forward and my friend and I were at the venue a couple hours early because we wanted to go skate (I was goddamn awful but it was so much fun to me and this shows later on). So, we hopped on and swung around to the backside of the venue and noticed about 5 others skating around. I look towards my bud and tell him "I'm about 80% sure that's Stick To Your Guns."
One of them starts walking up to us which at that point, I knew it was Jesse. He comes up to us and asks if we knew of any local spots and of course, we said yes and showed him. On the way, man, for some reason I was wearing a backpack and I remember at one point saying FUCK IT and started running with the board in my hand as they skate down to the spot so I looked like a total idiot. We skated for a little bit and just talked to him. Was a SERIOUSLY nice guy and just an awesome person to meet. As far as the show, it was easily one of the best shows I've ever been to despite the other...not so good..metalcore bands they were touring with. Hah, it was the first show I actually staged dived at which sounds really stupid but whatever. After the show, I went up to the busy ass merch table where everyone was just trying to get shirts and shit because, like I said, they played an excellent show. I pointed at this white one where it had that guy holding a sign saying "Fuck This Guy" next to the Westboro "God Hates Fags" fuckers.
Asked him how much it was and he just tosses it to me and says "Keep it, dude!"
I really fucking wish I knew where that shirt was but that really put a huge impression on me. It kind of took a lot to go to that venue with how shitty the people usually are but I don't regret it at all. I love the band. The music is great, they're great live, and as far as I've seen, the band is made up of really cool and very nice people.
Kind of a rant and it all probably sounds pretty stupid to you all, but that day really did mean a lot to me.
Tl;DR They're excellent live and they're incredibly nice guys. Even if the entire band isn't edge, they're worth seeing and listening to.
| straightedge | t5_2qkzx | cq5gdl5 | Seeing them live was one of the great memories of my life. It was a few years ago and they came to my little town in Alabama. At the venue, my friends and I were the young ones. We didn't know how to hardcore dance or any of that stuff so we were always kind of shunned and laughed at. Well, despite that, I went. I REALLY wanted to see them. I always loved the message they gave off in their songs and really, I was a decently big fan. Well, fast forward and my friend and I were at the venue a couple hours early because we wanted to go skate (I was goddamn awful but it was so much fun to me and this shows later on). So, we hopped on and swung around to the backside of the venue and noticed about 5 others skating around. I look towards my bud and tell him "I'm about 80% sure that's Stick To Your Guns."
One of them starts walking up to us which at that point, I knew it was Jesse. He comes up to us and asks if we knew of any local spots and of course, we said yes and showed him. On the way, man, for some reason I was wearing a backpack and I remember at one point saying FUCK IT and started running with the board in my hand as they skate down to the spot so I looked like a total idiot. We skated for a little bit and just talked to him. Was a SERIOUSLY nice guy and just an awesome person to meet. As far as the show, it was easily one of the best shows I've ever been to despite the other...not so good..metalcore bands they were touring with. Hah, it was the first show I actually staged dived at which sounds really stupid but whatever. After the show, I went up to the busy ass merch table where everyone was just trying to get shirts and shit because, like I said, they played an excellent show. I pointed at this white one where it had that guy holding a sign saying "Fuck This Guy" next to the Westboro "God Hates Fags" fuckers.
Asked him how much it was and he just tosses it to me and says "Keep it, dude!"
I really fucking wish I knew where that shirt was but that really put a huge impression on me. It kind of took a lot to go to that venue with how shitty the people usually are but I don't regret it at all. I love the band. The music is great, they're great live, and as far as I've seen, the band is made up of really cool and very nice people.
Kind of a rant and it all probably sounds pretty stupid to you all, but that day really did mean a lot to me. | They're excellent live and they're incredibly nice guys. Even if the entire band isn't edge, they're worth seeing and listening to. |
Gnome_Sane | > Over a thousand banks failed: (look under causes). Unemployment also raised to over 20% (source is in the same wiki page), meaning middle class Americans had less money in their pockets.
The effect on individuals was because in the 1920s there was no FDIC insurance on deposits. That is why what happened then would not happen today. Everything under 100,000 in a single account is insured by the federal government, so even if your bank failed your money is safe.
Chapter 3
Establishment of the FDIC
The adoption of nationwide deposit insurance in 1933 was made possible by the times, by the perseverance of the Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, and by the fact that the legislation attracted support from two groups which formerly had divergent aims and interests - those who were determined to end destruction of circulating medium due to bank failures and those who sought to preserve the existing banking structure.1
Banking Developments, 1930-1932
An average of more than 600 banks per year failed between 1921 and 1929, which was ten times the rate of failure during the preceding decade. The closings evoked relatively little concern, however, because they primarily involved small, rural banks, many of which were thought to be badly managed and weak. Although these failures caused the demise of the state insurance programs by early 1930, the prevailing view apparently was that the disappearance of these banks served to strengthen the banking system.
This ambivalence disappeared after a wave of bank failures during the last. few months of 1930 triggered widespread attempts to convert deposits to cash. Many banks, seeking to accommodate cash demands or increase liquidity, contracted credit and, in some cases, liquidated assets. This reduced the quantity of cash available to the community which, in turn, placed additional cash demands on banks. Banks were forced to restrict credit and liquidate assets, further depressing asset prices and exacerbating liquidity problems. As more banks were unable to meet withdrawals and were closed, depositors became more sensitive to rumors. Confidence in the banking system began to erode and bank "runs" became more common.
TLDR; The "It's a wonderful life" run on the bank scenario ended with FDIC insurance. | > Over a thousand banks failed: (look under causes). Unemployment also raised to over 20% (source is in the same wiki page), meaning middle class Americans had less money in their pockets.
The effect on individuals was because in the 1920s there was no FDIC insurance on deposits. That is why what happened then would not happen today. Everything under 100,000 in a single account is insured by the federal government, so even if your bank failed your money is safe.
Chapter 3
Establishment of the FDIC
The adoption of nationwide deposit insurance in 1933 was made possible by the times, by the perseverance of the Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, and by the fact that the legislation attracted support from two groups which formerly had divergent aims and interests - those who were determined to end destruction of circulating medium due to bank failures and those who sought to preserve the existing banking structure.1
Banking Developments, 1930-1932
An average of more than 600 banks per year failed between 1921 and 1929, which was ten times the rate of failure during the preceding decade. The closings evoked relatively little concern, however, because they primarily involved small, rural banks, many of which were thought to be badly managed and weak. Although these failures caused the demise of the state insurance programs by early 1930, the prevailing view apparently was that the disappearance of these banks served to strengthen the banking system.
This ambivalence disappeared after a wave of bank failures during the last. few months of 1930 triggered widespread attempts to convert deposits to cash. Many banks, seeking to accommodate cash demands or increase liquidity, contracted credit and, in some cases, liquidated assets. This reduced the quantity of cash available to the community which, in turn, placed additional cash demands on banks. Banks were forced to restrict credit and liquidate assets, further depressing asset prices and exacerbating liquidity problems. As more banks were unable to meet withdrawals and were closed, depositors became more sensitive to rumors. Confidence in the banking system began to erode and bank "runs" became more common.
TLDR; The "It's a wonderful life" run on the bank scenario ended with FDIC insurance.
| NeutralPolitics | t5_2tk0i | cq5s4v1 | Over a thousand banks failed: (look under causes). Unemployment also raised to over 20% (source is in the same wiki page), meaning middle class Americans had less money in their pockets.
The effect on individuals was because in the 1920s there was no FDIC insurance on deposits. That is why what happened then would not happen today. Everything under 100,000 in a single account is insured by the federal government, so even if your bank failed your money is safe.
Chapter 3
Establishment of the FDIC
The adoption of nationwide deposit insurance in 1933 was made possible by the times, by the perseverance of the Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, and by the fact that the legislation attracted support from two groups which formerly had divergent aims and interests - those who were determined to end destruction of circulating medium due to bank failures and those who sought to preserve the existing banking structure.1
Banking Developments, 1930-1932
An average of more than 600 banks per year failed between 1921 and 1929, which was ten times the rate of failure during the preceding decade. The closings evoked relatively little concern, however, because they primarily involved small, rural banks, many of which were thought to be badly managed and weak. Although these failures caused the demise of the state insurance programs by early 1930, the prevailing view apparently was that the disappearance of these banks served to strengthen the banking system.
This ambivalence disappeared after a wave of bank failures during the last. few months of 1930 triggered widespread attempts to convert deposits to cash. Many banks, seeking to accommodate cash demands or increase liquidity, contracted credit and, in some cases, liquidated assets. This reduced the quantity of cash available to the community which, in turn, placed additional cash demands on banks. Banks were forced to restrict credit and liquidate assets, further depressing asset prices and exacerbating liquidity problems. As more banks were unable to meet withdrawals and were closed, depositors became more sensitive to rumors. Confidence in the banking system began to erode and bank "runs" became more common. | The "It's a wonderful life" run on the bank scenario ended with FDIC insurance. |
skpkzk2 | because 80% of a small number can be less than 60% of a larger number. The highest quintile make over $100,000 per year now, implying they made $62,500 minimum in 1980 for a $37,500 increase. The lowest quintile makes under $25,000 per year now, implying they made $13,888 max in 1980 for a $11,111 gain. Thus wages for the lowest quintile increased only 29.6% as much as the top quintile.
The preceding analysis assumes that there has been no change in population or demographics over the past 35 years, which obviously is ridiculous. In reality as demographics shift, the status of the percentiles will shift. If the population grows faster than the rate that minimum wage jobs increase, then people whose income would have put them in the second lowest quintile in 1980 could now find themselves in the lowest quintile, which would show up as an apparent increase in wages for the bottom quintile. If the number of high paying jobs increases at a faster rate than population growth or if the number of moderately high paying jobs doesn't increase as quickly, then the top quintile will proportionally contain fewer people with moderately high paying jobs and thus appear to have large gains. Considering that the past 35 years has seen a large increase in low paying jobs going overseas or being automated and the rise of the digital economy which dramatically increases the number of high paying white collar jobs, these gains are not necessarily indicative of any actual increase in wages for any members of the population.
tl;dr percentages are misleading. | because 80% of a small number can be less than 60% of a larger number. The highest quintile make over $100,000 per year now, implying they made $62,500 minimum in 1980 for a $37,500 increase. The lowest quintile makes under $25,000 per year now, implying they made $13,888 max in 1980 for a $11,111 gain. Thus wages for the lowest quintile increased only 29.6% as much as the top quintile.
The preceding analysis assumes that there has been no change in population or demographics over the past 35 years, which obviously is ridiculous. In reality as demographics shift, the status of the percentiles will shift. If the population grows faster than the rate that minimum wage jobs increase, then people whose income would have put them in the second lowest quintile in 1980 could now find themselves in the lowest quintile, which would show up as an apparent increase in wages for the bottom quintile. If the number of high paying jobs increases at a faster rate than population growth or if the number of moderately high paying jobs doesn't increase as quickly, then the top quintile will proportionally contain fewer people with moderately high paying jobs and thus appear to have large gains. Considering that the past 35 years has seen a large increase in low paying jobs going overseas or being automated and the rise of the digital economy which dramatically increases the number of high paying white collar jobs, these gains are not necessarily indicative of any actual increase in wages for any members of the population.
tl;dr percentages are misleading.
| NeutralPolitics | t5_2tk0i | cq514gp | because 80% of a small number can be less than 60% of a larger number. The highest quintile make over $100,000 per year now, implying they made $62,500 minimum in 1980 for a $37,500 increase. The lowest quintile makes under $25,000 per year now, implying they made $13,888 max in 1980 for a $11,111 gain. Thus wages for the lowest quintile increased only 29.6% as much as the top quintile.
The preceding analysis assumes that there has been no change in population or demographics over the past 35 years, which obviously is ridiculous. In reality as demographics shift, the status of the percentiles will shift. If the population grows faster than the rate that minimum wage jobs increase, then people whose income would have put them in the second lowest quintile in 1980 could now find themselves in the lowest quintile, which would show up as an apparent increase in wages for the bottom quintile. If the number of high paying jobs increases at a faster rate than population growth or if the number of moderately high paying jobs doesn't increase as quickly, then the top quintile will proportionally contain fewer people with moderately high paying jobs and thus appear to have large gains. Considering that the past 35 years has seen a large increase in low paying jobs going overseas or being automated and the rise of the digital economy which dramatically increases the number of high paying white collar jobs, these gains are not necessarily indicative of any actual increase in wages for any members of the population. | percentages are misleading. |
SuperEdel | Did you read the article? His point is that he is already in counseling as part of his plea deal and meeting with two qualified psychiatrists does not equal an increase in treatment.
TL;DR: He is already getting counseling. | Did you read the article? His point is that he is already in counseling as part of his plea deal and meeting with two qualified psychiatrists does not equal an increase in treatment.
TL;DR: He is already getting counseling.
| nfl | t5_2qmg3 | cq5g0ol | Did you read the article? His point is that he is already in counseling as part of his plea deal and meeting with two qualified psychiatrists does not equal an increase in treatment. | He is already getting counseling. |
bucklau | I disagree with Burnie's assessment that it's "still amazing" that people react badly when the launch of brand new games go terribly. He makes the point that "Hey, it's been like this for forever."
People aren't surprised/shocked because they don't remember all the other launches. People are upset in general because it **shouldn't** be happening. It's 2015, technology has advanced, so I find it hard to believe that there isn't a solution to this problem yet.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but to solve the connection issues of millions of people logging on the first time, could they not:
* Hold an open beta to stress test their servers
* Rent servers specifically for launch day/week populations
If those two points were fulfilled, how would the launch day problems still be so prevalent?
tldr, I disagree with Burnie's reasoning for why people shouldn't be upset at launch day problems for games. | I disagree with Burnie's assessment that it's "still amazing" that people react badly when the launch of brand new games go terribly. He makes the point that "Hey, it's been like this for forever."
People aren't surprised/shocked because they don't remember all the other launches. People are upset in general because it shouldn't be happening. It's 2015, technology has advanced, so I find it hard to believe that there isn't a solution to this problem yet.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but to solve the connection issues of millions of people logging on the first time, could they not:
Hold an open beta to stress test their servers
Rent servers specifically for launch day/week populations
If those two points were fulfilled, how would the launch day problems still be so prevalent?
tldr, I disagree with Burnie's reasoning for why people shouldn't be upset at launch day problems for games.
| roosterteeth | t5_2s7g9 | cq4w3p7 | I disagree with Burnie's assessment that it's "still amazing" that people react badly when the launch of brand new games go terribly. He makes the point that "Hey, it's been like this for forever."
People aren't surprised/shocked because they don't remember all the other launches. People are upset in general because it shouldn't be happening. It's 2015, technology has advanced, so I find it hard to believe that there isn't a solution to this problem yet.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but to solve the connection issues of millions of people logging on the first time, could they not:
Hold an open beta to stress test their servers
Rent servers specifically for launch day/week populations
If those two points were fulfilled, how would the launch day problems still be so prevalent? | I disagree with Burnie's reasoning for why people shouldn't be upset at launch day problems for games. |
davidwie | Shogun 2 was the game that really set the bar that for total wat at that time (2011, I believe). It had nontruly exceptional features if you've already played rome 2, but it is truly a well made game and very polished.
As you, propably, might know, rome 2 didn't exactly raise the bar, it just hit it's head on it. In my opinion, though, Atilla came rather close that standard, and might even pass it with some patching.
tl;dr
Shogun 2 is the total war golden standard, it looks simple, with so little variation in units all over the map, but it's strategies and replay values are nearly infinite | Shogun 2 was the game that really set the bar that for total wat at that time (2011, I believe). It had nontruly exceptional features if you've already played rome 2, but it is truly a well made game and very polished.
As you, propably, might know, rome 2 didn't exactly raise the bar, it just hit it's head on it. In my opinion, though, Atilla came rather close that standard, and might even pass it with some patching.
tl;dr
Shogun 2 is the total war golden standard, it looks simple, with so little variation in units all over the map, but it's strategies and replay values are nearly infinite
| totalwar | t5_2rq9c | cq51zy4 | Shogun 2 was the game that really set the bar that for total wat at that time (2011, I believe). It had nontruly exceptional features if you've already played rome 2, but it is truly a well made game and very polished.
As you, propably, might know, rome 2 didn't exactly raise the bar, it just hit it's head on it. In my opinion, though, Atilla came rather close that standard, and might even pass it with some patching. | Shogun 2 is the total war golden standard, it looks simple, with so little variation in units all over the map, but it's strategies and replay values are nearly infinite |
wisty | Note, the main argument that "Violent games cause violence" is the General Aggression Model (GAM). tl;dr - "Monkey see, monkey do".
There's an academic takedown here: (pdf - | Note, the main argument that "Violent games cause violence" is the General Aggression Model (GAM). tl;dr - "Monkey see, monkey do".
There's an academic takedown here: (pdf -
| KotakuInAction | t5_33726 | cq5cfie | Note, the main argument that "Violent games cause violence" is the General Aggression Model (GAM). | Monkey see, monkey do".
There's an academic takedown here: (pdf - |
Bongson | Y'know, I had a chance to fire a gun once.
I was camping, with maybe nine other people? Me and a few other guys went off into the woods to play around with a CO2 rifle. It was fucking awesome. We found this small pond full of wild life, including a mystery creature we could only describe as the Beavercabra. It was like, four feet long and must have weighed 80+lbs. We only saw it in the water for a few seconds, and it disappeared. Shortly afterward, we heard a loud SQUAWK and something crashing into the water.
Anyway, we played around. I was a damn good shot. I hit a bare spot in a trees bark from at least eighty yards away. I never knew I could do that, and I felt empowered, almost.
About an hour goes by and we decide to head back. We found a clearing in the woods, and one of the guys we were with actually had a pistol with him. Turns out he was a cop. Standard issue. I was smoking weed next to the guy for three days!
So he pulls out this pistol, and asked if anyone wanted to fire it. All three of them emptied the clip, but when I held it in my hands I started to shake like I never have before. I couldn't understand it. I was terrified of having this thing in my hand. The sound, the feel.. It was awful.
TL;DR I guess I don't like guns. | Y'know, I had a chance to fire a gun once.
I was camping, with maybe nine other people? Me and a few other guys went off into the woods to play around with a CO2 rifle. It was fucking awesome. We found this small pond full of wild life, including a mystery creature we could only describe as the Beavercabra. It was like, four feet long and must have weighed 80+lbs. We only saw it in the water for a few seconds, and it disappeared. Shortly afterward, we heard a loud SQUAWK and something crashing into the water.
Anyway, we played around. I was a damn good shot. I hit a bare spot in a trees bark from at least eighty yards away. I never knew I could do that, and I felt empowered, almost.
About an hour goes by and we decide to head back. We found a clearing in the woods, and one of the guys we were with actually had a pistol with him. Turns out he was a cop. Standard issue. I was smoking weed next to the guy for three days!
So he pulls out this pistol, and asked if anyone wanted to fire it. All three of them emptied the clip, but when I held it in my hands I started to shake like I never have before. I couldn't understand it. I was terrified of having this thing in my hand. The sound, the feel.. It was awful.
TL;DR I guess I don't like guns.
| gifs | t5_2qt55 | cq5g434 | Y'know, I had a chance to fire a gun once.
I was camping, with maybe nine other people? Me and a few other guys went off into the woods to play around with a CO2 rifle. It was fucking awesome. We found this small pond full of wild life, including a mystery creature we could only describe as the Beavercabra. It was like, four feet long and must have weighed 80+lbs. We only saw it in the water for a few seconds, and it disappeared. Shortly afterward, we heard a loud SQUAWK and something crashing into the water.
Anyway, we played around. I was a damn good shot. I hit a bare spot in a trees bark from at least eighty yards away. I never knew I could do that, and I felt empowered, almost.
About an hour goes by and we decide to head back. We found a clearing in the woods, and one of the guys we were with actually had a pistol with him. Turns out he was a cop. Standard issue. I was smoking weed next to the guy for three days!
So he pulls out this pistol, and asked if anyone wanted to fire it. All three of them emptied the clip, but when I held it in my hands I started to shake like I never have before. I couldn't understand it. I was terrified of having this thing in my hand. The sound, the feel.. It was awful. | I guess I don't like guns. |
Rabbyte808 | You beat me to it. There's a strong opposition to the telescope among locals and especially Hawaii. There really is a fairly strong opposition or indifference to science in Hawaii, so a lot of people really don't understand why this should be built and just see it as a waste of money that's destroying nature. Petitions have been made with several thousand signatures opposing the telescope and politicians are starting to go with the opposition.
TL;DR: there's a strong chance it won't be built because supporters are much quieter than the opposition in Hawaii | You beat me to it. There's a strong opposition to the telescope among locals and especially Hawaii. There really is a fairly strong opposition or indifference to science in Hawaii, so a lot of people really don't understand why this should be built and just see it as a waste of money that's destroying nature. Petitions have been made with several thousand signatures opposing the telescope and politicians are starting to go with the opposition.
TL;DR: there's a strong chance it won't be built because supporters are much quieter than the opposition in Hawaii
| technology | t5_2qh16 | cq5p32z | You beat me to it. There's a strong opposition to the telescope among locals and especially Hawaii. There really is a fairly strong opposition or indifference to science in Hawaii, so a lot of people really don't understand why this should be built and just see it as a waste of money that's destroying nature. Petitions have been made with several thousand signatures opposing the telescope and politicians are starting to go with the opposition. | there's a strong chance it won't be built because supporters are much quieter than the opposition in Hawaii |
Xdmrbrightside | If anyone wants to get into podcasts, try Startalk or Sleepycabin. Startalk is with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and it's actually very entertaining and interesting. Sleepycabin is funny as hell in my opinion, worth trying if you have a darker sense of humor.
Tldr: podcasts are cool | If anyone wants to get into podcasts, try Startalk or Sleepycabin. Startalk is with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and it's actually very entertaining and interesting. Sleepycabin is funny as hell in my opinion, worth trying if you have a darker sense of humor.
Tldr: podcasts are cool
| AdviceAnimals | t5_2s7tt | cq5vu4d | If anyone wants to get into podcasts, try Startalk or Sleepycabin. Startalk is with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and it's actually very entertaining and interesting. Sleepycabin is funny as hell in my opinion, worth trying if you have a darker sense of humor. | podcasts are cool |
ninjajandal | I got up on the first day of the school holidays to find my kitchen floor coated in sugar, uneaten cornflakes on the bench (because they cocked up and put salt on them first) and my 5 and 7 year olds drinking straight sugar from their bunny cups. Thank God I could flick them to their grandmother yesterday while I worked, I may have throttled the pair of them.
TL; DR children for sale. | I got up on the first day of the school holidays to find my kitchen floor coated in sugar, uneaten cornflakes on the bench (because they cocked up and put salt on them first) and my 5 and 7 year olds drinking straight sugar from their bunny cups. Thank God I could flick them to their grandmother yesterday while I worked, I may have throttled the pair of them.
TL; DR children for sale.
| newzealand | t5_2qhma | cq5q5sp | I got up on the first day of the school holidays to find my kitchen floor coated in sugar, uneaten cornflakes on the bench (because they cocked up and put salt on them first) and my 5 and 7 year olds drinking straight sugar from their bunny cups. Thank God I could flick them to their grandmother yesterday while I worked, I may have throttled the pair of them. | children for sale. |
YuffieXiii | I used to be a pretty big nutcase about the NBA. Then it changed. When ESPN was purchased by ABC; who holds the rights to NBA games, the league took a bad turn.The little guys in the league little by little became feeder teams for the big market teams, it seems nearly impossible for a surprise team to ever happen. The other part is the very obvious flopping and preferred treatment of certain 'brand name' stars all over, and even in the playoffs (especially in the playoffs it decides games.) Yes, Some QBs are put on a pedastal for the NFL but it alot worse in the nba as theres less people in play at once, and the ones who are playing are those brand name stars. which leads to the next point. The only team thats successful that plays the game before it became lame is the San Antonio Spurs. They use their bench and strategies to win to win with player management. all the other big teams are in a constant arms race with eachother to have 'Super teams' at the cost of competitive balance in the league. It almost seems set up to happen this way. youll never see a big name land in milwaukee or lets say sacramento. which is where point 1 happens.
TLDR:Not even a attempt at hiding favoritism,corruption,and poaching. | I used to be a pretty big nutcase about the NBA. Then it changed. When ESPN was purchased by ABC; who holds the rights to NBA games, the league took a bad turn.The little guys in the league little by little became feeder teams for the big market teams, it seems nearly impossible for a surprise team to ever happen. The other part is the very obvious flopping and preferred treatment of certain 'brand name' stars all over, and even in the playoffs (especially in the playoffs it decides games.) Yes, Some QBs are put on a pedastal for the NFL but it alot worse in the nba as theres less people in play at once, and the ones who are playing are those brand name stars. which leads to the next point. The only team thats successful that plays the game before it became lame is the San Antonio Spurs. They use their bench and strategies to win to win with player management. all the other big teams are in a constant arms race with eachother to have 'Super teams' at the cost of competitive balance in the league. It almost seems set up to happen this way. youll never see a big name land in milwaukee or lets say sacramento. which is where point 1 happens.
TLDR:Not even a attempt at hiding favoritism,corruption,and poaching.
| sports | t5_2qgzy | cq610jb | I used to be a pretty big nutcase about the NBA. Then it changed. When ESPN was purchased by ABC; who holds the rights to NBA games, the league took a bad turn.The little guys in the league little by little became feeder teams for the big market teams, it seems nearly impossible for a surprise team to ever happen. The other part is the very obvious flopping and preferred treatment of certain 'brand name' stars all over, and even in the playoffs (especially in the playoffs it decides games.) Yes, Some QBs are put on a pedastal for the NFL but it alot worse in the nba as theres less people in play at once, and the ones who are playing are those brand name stars. which leads to the next point. The only team thats successful that plays the game before it became lame is the San Antonio Spurs. They use their bench and strategies to win to win with player management. all the other big teams are in a constant arms race with eachother to have 'Super teams' at the cost of competitive balance in the league. It almost seems set up to happen this way. youll never see a big name land in milwaukee or lets say sacramento. which is where point 1 happens. | Not even a attempt at hiding favoritism,corruption,and poaching. |
SilverMC | I enjoyed Michael's presence. I felt that he was over protective of Walt because he wanted to keep Walt in his life since he was born, but his wife prevented that from happening. After his love for his son was forcibly taken away by Brian, he clearly was in a dark place. You can then feel the frustration when Brian drops Walt off because Brian was not fit to be a father. Michael has Walt back in his life and he wants to make sure something like that never happens again. That's why he was so harsh on John Locke, he had an irrational fear that Walt would want Locke as a father.
Season two onwards when he pretty much compromised the entire groups situation ... that's when I was iffy on his character. I understand his love for his son transcends all, but he pretty much disposed of all his friends that helped him and his son assimilate on the island like they were nothing.
tl;dr I liked season one Mike, I did not like season two Mike.
As for my most hated character ... Locke's father (I forgot his name). That guy was just ... horrible upon horrible. | I enjoyed Michael's presence. I felt that he was over protective of Walt because he wanted to keep Walt in his life since he was born, but his wife prevented that from happening. After his love for his son was forcibly taken away by Brian, he clearly was in a dark place. You can then feel the frustration when Brian drops Walt off because Brian was not fit to be a father. Michael has Walt back in his life and he wants to make sure something like that never happens again. That's why he was so harsh on John Locke, he had an irrational fear that Walt would want Locke as a father.
Season two onwards when he pretty much compromised the entire groups situation ... that's when I was iffy on his character. I understand his love for his son transcends all, but he pretty much disposed of all his friends that helped him and his son assimilate on the island like they were nothing.
tl;dr I liked season one Mike, I did not like season two Mike.
As for my most hated character ... Locke's father (I forgot his name). That guy was just ... horrible upon horrible.
| lost | t5_2qhag | cq65atj | I enjoyed Michael's presence. I felt that he was over protective of Walt because he wanted to keep Walt in his life since he was born, but his wife prevented that from happening. After his love for his son was forcibly taken away by Brian, he clearly was in a dark place. You can then feel the frustration when Brian drops Walt off because Brian was not fit to be a father. Michael has Walt back in his life and he wants to make sure something like that never happens again. That's why he was so harsh on John Locke, he had an irrational fear that Walt would want Locke as a father.
Season two onwards when he pretty much compromised the entire groups situation ... that's when I was iffy on his character. I understand his love for his son transcends all, but he pretty much disposed of all his friends that helped him and his son assimilate on the island like they were nothing. | I liked season one Mike, I did not like season two Mike.
As for my most hated character ... Locke's father (I forgot his name). That guy was just ... horrible upon horrible. |
VetMichael | That's the weird thing about emotions; seemingly rational, logical people go bananas for the weirdest reasons. I've personally known lawyers who wind up helping smuggle drugs into prisons for inmates because "they love" so-and-so; I've personally known an ethics professor who sold tainted food - knew it was tainted - because the student he was dating was sleeping with him regularly; I've personally known a department chair who lost his job and his reputation because he *8flirted** with an attractive student and the student was upset because he was 'just being friendly.'
TL;DR humans are irrational when it comes to relationships. | That's the weird thing about emotions; seemingly rational, logical people go bananas for the weirdest reasons. I've personally known lawyers who wind up helping smuggle drugs into prisons for inmates because "they love" so-and-so; I've personally known an ethics professor who sold tainted food - knew it was tainted - because the student he was dating was sleeping with him regularly; I've personally known a department chair who lost his job and his reputation because he *8flirted** with an attractive student and the student was upset because he was 'just being friendly.'
TL;DR humans are irrational when it comes to relationships.
| Professors | t5_2svhp | cq7pna0 | That's the weird thing about emotions; seemingly rational, logical people go bananas for the weirdest reasons. I've personally known lawyers who wind up helping smuggle drugs into prisons for inmates because "they love" so-and-so; I've personally known an ethics professor who sold tainted food - knew it was tainted - because the student he was dating was sleeping with him regularly; I've personally known a department chair who lost his job and his reputation because he *8flirted** with an attractive student and the student was upset because he was 'just being friendly.' | humans are irrational when it comes to relationships. |
PrinceLacrima | In my opinion you absolutely should. I just recently finished Human Revolution and I wonder as to why I didn't play this game earlier. I have not played the console version, but I have seen some gameplay of it and well, there are issues with clipping and framedrops, so maybe you should play on the PC. I ran it on mine and it was really fine, the only thing is that the cutscenes look really horrible, compared to the in-game graphics. Good thing it isn't in reverse order, right?
So, the story is really cool, albeit at times a bit absurd, if you ask me. Especially when coming closer to the end it seems that the team had to think of something to wrap it all up. But as far as I've heard, the endings of Human Revolution will not be of any concern for Mankind Divided, so that is that. The music is fantastic, the artstyle is (in my opinion) gorgeous and I found the protagonist to be very badass. He might be a bit boring at times, but I interpreted it as the mysteriousness of a badass undercover-type guy. This is where we come to the different playstyles. I read some comments that you would spend most of your time aiming down the barrel of your weapon - well that depends on your playstyle. I went for a very clean and stealthy playstyle with as few deaths and knockouts as possible. Whenever possible I would circumvent any open conflict and/or being spotted, because you get extra XP for doing so. As a whole, a stealthier approach is highly rewarded by the game, but it also has its difficulties. Especially the bosses. The bosses were not made for a stealth build in the original HR. The Director's Cut has made some changes to the bossfights, so that you can play them as a stealth-character, but it is not always very easy and sometimes it is not clear as to how to manage this.
Apart from all these little problems that I experienced, I found the game to be awesome. The ethical debate that surrounds you at all times is fascinating and you are torn between two fractions. If you talk to the people on the streets and do all the side-quests, you really can delve deeper into the world and see through the whole situation. The side-quests didn't feel like a chore, I did them out of interest and because I really wanted to explore the world. The cities are really cool, albeit a bit restricted. Nevertheless it is really cool to walk into a futuristic whorehouse in modern China and solve a problem between a pro-augmentation pimp and rather conservative prostitutes.
TL;DR: Yes, play it. It's very much worth it! | In my opinion you absolutely should. I just recently finished Human Revolution and I wonder as to why I didn't play this game earlier. I have not played the console version, but I have seen some gameplay of it and well, there are issues with clipping and framedrops, so maybe you should play on the PC. I ran it on mine and it was really fine, the only thing is that the cutscenes look really horrible, compared to the in-game graphics. Good thing it isn't in reverse order, right?
So, the story is really cool, albeit at times a bit absurd, if you ask me. Especially when coming closer to the end it seems that the team had to think of something to wrap it all up. But as far as I've heard, the endings of Human Revolution will not be of any concern for Mankind Divided, so that is that. The music is fantastic, the artstyle is (in my opinion) gorgeous and I found the protagonist to be very badass. He might be a bit boring at times, but I interpreted it as the mysteriousness of a badass undercover-type guy. This is where we come to the different playstyles. I read some comments that you would spend most of your time aiming down the barrel of your weapon - well that depends on your playstyle. I went for a very clean and stealthy playstyle with as few deaths and knockouts as possible. Whenever possible I would circumvent any open conflict and/or being spotted, because you get extra XP for doing so. As a whole, a stealthier approach is highly rewarded by the game, but it also has its difficulties. Especially the bosses. The bosses were not made for a stealth build in the original HR. The Director's Cut has made some changes to the bossfights, so that you can play them as a stealth-character, but it is not always very easy and sometimes it is not clear as to how to manage this.
Apart from all these little problems that I experienced, I found the game to be awesome. The ethical debate that surrounds you at all times is fascinating and you are torn between two fractions. If you talk to the people on the streets and do all the side-quests, you really can delve deeper into the world and see through the whole situation. The side-quests didn't feel like a chore, I did them out of interest and because I really wanted to explore the world. The cities are really cool, albeit a bit restricted. Nevertheless it is really cool to walk into a futuristic whorehouse in modern China and solve a problem between a pro-augmentation pimp and rather conservative prostitutes.
TL;DR: Yes, play it. It's very much worth it!
| ShouldIbuythisgame | t5_2ud8h | cq6dlh1 | In my opinion you absolutely should. I just recently finished Human Revolution and I wonder as to why I didn't play this game earlier. I have not played the console version, but I have seen some gameplay of it and well, there are issues with clipping and framedrops, so maybe you should play on the PC. I ran it on mine and it was really fine, the only thing is that the cutscenes look really horrible, compared to the in-game graphics. Good thing it isn't in reverse order, right?
So, the story is really cool, albeit at times a bit absurd, if you ask me. Especially when coming closer to the end it seems that the team had to think of something to wrap it all up. But as far as I've heard, the endings of Human Revolution will not be of any concern for Mankind Divided, so that is that. The music is fantastic, the artstyle is (in my opinion) gorgeous and I found the protagonist to be very badass. He might be a bit boring at times, but I interpreted it as the mysteriousness of a badass undercover-type guy. This is where we come to the different playstyles. I read some comments that you would spend most of your time aiming down the barrel of your weapon - well that depends on your playstyle. I went for a very clean and stealthy playstyle with as few deaths and knockouts as possible. Whenever possible I would circumvent any open conflict and/or being spotted, because you get extra XP for doing so. As a whole, a stealthier approach is highly rewarded by the game, but it also has its difficulties. Especially the bosses. The bosses were not made for a stealth build in the original HR. The Director's Cut has made some changes to the bossfights, so that you can play them as a stealth-character, but it is not always very easy and sometimes it is not clear as to how to manage this.
Apart from all these little problems that I experienced, I found the game to be awesome. The ethical debate that surrounds you at all times is fascinating and you are torn between two fractions. If you talk to the people on the streets and do all the side-quests, you really can delve deeper into the world and see through the whole situation. The side-quests didn't feel like a chore, I did them out of interest and because I really wanted to explore the world. The cities are really cool, albeit a bit restricted. Nevertheless it is really cool to walk into a futuristic whorehouse in modern China and solve a problem between a pro-augmentation pimp and rather conservative prostitutes. | Yes, play it. It's very much worth it! |
SupervillainIndiana | As well as the fact they're usually not actually nice (well covered in this thread already) - it's the intentional or unintentional denial a woman has agency that I think turns a lot of people off. Women have eyes...and a libido too. They're allowed to not find you physically attractive and draw a line at friendship.
By that I mean the entitlement breeds this other attitude of "I tick off all this arbitrary stuff I'm told women like so why won't you, individual woman who has already said you don't find me attractive, suddenly drop your knickers/kiss me/want to marry me?"
There are general traits most people want in a partner but if you're fixated on that ONE woman maybe she just isn't into you in spite of those apparently universally loved traits? I think 'nice guys' think persistence is key but in my experience the "he won me over" stories come from women who already thought "he's cute and/or a great friend but I'm not sure" as opposed too "he kept denying my feelings and didn't respect my boundaries so by golly being told what women are SUPPOSED to do sure was a turn on, how could I resist?" Usually you won't change her mind by telling her she's going after jerks and is acting like a b-word for not giving you a chance....
Tl;dr if I were out there dating again nothing would turn me off faster than a guy telling me what women think and feel wrong. Thanks for telling me I don't know what's going on inside my own head... | As well as the fact they're usually not actually nice (well covered in this thread already) - it's the intentional or unintentional denial a woman has agency that I think turns a lot of people off. Women have eyes...and a libido too. They're allowed to not find you physically attractive and draw a line at friendship.
By that I mean the entitlement breeds this other attitude of "I tick off all this arbitrary stuff I'm told women like so why won't you, individual woman who has already said you don't find me attractive, suddenly drop your knickers/kiss me/want to marry me?"
There are general traits most people want in a partner but if you're fixated on that ONE woman maybe she just isn't into you in spite of those apparently universally loved traits? I think 'nice guys' think persistence is key but in my experience the "he won me over" stories come from women who already thought "he's cute and/or a great friend but I'm not sure" as opposed too "he kept denying my feelings and didn't respect my boundaries so by golly being told what women are SUPPOSED to do sure was a turn on, how could I resist?" Usually you won't change her mind by telling her she's going after jerks and is acting like a b-word for not giving you a chance....
Tl;dr if I were out there dating again nothing would turn me off faster than a guy telling me what women think and feel wrong. Thanks for telling me I don't know what's going on inside my own head...
| AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | cq6jvxe | As well as the fact they're usually not actually nice (well covered in this thread already) - it's the intentional or unintentional denial a woman has agency that I think turns a lot of people off. Women have eyes...and a libido too. They're allowed to not find you physically attractive and draw a line at friendship.
By that I mean the entitlement breeds this other attitude of "I tick off all this arbitrary stuff I'm told women like so why won't you, individual woman who has already said you don't find me attractive, suddenly drop your knickers/kiss me/want to marry me?"
There are general traits most people want in a partner but if you're fixated on that ONE woman maybe she just isn't into you in spite of those apparently universally loved traits? I think 'nice guys' think persistence is key but in my experience the "he won me over" stories come from women who already thought "he's cute and/or a great friend but I'm not sure" as opposed too "he kept denying my feelings and didn't respect my boundaries so by golly being told what women are SUPPOSED to do sure was a turn on, how could I resist?" Usually you won't change her mind by telling her she's going after jerks and is acting like a b-word for not giving you a chance.... | if I were out there dating again nothing would turn me off faster than a guy telling me what women think and feel wrong. Thanks for telling me I don't know what's going on inside my own head... |
demonit | oh come on, we all now he's right. me and my team had 2 tents full of food, then one of us was "hungry" (not red) and to reach energized and hydrated he had to empty 2 entire row of a tend, in real life someone can stay weeks without food, this is a thing that is still like the first release, no tweak at all after all this time, despite the fact that it not requires huge scripting or work whatsoever.
TL;DR: you are both right, food it's not hard to find, but in dayz survivors need food more ofter than oxigen for god's sake! | oh come on, we all now he's right. me and my team had 2 tents full of food, then one of us was "hungry" (not red) and to reach energized and hydrated he had to empty 2 entire row of a tend, in real life someone can stay weeks without food, this is a thing that is still like the first release, no tweak at all after all this time, despite the fact that it not requires huge scripting or work whatsoever.
TL;DR: you are both right, food it's not hard to find, but in dayz survivors need food more ofter than oxigen for god's sake!
| dayz | t5_2ty3s | cq6cx00 | oh come on, we all now he's right. me and my team had 2 tents full of food, then one of us was "hungry" (not red) and to reach energized and hydrated he had to empty 2 entire row of a tend, in real life someone can stay weeks without food, this is a thing that is still like the first release, no tweak at all after all this time, despite the fact that it not requires huge scripting or work whatsoever. | you are both right, food it's not hard to find, but in dayz survivors need food more ofter than oxigen for god's sake! |
LaurAdorable | Do you want to be engaged with a ring and plan a wedding, or is it more you are looking for some type of "social declaration" that you are a very serious and permanent couple? I think that a lot of it is this. Being engaged and married really doesn't change the dynamics of a relationship beyond making in legal on paper--which is important for many reasons I won't list here--but it makes you feel better because it validates the relationship. If you have been together for a while and have talked about it, and she says that she might propose over the summer, I would just chill and wait for that. I would totally stop nagging her because it may sound like you don't beleive her that she loves you and wants to marry you, that you don't trust her, and you seem wedding obsessed which is totally unttractive. And plus rings are expensive, yo!!! Maybe she's saving up. A wedding is just one stupid day.
tl;dr: chill out and wait for the summer. | Do you want to be engaged with a ring and plan a wedding, or is it more you are looking for some type of "social declaration" that you are a very serious and permanent couple? I think that a lot of it is this. Being engaged and married really doesn't change the dynamics of a relationship beyond making in legal on paper--which is important for many reasons I won't list here--but it makes you feel better because it validates the relationship. If you have been together for a while and have talked about it, and she says that she might propose over the summer, I would just chill and wait for that. I would totally stop nagging her because it may sound like you don't beleive her that she loves you and wants to marry you, that you don't trust her, and you seem wedding obsessed which is totally unttractive. And plus rings are expensive, yo!!! Maybe she's saving up. A wedding is just one stupid day.
tl;dr: chill out and wait for the summer.
| offmychest | t5_2ranw | cq6lc5j | Do you want to be engaged with a ring and plan a wedding, or is it more you are looking for some type of "social declaration" that you are a very serious and permanent couple? I think that a lot of it is this. Being engaged and married really doesn't change the dynamics of a relationship beyond making in legal on paper--which is important for many reasons I won't list here--but it makes you feel better because it validates the relationship. If you have been together for a while and have talked about it, and she says that she might propose over the summer, I would just chill and wait for that. I would totally stop nagging her because it may sound like you don't beleive her that she loves you and wants to marry you, that you don't trust her, and you seem wedding obsessed which is totally unttractive. And plus rings are expensive, yo!!! Maybe she's saving up. A wedding is just one stupid day. | chill out and wait for the summer. |
WetMogwai | This is not a freedom issue. This is an issue of public health. Vaccinations are not just about the individual. They're also about protecting people who can't be vaccinated, like the really young or the immuno-compromised. You shouldn't get to make a choice that can get someone else killed without their consent, so you shouldn't get to choose to not get vaccinated. It is even worse if you're making the choice for your kids. You don't own your children. They're people in their own right who just aren't old enough to make their own choices, so they have to be cared for responsibly. Ensuring they have access to the single most important medical advance in history is part of being responsible.
TL;DR: Nobody has the freedom to decide that others are going to get sick. | This is not a freedom issue. This is an issue of public health. Vaccinations are not just about the individual. They're also about protecting people who can't be vaccinated, like the really young or the immuno-compromised. You shouldn't get to make a choice that can get someone else killed without their consent, so you shouldn't get to choose to not get vaccinated. It is even worse if you're making the choice for your kids. You don't own your children. They're people in their own right who just aren't old enough to make their own choices, so they have to be cared for responsibly. Ensuring they have access to the single most important medical advance in history is part of being responsible.
TL;DR: Nobody has the freedom to decide that others are going to get sick.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq6t3um | This is not a freedom issue. This is an issue of public health. Vaccinations are not just about the individual. They're also about protecting people who can't be vaccinated, like the really young or the immuno-compromised. You shouldn't get to make a choice that can get someone else killed without their consent, so you shouldn't get to choose to not get vaccinated. It is even worse if you're making the choice for your kids. You don't own your children. They're people in their own right who just aren't old enough to make their own choices, so they have to be cared for responsibly. Ensuring they have access to the single most important medical advance in history is part of being responsible. | Nobody has the freedom to decide that others are going to get sick. |
secular_logic | >I remembered pretty quickly that the G-Horn explodes early based on proximity to enemies. I must have blew myself up at least 3 times, shooting when there was a Thrall nearby.
If you lock onto your target, then look up above them a little bit before pulling the trigger, the rocket will still be locked onto your target and as it is fired upward, it will then vere downward towards your target, helping to avoid premature detonation. It might take a little practice to account for how much elevation you need to clear trash in your path as the tracking is no Truth. It's also fun to watch tracking in action anyway.
**TL;DR:** Lock onto your target, then aim up and fire. Rocket will launch upward then track downward towards your target avoiding proximity detonations. | >I remembered pretty quickly that the G-Horn explodes early based on proximity to enemies. I must have blew myself up at least 3 times, shooting when there was a Thrall nearby.
If you lock onto your target, then look up above them a little bit before pulling the trigger, the rocket will still be locked onto your target and as it is fired upward, it will then vere downward towards your target, helping to avoid premature detonation. It might take a little practice to account for how much elevation you need to clear trash in your path as the tracking is no Truth. It's also fun to watch tracking in action anyway.
TL;DR: Lock onto your target, then aim up and fire. Rocket will launch upward then track downward towards your target avoiding proximity detonations.
| DestinyTheGame | t5_2vq0w | cq6unuj | I remembered pretty quickly that the G-Horn explodes early based on proximity to enemies. I must have blew myself up at least 3 times, shooting when there was a Thrall nearby.
If you lock onto your target, then look up above them a little bit before pulling the trigger, the rocket will still be locked onto your target and as it is fired upward, it will then vere downward towards your target, helping to avoid premature detonation. It might take a little practice to account for how much elevation you need to clear trash in your path as the tracking is no Truth. It's also fun to watch tracking in action anyway. | Lock onto your target, then aim up and fire. Rocket will launch upward then track downward towards your target avoiding proximity detonations. |
alan_s | Fear and depression is pretty normal when you've just been diagnosed with a life-long chronic condition. We understand that.
That's why people are still replying despite your resistance to good advice. Allowances were made for your reactions.
The time has come for you to take a deep breath, sit back, let it out and calm down. Your life is not over. If you read some of the other topics posted recently you will notice this: **[Regarding long lives for T1s]( There is no reason why you could not be telling your own story in 60 years time, provided you wake up to yourself and start managing your diabetes properly.
Spend some time going back and reading all the replies you've had. Sure, some weren't very complimentary but then neither were you.
Stop trying to predict your future. No-one can do that. Instead of asking unanswerable questions about your future concentrate on learning from the experienced people here who can give you very valuable advice on what to do right now for a long, healthy life as a type 1 diabetic.
tl;dr: Stop bleating and start learning. | Fear and depression is pretty normal when you've just been diagnosed with a life-long chronic condition. We understand that.
That's why people are still replying despite your resistance to good advice. Allowances were made for your reactions.
The time has come for you to take a deep breath, sit back, let it out and calm down. Your life is not over. If you read some of the other topics posted recently you will notice this: **[Regarding long lives for T1s]( There is no reason why you could not be telling your own story in 60 years time, provided you wake up to yourself and start managing your diabetes properly.
Spend some time going back and reading all the replies you've had. Sure, some weren't very complimentary but then neither were you.
Stop trying to predict your future. No-one can do that. Instead of asking unanswerable questions about your future concentrate on learning from the experienced people here who can give you very valuable advice on what to do right now for a long, healthy life as a type 1 diabetic.
tl;dr: Stop bleating and start learning.
| diabetes | t5_2qhsj | cq71qvn | Fear and depression is pretty normal when you've just been diagnosed with a life-long chronic condition. We understand that.
That's why people are still replying despite your resistance to good advice. Allowances were made for your reactions.
The time has come for you to take a deep breath, sit back, let it out and calm down. Your life is not over. If you read some of the other topics posted recently you will notice this: **[Regarding long lives for T1s]( There is no reason why you could not be telling your own story in 60 years time, provided you wake up to yourself and start managing your diabetes properly.
Spend some time going back and reading all the replies you've had. Sure, some weren't very complimentary but then neither were you.
Stop trying to predict your future. No-one can do that. Instead of asking unanswerable questions about your future concentrate on learning from the experienced people here who can give you very valuable advice on what to do right now for a long, healthy life as a type 1 diabetic. | Stop bleating and start learning. |
so_illogical | This paper from Science, 2013 has already become a seminal paper, it's been reviewed dozens of times (makes understanding it easier for you), and been featured lots on NPR.
"Sleep drives metabolite clearance from the adult brain"
TL;DR the authors propose a valid reason for why we sleep; during sleep, cells shrink in the brain, increasing flow of debris from the brain. | This paper from Science, 2013 has already become a seminal paper, it's been reviewed dozens of times (makes understanding it easier for you), and been featured lots on NPR.
"Sleep drives metabolite clearance from the adult brain"
TL;DR the authors propose a valid reason for why we sleep; during sleep, cells shrink in the brain, increasing flow of debris from the brain.
| neuro | t5_2qu9b | cq784n0 | This paper from Science, 2013 has already become a seminal paper, it's been reviewed dozens of times (makes understanding it easier for you), and been featured lots on NPR.
"Sleep drives metabolite clearance from the adult brain" | the authors propose a valid reason for why we sleep; during sleep, cells shrink in the brain, increasing flow of debris from the brain. |
OldCrypt | Definitively, nothing is explicit in the writings. From the books, the ring "shifts" the bearer to the "Wraith" world/dimension. From the Silly Marilly, the "Wraith" dimension is the "in-between" from Middle-Earth to the Blessed Lands: many travel *through* it, but to be stuck there is to be a torturous existence. The Ring holds a "large part" of Sauron's power(s), one of these is his ability to exist in Middle-Earth, the "in-between," and the Blessed Lands (though he doesn't dare to attempt a return there in his limited - comparatively - power).
When a bearer slips on the ring, the most basic part of Sauron's power in the Ring shifts the bearer to the "in-between" ***if*** they don't know how to control it through their Will. This is why the Istari (The Wise, i.e. Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, et al) don't "shift." First, because they can already do this feat, second because they can exert their Will to control the effect. The Istari can do this already by Gandalf's words in one book (I forget the exact one) where he's telling the tale of being on a hilltop surrounded - along with his companions - and he says he could "escape at any time, but for the abandonment of my companions": implying many things, but also the ability to escape unseen. Things like that are sprinkled throughout the books, to be left to discernment and imagination as to the powers the Istari wield.
The Elves, being of both Middle-Earth and the Blessed Lands, can travel the "Wraith" dimension; but, only the powerful can do so at Will. So, the Ring(s) would not have an effect upon them like that unless they allowed it: same as the Istari.
The Dwarves are wholly creatures of Middle-Earth. They were not created by God (I forget the term, it's been a loooong time since I read the Silly Marilly). They are not able to travel to the Blessed Lands, or see them. So, they're never able to go into the "Wraith" state/world like the others.
Men can ***see*** the Blessed Lands, "God" having created *them*, but can never go there as their Fate is a different one determined by "God." That's how the Nine were trapped by Sauron. They gained power being there, but can not go forward to the Blessed Lands, and can only project their Spirits - all that's left of them - through Will back onto Middle-Earth.
TL;DR
So, there's nothing particularly "significant" about this "invisibility." The invisibility is nothing more than a side effect of the nature of the Ring(s). | Definitively, nothing is explicit in the writings. From the books, the ring "shifts" the bearer to the "Wraith" world/dimension. From the Silly Marilly, the "Wraith" dimension is the "in-between" from Middle-Earth to the Blessed Lands: many travel through it, but to be stuck there is to be a torturous existence. The Ring holds a "large part" of Sauron's power(s), one of these is his ability to exist in Middle-Earth, the "in-between," and the Blessed Lands (though he doesn't dare to attempt a return there in his limited - comparatively - power).
When a bearer slips on the ring, the most basic part of Sauron's power in the Ring shifts the bearer to the "in-between" if they don't know how to control it through their Will. This is why the Istari (The Wise, i.e. Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, et al) don't "shift." First, because they can already do this feat, second because they can exert their Will to control the effect. The Istari can do this already by Gandalf's words in one book (I forget the exact one) where he's telling the tale of being on a hilltop surrounded - along with his companions - and he says he could "escape at any time, but for the abandonment of my companions": implying many things, but also the ability to escape unseen. Things like that are sprinkled throughout the books, to be left to discernment and imagination as to the powers the Istari wield.
The Elves, being of both Middle-Earth and the Blessed Lands, can travel the "Wraith" dimension; but, only the powerful can do so at Will. So, the Ring(s) would not have an effect upon them like that unless they allowed it: same as the Istari.
The Dwarves are wholly creatures of Middle-Earth. They were not created by God (I forget the term, it's been a loooong time since I read the Silly Marilly). They are not able to travel to the Blessed Lands, or see them. So, they're never able to go into the "Wraith" state/world like the others.
Men can see the Blessed Lands, "God" having created them , but can never go there as their Fate is a different one determined by "God." That's how the Nine were trapped by Sauron. They gained power being there, but can not go forward to the Blessed Lands, and can only project their Spirits - all that's left of them - through Will back onto Middle-Earth.
TL;DR
So, there's nothing particularly "significant" about this "invisibility." The invisibility is nothing more than a side effect of the nature of the Ring(s).
| books | t5_2qh4i | cq7btwe | Definitively, nothing is explicit in the writings. From the books, the ring "shifts" the bearer to the "Wraith" world/dimension. From the Silly Marilly, the "Wraith" dimension is the "in-between" from Middle-Earth to the Blessed Lands: many travel through it, but to be stuck there is to be a torturous existence. The Ring holds a "large part" of Sauron's power(s), one of these is his ability to exist in Middle-Earth, the "in-between," and the Blessed Lands (though he doesn't dare to attempt a return there in his limited - comparatively - power).
When a bearer slips on the ring, the most basic part of Sauron's power in the Ring shifts the bearer to the "in-between" if they don't know how to control it through their Will. This is why the Istari (The Wise, i.e. Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, et al) don't "shift." First, because they can already do this feat, second because they can exert their Will to control the effect. The Istari can do this already by Gandalf's words in one book (I forget the exact one) where he's telling the tale of being on a hilltop surrounded - along with his companions - and he says he could "escape at any time, but for the abandonment of my companions": implying many things, but also the ability to escape unseen. Things like that are sprinkled throughout the books, to be left to discernment and imagination as to the powers the Istari wield.
The Elves, being of both Middle-Earth and the Blessed Lands, can travel the "Wraith" dimension; but, only the powerful can do so at Will. So, the Ring(s) would not have an effect upon them like that unless they allowed it: same as the Istari.
The Dwarves are wholly creatures of Middle-Earth. They were not created by God (I forget the term, it's been a loooong time since I read the Silly Marilly). They are not able to travel to the Blessed Lands, or see them. So, they're never able to go into the "Wraith" state/world like the others.
Men can see the Blessed Lands, "God" having created them , but can never go there as their Fate is a different one determined by "God." That's how the Nine were trapped by Sauron. They gained power being there, but can not go forward to the Blessed Lands, and can only project their Spirits - all that's left of them - through Will back onto Middle-Earth. | So, there's nothing particularly "significant" about this "invisibility." The invisibility is nothing more than a side effect of the nature of the Ring(s). |
DeandreLevyathan | Because he technically can't "shift" between the wraith world and the physical (our) world. He, along with all Ainu (spiritual beings) and Eldar (elves who have been to the Undying Lands) exist in both simultaneously.
Gandalf, along with Saruman and the other 3 wizards are known collectively as the Istari. They are maia spirits (think of them *loosely* as being akin to angels or demigods), sent to aid the peoples of Middle Earth in defeating Sauron, who is also a maia. This is why, even if gandalf chose to only appear in the wraith world, he would still be clearly visible to Saruman, Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog and the like.
Fun fact: the Istari, being Maia, would indeed have the ability to challenge Sauron mano-y-Mano and perhaps come out victorious. However, since they were only sent to assist the peoples of middle earth in uniting against Sauron, they have a limit set on how they use their powers, and are prohibited from taking him on by themselves. With the ring, gandalf would actually be able to overthrow Sauron with relative ease and usurp him, with Sauron becoming his inferior.
TL;DR: Gandalf exists in both realms, so he can't really just switch back and forth. Even if he could, his main enemies are similar to him in terms of power and would be able to see him anyway. | Because he technically can't "shift" between the wraith world and the physical (our) world. He, along with all Ainu (spiritual beings) and Eldar (elves who have been to the Undying Lands) exist in both simultaneously.
Gandalf, along with Saruman and the other 3 wizards are known collectively as the Istari. They are maia spirits (think of them loosely as being akin to angels or demigods), sent to aid the peoples of Middle Earth in defeating Sauron, who is also a maia. This is why, even if gandalf chose to only appear in the wraith world, he would still be clearly visible to Saruman, Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog and the like.
Fun fact: the Istari, being Maia, would indeed have the ability to challenge Sauron mano-y-Mano and perhaps come out victorious. However, since they were only sent to assist the peoples of middle earth in uniting against Sauron, they have a limit set on how they use their powers, and are prohibited from taking him on by themselves. With the ring, gandalf would actually be able to overthrow Sauron with relative ease and usurp him, with Sauron becoming his inferior.
TL;DR: Gandalf exists in both realms, so he can't really just switch back and forth. Even if he could, his main enemies are similar to him in terms of power and would be able to see him anyway.
| books | t5_2qh4i | cq7h9st | Because he technically can't "shift" between the wraith world and the physical (our) world. He, along with all Ainu (spiritual beings) and Eldar (elves who have been to the Undying Lands) exist in both simultaneously.
Gandalf, along with Saruman and the other 3 wizards are known collectively as the Istari. They are maia spirits (think of them loosely as being akin to angels or demigods), sent to aid the peoples of Middle Earth in defeating Sauron, who is also a maia. This is why, even if gandalf chose to only appear in the wraith world, he would still be clearly visible to Saruman, Sauron, the Nazgul, the Balrog and the like.
Fun fact: the Istari, being Maia, would indeed have the ability to challenge Sauron mano-y-Mano and perhaps come out victorious. However, since they were only sent to assist the peoples of middle earth in uniting against Sauron, they have a limit set on how they use their powers, and are prohibited from taking him on by themselves. With the ring, gandalf would actually be able to overthrow Sauron with relative ease and usurp him, with Sauron becoming his inferior. | Gandalf exists in both realms, so he can't really just switch back and forth. Even if he could, his main enemies are similar to him in terms of power and would be able to see him anyway. |
d33pwint3r | the part about the dwarves being effected is not quite true. Yes they were a sturdy people and were not under the sway of Sauron but over time they were susceptible to the powers of their rings. In the appendices to LOTR it tell the story of Thror and Thrain prior to the battles to reclaim the mines of moria from azog. Thror had one of the last remaining dwarf rings. After hundreds of years it weighed on him more heavily because of his desire for wealth, something dwarves are known for. When he began to feel it, he left with his advisor and passed the ring to thrain. When thrain went missing after the fall of erebor his ring drew him towards Dol Guldur where he was seen by Gandalf (happened concurently with The Hobbit, when the dwarves and Bilbo were in Mirkwood).
tl;dr dwarves were effected but were much more resistant than other races | the part about the dwarves being effected is not quite true. Yes they were a sturdy people and were not under the sway of Sauron but over time they were susceptible to the powers of their rings. In the appendices to LOTR it tell the story of Thror and Thrain prior to the battles to reclaim the mines of moria from azog. Thror had one of the last remaining dwarf rings. After hundreds of years it weighed on him more heavily because of his desire for wealth, something dwarves are known for. When he began to feel it, he left with his advisor and passed the ring to thrain. When thrain went missing after the fall of erebor his ring drew him towards Dol Guldur where he was seen by Gandalf (happened concurently with The Hobbit, when the dwarves and Bilbo were in Mirkwood).
tl;dr dwarves were effected but were much more resistant than other races
| books | t5_2qh4i | cq82aqp | the part about the dwarves being effected is not quite true. Yes they were a sturdy people and were not under the sway of Sauron but over time they were susceptible to the powers of their rings. In the appendices to LOTR it tell the story of Thror and Thrain prior to the battles to reclaim the mines of moria from azog. Thror had one of the last remaining dwarf rings. After hundreds of years it weighed on him more heavily because of his desire for wealth, something dwarves are known for. When he began to feel it, he left with his advisor and passed the ring to thrain. When thrain went missing after the fall of erebor his ring drew him towards Dol Guldur where he was seen by Gandalf (happened concurently with The Hobbit, when the dwarves and Bilbo were in Mirkwood). | dwarves were effected but were much more resistant than other races |
ShortWoman | No, there's not a small problem. There's many small problems.
Does your state require a license to be a property manager? Most require a real estate license to manage property you don't own (most also have an exception for employees of apartment management companies), and some require an additional property management certification on top of the license (Hello Nevada!).
Do the tenants have a current lease? If so you must honor it. It is a breach of contract to raise the rent in the middle of a lease. Does your state or your month-to-month lease have a notice requirement for raising the rent? 30 or 60 days is not uncommon. Does your state or city have a maximum you're allowed to raise the rent at once? Some do.
If these people are doing as you say, do you really just want to raise the rent? Or do you want to get rid of them? Surely you don't think they're going to move out the extra residents just because you say so! And surely you don't think you're going to raise the rate directly to market rate from an 8 year old rate minus $400. Hell, I'd move if I got a $400 rent increase. And aside from the risk of damaging the property, do you care if you piss them off?
TLDR: Yes, your dad needs a property manager who knows the law and how to handle problem tenants. There is much to learn, young padawan. | No, there's not a small problem. There's many small problems.
Does your state require a license to be a property manager? Most require a real estate license to manage property you don't own (most also have an exception for employees of apartment management companies), and some require an additional property management certification on top of the license (Hello Nevada!).
Do the tenants have a current lease? If so you must honor it. It is a breach of contract to raise the rent in the middle of a lease. Does your state or your month-to-month lease have a notice requirement for raising the rent? 30 or 60 days is not uncommon. Does your state or city have a maximum you're allowed to raise the rent at once? Some do.
If these people are doing as you say, do you really just want to raise the rent? Or do you want to get rid of them? Surely you don't think they're going to move out the extra residents just because you say so! And surely you don't think you're going to raise the rate directly to market rate from an 8 year old rate minus $400. Hell, I'd move if I got a $400 rent increase. And aside from the risk of damaging the property, do you care if you piss them off?
TLDR: Yes, your dad needs a property manager who knows the law and how to handle problem tenants. There is much to learn, young padawan.
| RealEstate | t5_2qipl | cq78lni | No, there's not a small problem. There's many small problems.
Does your state require a license to be a property manager? Most require a real estate license to manage property you don't own (most also have an exception for employees of apartment management companies), and some require an additional property management certification on top of the license (Hello Nevada!).
Do the tenants have a current lease? If so you must honor it. It is a breach of contract to raise the rent in the middle of a lease. Does your state or your month-to-month lease have a notice requirement for raising the rent? 30 or 60 days is not uncommon. Does your state or city have a maximum you're allowed to raise the rent at once? Some do.
If these people are doing as you say, do you really just want to raise the rent? Or do you want to get rid of them? Surely you don't think they're going to move out the extra residents just because you say so! And surely you don't think you're going to raise the rate directly to market rate from an 8 year old rate minus $400. Hell, I'd move if I got a $400 rent increase. And aside from the risk of damaging the property, do you care if you piss them off? | Yes, your dad needs a property manager who knows the law and how to handle problem tenants. There is much to learn, young padawan. |
rootofgoodblog | It always surprises me to hear people earning six figure incomes and not having any extra money laying around to cover an unexpected expense or simply pay off the credit cards when doing something big like an overseas trip. It all comes down to savings rate though, and there's nothing magical about having a negative savings rate (ie spending more than you make) just because you make a fat salary.
I also know a lot more six figure earners that are actually fairly responsible with money. Maybe it is the engineering profession (spreadsheets, ya'll), but the folks at the top where I've worked seem to have money set aside for things like new cars, house repairs, and trips. They might stick everything on the credit card, but that's to get points and leave their cash in the bank for an extra month earning interest.
tldr: high paying jobs aren't an antidote to spending more than you make. | It always surprises me to hear people earning six figure incomes and not having any extra money laying around to cover an unexpected expense or simply pay off the credit cards when doing something big like an overseas trip. It all comes down to savings rate though, and there's nothing magical about having a negative savings rate (ie spending more than you make) just because you make a fat salary.
I also know a lot more six figure earners that are actually fairly responsible with money. Maybe it is the engineering profession (spreadsheets, ya'll), but the folks at the top where I've worked seem to have money set aside for things like new cars, house repairs, and trips. They might stick everything on the credit card, but that's to get points and leave their cash in the bank for an extra month earning interest.
tldr: high paying jobs aren't an antidote to spending more than you make.
| financialindependence | t5_2t34z | cq7wv6w | It always surprises me to hear people earning six figure incomes and not having any extra money laying around to cover an unexpected expense or simply pay off the credit cards when doing something big like an overseas trip. It all comes down to savings rate though, and there's nothing magical about having a negative savings rate (ie spending more than you make) just because you make a fat salary.
I also know a lot more six figure earners that are actually fairly responsible with money. Maybe it is the engineering profession (spreadsheets, ya'll), but the folks at the top where I've worked seem to have money set aside for things like new cars, house repairs, and trips. They might stick everything on the credit card, but that's to get points and leave their cash in the bank for an extra month earning interest. | high paying jobs aren't an antidote to spending more than you make. |
DontMentionLobsters | Say what you will of them, they are not art,
but rather an evolutionary fart.
The people who like them are rather pretentious
as when they've been dead some time, they emit stenches.
When I buy furniture, I'd rather buy me a
plug ugly poster, than Løbster, by Ikea.
_tl;dr:_ fuck lobsters, evil cunts. | Say what you will of them, they are not art,
but rather an evolutionary fart.
The people who like them are rather pretentious
as when they've been dead some time, they emit stenches.
When I buy furniture, I'd rather buy me a
plug ugly poster, than Løbster, by Ikea.
tl;dr: fuck lobsters, evil cunts.
| delusionalartists | t5_2wtsv | cq81fhv | Say what you will of them, they are not art,
but rather an evolutionary fart.
The people who like them are rather pretentious
as when they've been dead some time, they emit stenches.
When I buy furniture, I'd rather buy me a
plug ugly poster, than Løbster, by Ikea. | fuck lobsters, evil cunts. |
aytrax | Alright, let me try to simplify it a bit - from what I can remember at the moment. A bit early-game spoilers from the first 2 games below, so beware.
Also, remember this, there are like almost 10 books set in The Witcher universe, written by Andrzej Sapkowski, a polish author, and the games are HEAVILY based on those books. Almost all main characters in the witcher games were in the books. And the books are fucking good.
You don't need to know anything to enjoy the games. They are very good at slowly inviting you into the storyline/lore. Reading the books and/or playing the previous game(s) just gives you the 'cherry on top' moments like "Oh yeah, it's that chick that Geralt banged in Oxenfurt medical school before chopping some assassins into pieces while enroute to some old shaman/witch doctor without teeth. Sweet!"
In Witcher 1 you basically are this middle-aged dude - named Geralt (of Rivia, lol - sweet moment from the book ;) ) - with amnesia who arrives half dead at a ruined castle. Turns out, that you are a member of an ancient (and almost completely dead) order of witchers - outcasts of society, who were turned into superhuman mutants by using sick ass drugs and bad mojo magic (which kills most of the 'candidates', but nobody cares 'cause they only 'use' orphans and whatever society spits out and doesn't give two fucks about)
The starting point is that you have amnesia and you want to recover your lost memories. And The game begins as you are thrown into the brutal game-of-throne-ish politics of the world with an attack by bandits that want to kill all the left-over remnants of the witcher order. The games has a prologue, five chapters and an epilogue. It introduces you into the world and basically sets the stage for the second game. There is a lot of fun things in this game world - war, racism, wild beasts, even wilder human-killing-and-eating monsters, murder, political murder, political mass murder, assassins and whores. The writing is the strongest part of the game as the mechanics of the first game are average at best. Oh, and you also get collectible stylish hand painted cards for every woman you bang in the game.
The Witcher 2 begins as you have kind of 'unwillingly' become a sidekick to one of the major 'players' in the political scene of this world. There is a LOT of politic-related plot points, so if you like this kind of thing then 'yay'. Oh, and it's the fun kind of politics - assassinations, mass murder, rebellions, dragons, power plays. From the perspective of having just finished the game again a few days ago, it's a great prelude to the third game, at least story-wise. The game has 16 possible endings. SIXTEEN ENDINGS. If you wish, you can see some fucking grim shit, and I'm not even talking mass murder - I'm talking torture by gouging out eyes of helpless characters - not innocent ones (not gonna spoil this one!), but still.
The game looks fucking amazing, even today, the monster design alone beats Dragon Age: Inquisition to the ground. There is a free combat-rebalance mod that makes the combat pretty fluid and fun. Oh, you still can bang chicks left and right, but I don't think you get porn-art styled cards for it this time /sadface.
Answering your question directly (TL;DR?) :
During first two your protagonist - Geralt - recovers most of his memories and learns 'whats up'. He is a character with a huge 'baggage' thanks to extensive lore coming from both the books and the games. There are people dear to you that need to be found and there are people you have met that will help you do it. In the meantime, you are still the witcher - bad ass monster slayer that kills unique and horribly dangerous creatures for money using his mutant reflexes/strength and some 'simple' magic very similar to jedi powers. The big, awe-invoking magic is primarily used by other characters and monsters, as it is an extremely hard to control force of nature in this world.
At Witcher 3 start you are a well developed character set on a certain path. You will probably not change the main plot direction, but will be able to proceed in 'your own preferered way'. I have no idea what the possibilities are, but knowing that characters like Ciri and Yennefer are in the game (and it's a big fucking deal for people who read the books, I 'was' infatuated with those characters for most of my growing-up period) your decisions could be World Changing. And they probably will be. Why? Because it's fun. And CDPR is all about fun. | Alright, let me try to simplify it a bit - from what I can remember at the moment. A bit early-game spoilers from the first 2 games below, so beware.
Also, remember this, there are like almost 10 books set in The Witcher universe, written by Andrzej Sapkowski, a polish author, and the games are HEAVILY based on those books. Almost all main characters in the witcher games were in the books. And the books are fucking good.
You don't need to know anything to enjoy the games. They are very good at slowly inviting you into the storyline/lore. Reading the books and/or playing the previous game(s) just gives you the 'cherry on top' moments like "Oh yeah, it's that chick that Geralt banged in Oxenfurt medical school before chopping some assassins into pieces while enroute to some old shaman/witch doctor without teeth. Sweet!"
In Witcher 1 you basically are this middle-aged dude - named Geralt (of Rivia, lol - sweet moment from the book ;) ) - with amnesia who arrives half dead at a ruined castle. Turns out, that you are a member of an ancient (and almost completely dead) order of witchers - outcasts of society, who were turned into superhuman mutants by using sick ass drugs and bad mojo magic (which kills most of the 'candidates', but nobody cares 'cause they only 'use' orphans and whatever society spits out and doesn't give two fucks about)
The starting point is that you have amnesia and you want to recover your lost memories. And The game begins as you are thrown into the brutal game-of-throne-ish politics of the world with an attack by bandits that want to kill all the left-over remnants of the witcher order. The games has a prologue, five chapters and an epilogue. It introduces you into the world and basically sets the stage for the second game. There is a lot of fun things in this game world - war, racism, wild beasts, even wilder human-killing-and-eating monsters, murder, political murder, political mass murder, assassins and whores. The writing is the strongest part of the game as the mechanics of the first game are average at best. Oh, and you also get collectible stylish hand painted cards for every woman you bang in the game.
The Witcher 2 begins as you have kind of 'unwillingly' become a sidekick to one of the major 'players' in the political scene of this world. There is a LOT of politic-related plot points, so if you like this kind of thing then 'yay'. Oh, and it's the fun kind of politics - assassinations, mass murder, rebellions, dragons, power plays. From the perspective of having just finished the game again a few days ago, it's a great prelude to the third game, at least story-wise. The game has 16 possible endings. SIXTEEN ENDINGS. If you wish, you can see some fucking grim shit, and I'm not even talking mass murder - I'm talking torture by gouging out eyes of helpless characters - not innocent ones (not gonna spoil this one!), but still.
The game looks fucking amazing, even today, the monster design alone beats Dragon Age: Inquisition to the ground. There is a free combat-rebalance mod that makes the combat pretty fluid and fun. Oh, you still can bang chicks left and right, but I don't think you get porn-art styled cards for it this time /sadface.
Answering your question directly (TL;DR?) :
During first two your protagonist - Geralt - recovers most of his memories and learns 'whats up'. He is a character with a huge 'baggage' thanks to extensive lore coming from both the books and the games. There are people dear to you that need to be found and there are people you have met that will help you do it. In the meantime, you are still the witcher - bad ass monster slayer that kills unique and horribly dangerous creatures for money using his mutant reflexes/strength and some 'simple' magic very similar to jedi powers. The big, awe-invoking magic is primarily used by other characters and monsters, as it is an extremely hard to control force of nature in this world.
At Witcher 3 start you are a well developed character set on a certain path. You will probably not change the main plot direction, but will be able to proceed in 'your own preferered way'. I have no idea what the possibilities are, but knowing that characters like Ciri and Yennefer are in the game (and it's a big fucking deal for people who read the books, I 'was' infatuated with those characters for most of my growing-up period) your decisions could be World Changing. And they probably will be. Why? Because it's fun. And CDPR is all about fun.
| Games | t5_2qhwp | cq898gs | Alright, let me try to simplify it a bit - from what I can remember at the moment. A bit early-game spoilers from the first 2 games below, so beware.
Also, remember this, there are like almost 10 books set in The Witcher universe, written by Andrzej Sapkowski, a polish author, and the games are HEAVILY based on those books. Almost all main characters in the witcher games were in the books. And the books are fucking good.
You don't need to know anything to enjoy the games. They are very good at slowly inviting you into the storyline/lore. Reading the books and/or playing the previous game(s) just gives you the 'cherry on top' moments like "Oh yeah, it's that chick that Geralt banged in Oxenfurt medical school before chopping some assassins into pieces while enroute to some old shaman/witch doctor without teeth. Sweet!"
In Witcher 1 you basically are this middle-aged dude - named Geralt (of Rivia, lol - sweet moment from the book ;) ) - with amnesia who arrives half dead at a ruined castle. Turns out, that you are a member of an ancient (and almost completely dead) order of witchers - outcasts of society, who were turned into superhuman mutants by using sick ass drugs and bad mojo magic (which kills most of the 'candidates', but nobody cares 'cause they only 'use' orphans and whatever society spits out and doesn't give two fucks about)
The starting point is that you have amnesia and you want to recover your lost memories. And The game begins as you are thrown into the brutal game-of-throne-ish politics of the world with an attack by bandits that want to kill all the left-over remnants of the witcher order. The games has a prologue, five chapters and an epilogue. It introduces you into the world and basically sets the stage for the second game. There is a lot of fun things in this game world - war, racism, wild beasts, even wilder human-killing-and-eating monsters, murder, political murder, political mass murder, assassins and whores. The writing is the strongest part of the game as the mechanics of the first game are average at best. Oh, and you also get collectible stylish hand painted cards for every woman you bang in the game.
The Witcher 2 begins as you have kind of 'unwillingly' become a sidekick to one of the major 'players' in the political scene of this world. There is a LOT of politic-related plot points, so if you like this kind of thing then 'yay'. Oh, and it's the fun kind of politics - assassinations, mass murder, rebellions, dragons, power plays. From the perspective of having just finished the game again a few days ago, it's a great prelude to the third game, at least story-wise. The game has 16 possible endings. SIXTEEN ENDINGS. If you wish, you can see some fucking grim shit, and I'm not even talking mass murder - I'm talking torture by gouging out eyes of helpless characters - not innocent ones (not gonna spoil this one!), but still.
The game looks fucking amazing, even today, the monster design alone beats Dragon Age: Inquisition to the ground. There is a free combat-rebalance mod that makes the combat pretty fluid and fun. Oh, you still can bang chicks left and right, but I don't think you get porn-art styled cards for it this time /sadface.
Answering your question directly ( | During first two your protagonist - Geralt - recovers most of his memories and learns 'whats up'. He is a character with a huge 'baggage' thanks to extensive lore coming from both the books and the games. There are people dear to you that need to be found and there are people you have met that will help you do it. In the meantime, you are still the witcher - bad ass monster slayer that kills unique and horribly dangerous creatures for money using his mutant reflexes/strength and some 'simple' magic very similar to jedi powers. The big, awe-invoking magic is primarily used by other characters and monsters, as it is an extremely hard to control force of nature in this world.
At Witcher 3 start you are a well developed character set on a certain path. You will probably not change the main plot direction, but will be able to proceed in 'your own preferered way'. I have no idea what the possibilities are, but knowing that characters like Ciri and Yennefer are in the game (and it's a big fucking deal for people who read the books, I 'was' infatuated with those characters for most of my growing-up period) your decisions could be World Changing. And they probably will be. Why? Because it's fun. And CDPR is all about fun. |
tv999988 | I'm only going to talk about TVs in this post:
TVs are pretty cheap and only get expensive towards the higher end (4k, >60 inches). 32 inches is small. The price difference between 32 inches and 50ish inches will be a couple hundred bucks, and a chromecast is negligible (~30 bucks). I personally recommend the Vizio E-series, great quality and relatively inexpensive (50 inches looks like it's $500-600).
EDIT: don't go 3D tv, don't go 4k tv, just 1080p smart LED tv
tl;dr -- treat yourself to a nicer tv for a few hundred bucks more, and enjoy GOT with your friends significantly more. | I'm only going to talk about TVs in this post:
TVs are pretty cheap and only get expensive towards the higher end (4k, >60 inches). 32 inches is small. The price difference between 32 inches and 50ish inches will be a couple hundred bucks, and a chromecast is negligible (~30 bucks). I personally recommend the Vizio E-series, great quality and relatively inexpensive (50 inches looks like it's $500-600).
EDIT: don't go 3D tv, don't go 4k tv, just 1080p smart LED tv
tl;dr -- treat yourself to a nicer tv for a few hundred bucks more, and enjoy GOT with your friends significantly more.
| personalfinance | t5_2qstm | cq7wjyn | I'm only going to talk about TVs in this post:
TVs are pretty cheap and only get expensive towards the higher end (4k, >60 inches). 32 inches is small. The price difference between 32 inches and 50ish inches will be a couple hundred bucks, and a chromecast is negligible (~30 bucks). I personally recommend the Vizio E-series, great quality and relatively inexpensive (50 inches looks like it's $500-600).
EDIT: don't go 3D tv, don't go 4k tv, just 1080p smart LED tv | treat yourself to a nicer tv for a few hundred bucks more, and enjoy GOT with your friends significantly more. |
nofftastic | It's because there are actually two different ways to measure disk space. Manufacturers use multiples of 10, so a kilobyte is 1000 bytes, a megabyte is 1,000 kilobytes, etc.
Computers, however, use a base-2 system, since computers work in binary (1's and 0's). To a computer, a kilobyte is 1024 bytes (2^10 bytes), a megabyte is 1024 kilobytes, etc.
Since they are measuring differently, the manufacturer makes a 16 gigabyte hard drive using the measure of: 1 gigabyte = 1000^3 bytes, but the computer measures it as 1 gigabyte = 1024^3 bytes. This means the computer is reads it as less than 16 GB. There are also drivers on the pendrive, which are programs that tell the computer what it is and how to interact with it, and they take up a small amount of space too.
The terms "kilo-", "mega-", "giga-", etc. on your computer are actually inaccurate. Technically, those prefixes refer to multiples of 1000. When computers were being developed, 1024 was close enough to 1000, so they called 1024 bytes a "kilobyte," 1024 kilobytes a "megabyte," and so on. As you get to larger and larger units, like gigabytes, there starts being a significant difference between a base-10 unit and a base-2 unit of measurement. Therefore, the terms "Mebi-", "kebi-", "Gibi-", etc. have been introduced. They are the "correct," though rarely used way to refer to base-2 measurements.
* 1 Gigabyte = 1,000,000,000 bytes
* 1 Gibibyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes
TL;DR: The drive is 16 *Giga*bytes, but your computer measures it in *Gibi*bytes, then lies to you and calls them "Gigabytes."
[For more about base-10 vs base-2 definition of storage space]( | It's because there are actually two different ways to measure disk space. Manufacturers use multiples of 10, so a kilobyte is 1000 bytes, a megabyte is 1,000 kilobytes, etc.
Computers, however, use a base-2 system, since computers work in binary (1's and 0's). To a computer, a kilobyte is 1024 bytes (2^10 bytes), a megabyte is 1024 kilobytes, etc.
Since they are measuring differently, the manufacturer makes a 16 gigabyte hard drive using the measure of: 1 gigabyte = 1000^3 bytes, but the computer measures it as 1 gigabyte = 1024^3 bytes. This means the computer is reads it as less than 16 GB. There are also drivers on the pendrive, which are programs that tell the computer what it is and how to interact with it, and they take up a small amount of space too.
The terms "kilo-", "mega-", "giga-", etc. on your computer are actually inaccurate. Technically, those prefixes refer to multiples of 1000. When computers were being developed, 1024 was close enough to 1000, so they called 1024 bytes a "kilobyte," 1024 kilobytes a "megabyte," and so on. As you get to larger and larger units, like gigabytes, there starts being a significant difference between a base-10 unit and a base-2 unit of measurement. Therefore, the terms "Mebi-", "kebi-", "Gibi-", etc. have been introduced. They are the "correct," though rarely used way to refer to base-2 measurements.
1 Gigabyte = 1,000,000,000 bytes
1 Gibibyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes
TL;DR: The drive is 16 Giga bytes, but your computer measures it in Gibi bytes, then lies to you and calls them "Gigabytes."
[For more about base-10 vs base-2 definition of storage space](
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cq7wdsy | It's because there are actually two different ways to measure disk space. Manufacturers use multiples of 10, so a kilobyte is 1000 bytes, a megabyte is 1,000 kilobytes, etc.
Computers, however, use a base-2 system, since computers work in binary (1's and 0's). To a computer, a kilobyte is 1024 bytes (2^10 bytes), a megabyte is 1024 kilobytes, etc.
Since they are measuring differently, the manufacturer makes a 16 gigabyte hard drive using the measure of: 1 gigabyte = 1000^3 bytes, but the computer measures it as 1 gigabyte = 1024^3 bytes. This means the computer is reads it as less than 16 GB. There are also drivers on the pendrive, which are programs that tell the computer what it is and how to interact with it, and they take up a small amount of space too.
The terms "kilo-", "mega-", "giga-", etc. on your computer are actually inaccurate. Technically, those prefixes refer to multiples of 1000. When computers were being developed, 1024 was close enough to 1000, so they called 1024 bytes a "kilobyte," 1024 kilobytes a "megabyte," and so on. As you get to larger and larger units, like gigabytes, there starts being a significant difference between a base-10 unit and a base-2 unit of measurement. Therefore, the terms "Mebi-", "kebi-", "Gibi-", etc. have been introduced. They are the "correct," though rarely used way to refer to base-2 measurements.
1 Gigabyte = 1,000,000,000 bytes
1 Gibibyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes | The drive is 16 Giga bytes, but your computer measures it in Gibi bytes, then lies to you and calls them "Gigabytes."
[For more about base-10 vs base-2 definition of storage space]( |
Lookoutbehind | Well that's because it "works" if there are no external factors. I got a business degree, and majored in economics and had quite a few "debates" in class. "Well if they know I know that, why would htey choose different." *Because they have better odds if they choose this.* "Not if I know they have better odds choosing that, I'll choose that and they'll be screwed." *But you won't pick that because it'd be worse for you.*
tl;dr Shits circles yo. | Well that's because it "works" if there are no external factors. I got a business degree, and majored in economics and had quite a few "debates" in class. "Well if they know I know that, why would htey choose different." Because they have better odds if they choose this. "Not if I know they have better odds choosing that, I'll choose that and they'll be screwed." But you won't pick that because it'd be worse for you.
tl;dr Shits circles yo.
| nfl | t5_2qmg3 | cq86iu3 | Well that's because it "works" if there are no external factors. I got a business degree, and majored in economics and had quite a few "debates" in class. "Well if they know I know that, why would htey choose different." Because they have better odds if they choose this. "Not if I know they have better odds choosing that, I'll choose that and they'll be screwed." But you won't pick that because it'd be worse for you. | Shits circles yo. |
Learjet45dream | The way I see it, if you two had a healthy relationship, he should essentially already be well aware of everything that you would be saying.
Personally, I've found it's easiest to get over a breakup by simply not communicating with my ex. I considered both of my ex-girlfriends to be my best friend during our relationships. Losing a best friend is **extremely** tough. You don't ever want to lose an important, meaningful friendship. But looking back, I have no regrets about my decisions to completely cut contact post-breakup. I'm all but certain that any sort of continued contact would have only drawn out the pain of the breakup and made it take even longer to move on.
You also said you're moving to a different state. Trying to maintain that friendship over a long distance will be challenging just as a long distance relationship is. Doing so while dealing with the pain of a breakup will only make it tougher.
(**tl;dr**) Personally, I say it's not worth it to reach out to him. It'll more than likely just make it tougher for you to deal with the breakup. | The way I see it, if you two had a healthy relationship, he should essentially already be well aware of everything that you would be saying.
Personally, I've found it's easiest to get over a breakup by simply not communicating with my ex. I considered both of my ex-girlfriends to be my best friend during our relationships. Losing a best friend is extremely tough. You don't ever want to lose an important, meaningful friendship. But looking back, I have no regrets about my decisions to completely cut contact post-breakup. I'm all but certain that any sort of continued contact would have only drawn out the pain of the breakup and made it take even longer to move on.
You also said you're moving to a different state. Trying to maintain that friendship over a long distance will be challenging just as a long distance relationship is. Doing so while dealing with the pain of a breakup will only make it tougher.
( tl;dr ) Personally, I say it's not worth it to reach out to him. It'll more than likely just make it tougher for you to deal with the breakup.
| AskMen | t5_2s30g | cq81pc5 | The way I see it, if you two had a healthy relationship, he should essentially already be well aware of everything that you would be saying.
Personally, I've found it's easiest to get over a breakup by simply not communicating with my ex. I considered both of my ex-girlfriends to be my best friend during our relationships. Losing a best friend is extremely tough. You don't ever want to lose an important, meaningful friendship. But looking back, I have no regrets about my decisions to completely cut contact post-breakup. I'm all but certain that any sort of continued contact would have only drawn out the pain of the breakup and made it take even longer to move on.
You also said you're moving to a different state. Trying to maintain that friendship over a long distance will be challenging just as a long distance relationship is. Doing so while dealing with the pain of a breakup will only make it tougher.
( | Personally, I say it's not worth it to reach out to him. It'll more than likely just make it tougher for you to deal with the breakup. |
squeeeeenis | Final Fantasy 10.
**hear me out: This is an intensive spoiler**
Boy who hates his father that never accepted him grows up to be something that would make his father proud. He is then transported to the future where he is lonely and agrees to protect a girl that he falls in love with, only to find out later he is contributing to her death. He then finds out that he doesn't actually exist, and everything he has ever done is a lie because he is only the manifestation of dead people dreaming. To add sugar to the coffee, being that his father was the final aeon, he was faced with the responsibility at the end to kill him before he was able to get the closure he worked his entire life for. Then he dies because the dead wake up.
This is not even mentioning the whole complex main story of, "We go through the pilgrimage in order to kill Sin and give false hope to the people of yevon just so we can continue killing them under the philosophy that life is suffering" complex. Also, the fact that when people die, they struggle to accept it and become fiends.
TL;DR: Final fantasy 10 is a fuck up game with a beautiful story line. | Final Fantasy 10.
hear me out: This is an intensive spoiler
Boy who hates his father that never accepted him grows up to be something that would make his father proud. He is then transported to the future where he is lonely and agrees to protect a girl that he falls in love with, only to find out later he is contributing to her death. He then finds out that he doesn't actually exist, and everything he has ever done is a lie because he is only the manifestation of dead people dreaming. To add sugar to the coffee, being that his father was the final aeon, he was faced with the responsibility at the end to kill him before he was able to get the closure he worked his entire life for. Then he dies because the dead wake up.
This is not even mentioning the whole complex main story of, "We go through the pilgrimage in order to kill Sin and give false hope to the people of yevon just so we can continue killing them under the philosophy that life is suffering" complex. Also, the fact that when people die, they struggle to accept it and become fiends.
TL;DR: Final fantasy 10 is a fuck up game with a beautiful story line.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq83im3 | Final Fantasy 10.
hear me out: This is an intensive spoiler
Boy who hates his father that never accepted him grows up to be something that would make his father proud. He is then transported to the future where he is lonely and agrees to protect a girl that he falls in love with, only to find out later he is contributing to her death. He then finds out that he doesn't actually exist, and everything he has ever done is a lie because he is only the manifestation of dead people dreaming. To add sugar to the coffee, being that his father was the final aeon, he was faced with the responsibility at the end to kill him before he was able to get the closure he worked his entire life for. Then he dies because the dead wake up.
This is not even mentioning the whole complex main story of, "We go through the pilgrimage in order to kill Sin and give false hope to the people of yevon just so we can continue killing them under the philosophy that life is suffering" complex. Also, the fact that when people die, they struggle to accept it and become fiends. | Final fantasy 10 is a fuck up game with a beautiful story line. |
CowboyLaw | It's funny, Descartes always gets quoted on this one, but people forget that before Descartes could get to cogito ergo sum, he first had to accept the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god. Cogito ergo sum doesn't come until the second meditation; the first meditation establishes the presence and omnipotence of a benevolent god, whose existence and characteristics are necessary to proceed any farther, as Descartes explains. What I find funny is that Descartes' meditations are frequently cited humanistically, by people who have no desire to presume the existence of a supreme being, not to mention a supreme being who is both benevolent and omnipotent.
So, TL;DR: even Descartes couldn't be sure that he thought or that he was in the absence of other suppositions. | It's funny, Descartes always gets quoted on this one, but people forget that before Descartes could get to cogito ergo sum, he first had to accept the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god. Cogito ergo sum doesn't come until the second meditation; the first meditation establishes the presence and omnipotence of a benevolent god, whose existence and characteristics are necessary to proceed any farther, as Descartes explains. What I find funny is that Descartes' meditations are frequently cited humanistically, by people who have no desire to presume the existence of a supreme being, not to mention a supreme being who is both benevolent and omnipotent.
So, TL;DR: even Descartes couldn't be sure that he thought or that he was in the absence of other suppositions.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cq8aaoy | It's funny, Descartes always gets quoted on this one, but people forget that before Descartes could get to cogito ergo sum, he first had to accept the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god. Cogito ergo sum doesn't come until the second meditation; the first meditation establishes the presence and omnipotence of a benevolent god, whose existence and characteristics are necessary to proceed any farther, as Descartes explains. What I find funny is that Descartes' meditations are frequently cited humanistically, by people who have no desire to presume the existence of a supreme being, not to mention a supreme being who is both benevolent and omnipotent.
So, | even Descartes couldn't be sure that he thought or that he was in the absence of other suppositions. |
procrastinationgamer | Not only that, but think of it this way. Who is the survivor going to trust, a Town slipping through the cracks, or the Mafia that can control who dies and, more importantly to the survivor, who doesn't.
TL;DR Survivors =/= Townies | Not only that, but think of it this way. Who is the survivor going to trust, a Town slipping through the cracks, or the Mafia that can control who dies and, more importantly to the survivor, who doesn't.
TL;DR Survivors =/= Townies
| TownofSalemgame | t5_30w9b | cqazgbf | Not only that, but think of it this way. Who is the survivor going to trust, a Town slipping through the cracks, or the Mafia that can control who dies and, more importantly to the survivor, who doesn't. | Survivors =/= Townies |
dschmidt1007 | To be very honest - the zero down loan is the single worst thing I have ever done to myself financial and I would NOT recommend that route.
My husband and I purchased a 1928 cape during the peak of the market (November 2006) and watched the market crash and burn basically 6 months after. We were sold into the 0 down, as most homes in our area were way out of our price range. Those that were near our price point, needed a ton of work. The thinking was, go 0 down, fix it up with the money you would have used as your downpayment. In 5 years, sell it & use the profits for our next home.
We went that route with an 80/20 loan - 80% at 6.25% & 20% in a balloon loan at 14.50%. We refinanced in 2009 to a 5% loan, but added nearly $16,000 in fees to get out of the mess of loans we were sold into initially.
Fast forward to today, we can essentially sell for what we purchased for 9 years ago. And we'll walk away with $0 if we are lucky, after all the fees. We put $56,000 into "fixing" this place up - new kitchen, new bath, installed central air, converted from oil heat to high efficiency gas heat, new windows (originals were from 1928), new roof - you name it, it's basically been done to this house.
TL;DR - Don't sacrifice your future to "get in the door". Wait until you have a downpayment & make sure you buy in your price point. Also, shit is so much more expensive to fix than you ever initially budget for & you will learn where absolutely everything is in your local Home Depot & Lowe's. It will scare you. | To be very honest - the zero down loan is the single worst thing I have ever done to myself financial and I would NOT recommend that route.
My husband and I purchased a 1928 cape during the peak of the market (November 2006) and watched the market crash and burn basically 6 months after. We were sold into the 0 down, as most homes in our area were way out of our price range. Those that were near our price point, needed a ton of work. The thinking was, go 0 down, fix it up with the money you would have used as your downpayment. In 5 years, sell it & use the profits for our next home.
We went that route with an 80/20 loan - 80% at 6.25% & 20% in a balloon loan at 14.50%. We refinanced in 2009 to a 5% loan, but added nearly $16,000 in fees to get out of the mess of loans we were sold into initially.
Fast forward to today, we can essentially sell for what we purchased for 9 years ago. And we'll walk away with $0 if we are lucky, after all the fees. We put $56,000 into "fixing" this place up - new kitchen, new bath, installed central air, converted from oil heat to high efficiency gas heat, new windows (originals were from 1928), new roof - you name it, it's basically been done to this house.
TL;DR - Don't sacrifice your future to "get in the door". Wait until you have a downpayment & make sure you buy in your price point. Also, shit is so much more expensive to fix than you ever initially budget for & you will learn where absolutely everything is in your local Home Depot & Lowe's. It will scare you.
| personalfinance | t5_2qstm | cq9htvh | To be very honest - the zero down loan is the single worst thing I have ever done to myself financial and I would NOT recommend that route.
My husband and I purchased a 1928 cape during the peak of the market (November 2006) and watched the market crash and burn basically 6 months after. We were sold into the 0 down, as most homes in our area were way out of our price range. Those that were near our price point, needed a ton of work. The thinking was, go 0 down, fix it up with the money you would have used as your downpayment. In 5 years, sell it & use the profits for our next home.
We went that route with an 80/20 loan - 80% at 6.25% & 20% in a balloon loan at 14.50%. We refinanced in 2009 to a 5% loan, but added nearly $16,000 in fees to get out of the mess of loans we were sold into initially.
Fast forward to today, we can essentially sell for what we purchased for 9 years ago. And we'll walk away with $0 if we are lucky, after all the fees. We put $56,000 into "fixing" this place up - new kitchen, new bath, installed central air, converted from oil heat to high efficiency gas heat, new windows (originals were from 1928), new roof - you name it, it's basically been done to this house. | Don't sacrifice your future to "get in the door". Wait until you have a downpayment & make sure you buy in your price point. Also, shit is so much more expensive to fix than you ever initially budget for & you will learn where absolutely everything is in your local Home Depot & Lowe's. It will scare you. |
CrimsonPony | Note:If you saw this Thursday, Yes i am reposting it because it got removed. So here it is again
Today my dad left for California, which is a couple states away. He won't be home for a couple of days. He decided I was old enough to not need supervision for these couple of days ( I'm 17) so when I got home from school I was completely alone, without anyone in the house, and I had to fart. So with my newfound freedom I wanted it to be LOUD. I shat my pants. I was alone for 5 minutes and managed to shit myself. Tl;dr home alone, shit my pants. | Note:If you saw this Thursday, Yes i am reposting it because it got removed. So here it is again
Today my dad left for California, which is a couple states away. He won't be home for a couple of days. He decided I was old enough to not need supervision for these couple of days ( I'm 17) so when I got home from school I was completely alone, without anyone in the house, and I had to fart. So with my newfound freedom I wanted it to be LOUD. I shat my pants. I was alone for 5 minutes and managed to shit myself. Tl;dr home alone, shit my pants.
| tifu | t5_2to41 | cq9d426 | Note:If you saw this Thursday, Yes i am reposting it because it got removed. So here it is again
Today my dad left for California, which is a couple states away. He won't be home for a couple of days. He decided I was old enough to not need supervision for these couple of days ( I'm 17) so when I got home from school I was completely alone, without anyone in the house, and I had to fart. So with my newfound freedom I wanted it to be LOUD. I shat my pants. I was alone for 5 minutes and managed to shit myself. | home alone, shit my pants. |
Throwaway_of_pain | It depends on how much you know, but:
1) American Airlines (AAL) flies with radio callsign "AMERICAN". So AAL317 would be called "AMERICAN TREE ONE SEVEN".
2) United Airways (AWE) flies with callsign "CACTUS". AWE2055 would be "CACTUS TWO ZERO FIVE FIVE".
3) Recently, United and American formed a merger to become the world's largest airline.
4)The last CACTUS flight (AWE774, EGLL-KPHL) flew on April 8. All CACTUS flights are now referred to as AMERICAN.
5) Apparently, AWE has been replaced by AAL.
TL;DR CACTUS becomes AMERICAN. | It depends on how much you know, but:
1) American Airlines (AAL) flies with radio callsign "AMERICAN". So AAL317 would be called "AMERICAN TREE ONE SEVEN".
2) United Airways (AWE) flies with callsign "CACTUS". AWE2055 would be "CACTUS TWO ZERO FIVE FIVE".
3) Recently, United and American formed a merger to become the world's largest airline.
4)The last CACTUS flight (AWE774, EGLL-KPHL) flew on April 8. All CACTUS flights are now referred to as AMERICAN.
5) Apparently, AWE has been replaced by AAL.
TL;DR CACTUS becomes AMERICAN.
| ATC | t5_2sovd | cq9gd67 | It depends on how much you know, but:
1) American Airlines (AAL) flies with radio callsign "AMERICAN". So AAL317 would be called "AMERICAN TREE ONE SEVEN".
2) United Airways (AWE) flies with callsign "CACTUS". AWE2055 would be "CACTUS TWO ZERO FIVE FIVE".
3) Recently, United and American formed a merger to become the world's largest airline.
4)The last CACTUS flight (AWE774, EGLL-KPHL) flew on April 8. All CACTUS flights are now referred to as AMERICAN.
5) Apparently, AWE has been replaced by AAL. | CACTUS becomes AMERICAN. |
guydawg | k- would a lot of men feel uncomfortable with their girlfriend/wife going and hanging out with a bunch of famous people on their tour bus/at the hotel all night? yes, absolutely. but some of the finer points of your statement don't make any sense and just sound like a jealous/insecure mind set.
1- I don't know why she has to sleep with them for it to be inappropriate. or why you'd automatically assume she banged the whole damn band. it's inappropriate because she put herself in a bad situation. just like most girls would be pissed off if their man went to some kind of swinger's sex party titty club extravaganza even if he kept his pants on all night.
2- I don't get why saying she had a "great time" means she slept with them. that's probably just insecurity/jealousy reading into it too much. see #1 again.
3- once again even if they DID just "talk" all night it's still sketchy and inappropriate to be at a hotel with a bunch of dudes you've never met before.
tl;dr it's a dumb thing for her to do regardless of if she had sex with none of them. | k- would a lot of men feel uncomfortable with their girlfriend/wife going and hanging out with a bunch of famous people on their tour bus/at the hotel all night? yes, absolutely. but some of the finer points of your statement don't make any sense and just sound like a jealous/insecure mind set.
1- I don't know why she has to sleep with them for it to be inappropriate. or why you'd automatically assume she banged the whole damn band. it's inappropriate because she put herself in a bad situation. just like most girls would be pissed off if their man went to some kind of swinger's sex party titty club extravaganza even if he kept his pants on all night.
2- I don't get why saying she had a "great time" means she slept with them. that's probably just insecurity/jealousy reading into it too much. see #1 again.
3- once again even if they DID just "talk" all night it's still sketchy and inappropriate to be at a hotel with a bunch of dudes you've never met before.
tl;dr it's a dumb thing for her to do regardless of if she had sex with none of them.
| hiphopheads | t5_2rh4c | cq9ta5k | k- would a lot of men feel uncomfortable with their girlfriend/wife going and hanging out with a bunch of famous people on their tour bus/at the hotel all night? yes, absolutely. but some of the finer points of your statement don't make any sense and just sound like a jealous/insecure mind set.
1- I don't know why she has to sleep with them for it to be inappropriate. or why you'd automatically assume she banged the whole damn band. it's inappropriate because she put herself in a bad situation. just like most girls would be pissed off if their man went to some kind of swinger's sex party titty club extravaganza even if he kept his pants on all night.
2- I don't get why saying she had a "great time" means she slept with them. that's probably just insecurity/jealousy reading into it too much. see #1 again.
3- once again even if they DID just "talk" all night it's still sketchy and inappropriate to be at a hotel with a bunch of dudes you've never met before. | it's a dumb thing for her to do regardless of if she had sex with none of them. |
akuavit | Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a pretty reasonable question.
The answer is no. Insulin usually comes in pens like [this]( and in the case of self-injection is injected subcutaneously (under the skin), not intravenously. I don't think you'd ever see a diabetic do what this guy is doing, the only time I'd imagine you'd inject insulin intravenously was if you needed it in the bloodstream NOW, at which point you're probably hyperglycemic and would be unconscious, or too confused to be injecting yourself with anything.
Source: My brother is type 1 and injects [it into his belly.](
**tl;dr** nope, you'll never see a diabetic injecting themselves intravenously | Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a pretty reasonable question.
The answer is no. Insulin usually comes in pens like this , not intravenously. I don't think you'd ever see a diabetic do what this guy is doing, the only time I'd imagine you'd inject insulin intravenously was if you needed it in the bloodstream NOW, at which point you're probably hyperglycemic and would be unconscious, or too confused to be injecting yourself with anything.
Source: My brother is type 1 and injects [it into his belly.](
tl;dr nope, you'll never see a diabetic injecting themselves intravenously
| WTF | t5_2qh61 | cqap4h4 | Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a pretty reasonable question.
The answer is no. Insulin usually comes in pens like this , not intravenously. I don't think you'd ever see a diabetic do what this guy is doing, the only time I'd imagine you'd inject insulin intravenously was if you needed it in the bloodstream NOW, at which point you're probably hyperglycemic and would be unconscious, or too confused to be injecting yourself with anything.
Source: My brother is type 1 and injects [it into his belly.]( | nope, you'll never see a diabetic injecting themselves intravenously |
Undaine | Likely precedent.
My 2c uninformed guess is the standard by which we use to evaluate a movies success can be gauged just as easily by comparing it to the domestic box office figures that we're used to hearing about already.
Also, it has a strong correlate with how the movie is received in our own culture, which we care more about (see: BBC vs cable news coverage for more examples of American socio-centrism) than the global market as a whole.
TL/DR: America, fuck yeah. | Likely precedent.
My 2c uninformed guess is the standard by which we use to evaluate a movies success can be gauged just as easily by comparing it to the domestic box office figures that we're used to hearing about already.
Also, it has a strong correlate with how the movie is received in our own culture, which we care more about (see: BBC vs cable news coverage for more examples of American socio-centrism) than the global market as a whole.
TL/DR: America, fuck yeah.
| movies | t5_2qh3s | cqa41ad | Likely precedent.
My 2c uninformed guess is the standard by which we use to evaluate a movies success can be gauged just as easily by comparing it to the domestic box office figures that we're used to hearing about already.
Also, it has a strong correlate with how the movie is received in our own culture, which we care more about (see: BBC vs cable news coverage for more examples of American socio-centrism) than the global market as a whole. | America, fuck yeah. |
drimpossible145 | why not create something else, then? if you want to tell a dalek story, use daleks. if you want to tell a story about a really scary robot thing, invent a scary robot thing that caters to modern taste.
tl;dr, no. | why not create something else, then? if you want to tell a dalek story, use daleks. if you want to tell a story about a really scary robot thing, invent a scary robot thing that caters to modern taste.
tl;dr, no.
| gallifrey | t5_2tf29 | cqa44hg | why not create something else, then? if you want to tell a dalek story, use daleks. if you want to tell a story about a really scary robot thing, invent a scary robot thing that caters to modern taste. | no. |
Emilyroad | I think this is mostly because Apple, which by no means created the digital music market, was much of the reason why digital music became so ubiquitous; when you purchase music on iTunes, it's lossy, meaning it's compressed-and often compressed farther than the mostly-acceptable-for-an-audiophile-light-listening-session mp3@320k. But no one thinks about this, because they 'got it from Apple, so it's gotta be good'. When you stream music from pandora or wherever, often it's compressed much *much* further, and people who don't fathom this will buy expensive gear that they think will automagically make the compressed-to-shit file sound like you're in the studio.It's like watching a standard-def television channel, and instead of upgrading to HD broadcast, you go out and buy an HDTV and claimed the quality has improved. The *worst* with this one is when that person complains that their TV is still showing a square 4:3 ratio signal, so they just change the settings to stretch it, distorting the picture into what is unwatchable oblivion for me. And then they're pissed and personally offended when I point it out to them, like I'm incorrect and call me a hipster or something. I respond with 'would you read a book that was obviously missing every third word when you could simply learn about where to buy the complete book?' And then I'm a fucking space alien to them. /rant.
TL;DR - 8/10 people genuinely don't give a shit about the quality of their entertainment, so long as it is there, hovering somewhere around them. Like when you go see your favorite band and you don't understand why people paid 20 bucks to come and sit at a bar and drink and *not* watch the show...fuck those people. | I think this is mostly because Apple, which by no means created the digital music market, was much of the reason why digital music became so ubiquitous; when you purchase music on iTunes, it's lossy, meaning it's compressed-and often compressed farther than the mostly-acceptable-for-an-audiophile-light-listening-session mp3@320k. But no one thinks about this, because they 'got it from Apple, so it's gotta be good'. When you stream music from pandora or wherever, often it's compressed much much further, and people who don't fathom this will buy expensive gear that they think will automagically make the compressed-to-shit file sound like you're in the studio.It's like watching a standard-def television channel, and instead of upgrading to HD broadcast, you go out and buy an HDTV and claimed the quality has improved. The worst with this one is when that person complains that their TV is still showing a square 4:3 ratio signal, so they just change the settings to stretch it, distorting the picture into what is unwatchable oblivion for me. And then they're pissed and personally offended when I point it out to them, like I'm incorrect and call me a hipster or something. I respond with 'would you read a book that was obviously missing every third word when you could simply learn about where to buy the complete book?' And then I'm a fucking space alien to them. /rant.
TL;DR - 8/10 people genuinely don't give a shit about the quality of their entertainment, so long as it is there, hovering somewhere around them. Like when you go see your favorite band and you don't understand why people paid 20 bucks to come and sit at a bar and drink and not watch the show...fuck those people.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cqbrj03 | I think this is mostly because Apple, which by no means created the digital music market, was much of the reason why digital music became so ubiquitous; when you purchase music on iTunes, it's lossy, meaning it's compressed-and often compressed farther than the mostly-acceptable-for-an-audiophile-light-listening-session mp3@320k. But no one thinks about this, because they 'got it from Apple, so it's gotta be good'. When you stream music from pandora or wherever, often it's compressed much much further, and people who don't fathom this will buy expensive gear that they think will automagically make the compressed-to-shit file sound like you're in the studio.It's like watching a standard-def television channel, and instead of upgrading to HD broadcast, you go out and buy an HDTV and claimed the quality has improved. The worst with this one is when that person complains that their TV is still showing a square 4:3 ratio signal, so they just change the settings to stretch it, distorting the picture into what is unwatchable oblivion for me. And then they're pissed and personally offended when I point it out to them, like I'm incorrect and call me a hipster or something. I respond with 'would you read a book that was obviously missing every third word when you could simply learn about where to buy the complete book?' And then I'm a fucking space alien to them. /rant. | 8/10 people genuinely don't give a shit about the quality of their entertainment, so long as it is there, hovering somewhere around them. Like when you go see your favorite band and you don't understand why people paid 20 bucks to come and sit at a bar and drink and not watch the show...fuck those people. |
SexyR63VinylScratch | Its mostly on my end being in the primarily rap/horrorcore/acid rap grouping, but brutality.
A few years ago (mostly in the real late 90's and early 2000's from the albums I hear) bands and people such as Necro, Jak Tripper, Grewsum, and Brotha Lynch Hung were just coming out of their shells and spitting some hard shit that left a profound gut wrench when the album was over. Nowadays, rappers season their songs so sweetly to try and make it radio appropriate (not goin' on there anyway) that it takes away their brutal elements. Its all fluff at that point. Its not the black tar leaking from the deepest, darkest recesses of their mind. Nor is it the tears and hardening that came from the rappers heart. Its this rainbow that came out of the producers ass. (Whiz Khaleifa, Eminem, E-40, Hopsin, Tech N9ne, ect. Are honestly somewhat victims of this. Although at least Tech/Strange Music gives a little freedom.)
TL;DR, Where's the beef? | Its mostly on my end being in the primarily rap/horrorcore/acid rap grouping, but brutality.
A few years ago (mostly in the real late 90's and early 2000's from the albums I hear) bands and people such as Necro, Jak Tripper, Grewsum, and Brotha Lynch Hung were just coming out of their shells and spitting some hard shit that left a profound gut wrench when the album was over. Nowadays, rappers season their songs so sweetly to try and make it radio appropriate (not goin' on there anyway) that it takes away their brutal elements. Its all fluff at that point. Its not the black tar leaking from the deepest, darkest recesses of their mind. Nor is it the tears and hardening that came from the rappers heart. Its this rainbow that came out of the producers ass. (Whiz Khaleifa, Eminem, E-40, Hopsin, Tech N9ne, ect. Are honestly somewhat victims of this. Although at least Tech/Strange Music gives a little freedom.)
TL;DR, Where's the beef?
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cqblzba | Its mostly on my end being in the primarily rap/horrorcore/acid rap grouping, but brutality.
A few years ago (mostly in the real late 90's and early 2000's from the albums I hear) bands and people such as Necro, Jak Tripper, Grewsum, and Brotha Lynch Hung were just coming out of their shells and spitting some hard shit that left a profound gut wrench when the album was over. Nowadays, rappers season their songs so sweetly to try and make it radio appropriate (not goin' on there anyway) that it takes away their brutal elements. Its all fluff at that point. Its not the black tar leaking from the deepest, darkest recesses of their mind. Nor is it the tears and hardening that came from the rappers heart. Its this rainbow that came out of the producers ass. (Whiz Khaleifa, Eminem, E-40, Hopsin, Tech N9ne, ect. Are honestly somewhat victims of this. Although at least Tech/Strange Music gives a little freedom.) | Where's the beef? |
spoderdan | I feel like he shifts around so much, you couldn't really say he belongs to a specific sub-genre. Particularly in Short Stories, a big focus was skipping through a genre range. It's described on his soundcloud as
> traveling through uptempo house, UK-garage, heavy bass, hip hop and soul
so TL;DR: I don't really know haha. | I feel like he shifts around so much, you couldn't really say he belongs to a specific sub-genre. Particularly in Short Stories, a big focus was skipping through a genre range. It's described on his soundcloud as
> traveling through uptempo house, UK-garage, heavy bass, hip hop and soul
so TL;DR: I don't really know haha.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cqbmrfn | I feel like he shifts around so much, you couldn't really say he belongs to a specific sub-genre. Particularly in Short Stories, a big focus was skipping through a genre range. It's described on his soundcloud as
> traveling through uptempo house, UK-garage, heavy bass, hip hop and soul
so | I don't really know haha. |
Ob101010 | What do you say to those that saw the new kids on the block as shit from the get-go? I remember being 13ish and hearing their stuff and sensing shit.
It seems many people flock to whats familiar (overplayed on their media sources), not whats musically high value. Sometimes there seems to be a stigma about listening to older stuff. I never had that. I can name songs from the 1790s that would blow your mind, but youll never hear them on the radio.
tl;dr; your music IS shit, so was most of mine.
/rant off | What do you say to those that saw the new kids on the block as shit from the get-go? I remember being 13ish and hearing their stuff and sensing shit.
It seems many people flock to whats familiar (overplayed on their media sources), not whats musically high value. Sometimes there seems to be a stigma about listening to older stuff. I never had that. I can name songs from the 1790s that would blow your mind, but youll never hear them on the radio.
tl;dr; your music IS shit, so was most of mine.
/rant off
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cqb05ou | What do you say to those that saw the new kids on the block as shit from the get-go? I remember being 13ish and hearing their stuff and sensing shit.
It seems many people flock to whats familiar (overplayed on their media sources), not whats musically high value. Sometimes there seems to be a stigma about listening to older stuff. I never had that. I can name songs from the 1790s that would blow your mind, but youll never hear them on the radio. | your music IS shit, so was most of mine.
/rant off |
pizza_for_nunchucks | Rap music that sucks - mostly new shit.
I know that's completely subjective. But seriously, [this]( versus [this](
Or [this]( versus [this](
tl;dr - I'm old. Get off my fucking lawn. | Rap music that sucks - mostly new shit.
I know that's completely subjective. But seriously, [this]( versus [this](
Or [this]( versus [this](
tl;dr - I'm old. Get off my fucking lawn.
| AskReddit | t5_2qh1i | cqawmg6 | Rap music that sucks - mostly new shit.
I know that's completely subjective. But seriously, [this]( versus [this](
Or [this]( versus [this]( | I'm old. Get off my fucking lawn. |
Garlstadt | Let us talk about the nemeses of all hammer hunters. Enemies more elusive than Chameleos, more rage-inducing than Plesioth...
The Wildly Shaking Head and its accomplice in frustration, the Hard-to-Reach Head.
As we know, some monsters stand still when they fall, allowing us to hit their head and do our job without a problem.
Then there are those. Alatreon, Kushala Daora, the dromes, Fanged Beasts (Rajang, Kecha Wacha, Congalala)... They have so little dignity they would probably shove their head up their arse to protect themselves if they could, but instead they choose to make it a wildly moving target.
I heard there was a sweet spot for Alatreon, near the base of the neck, where you are guaranteed to hit; is there a similar thing for those I mentioned ?
Then there are those whose head is hard to hit from the beginning. I can't quite pin down the location of Hermitaur's, for instance, so I don't KO it consistently. Gravios' is easy to find, but not to reach.
I had the same problem with Nerscylla initially, but I found superpounds seemed to easily hit the head when fired from the side, rather than the front. It's also a very mobile monster, so uppercuts (lvl2 charges) serve me better to follow her around.
Tips, anyone ?
**TLDR: how do i hit screwy heads** | Let us talk about the nemeses of all hammer hunters. Enemies more elusive than Chameleos, more rage-inducing than Plesioth...
The Wildly Shaking Head and its accomplice in frustration, the Hard-to-Reach Head.
As we know, some monsters stand still when they fall, allowing us to hit their head and do our job without a problem.
Then there are those. Alatreon, Kushala Daora, the dromes, Fanged Beasts (Rajang, Kecha Wacha, Congalala)... They have so little dignity they would probably shove their head up their arse to protect themselves if they could, but instead they choose to make it a wildly moving target.
I heard there was a sweet spot for Alatreon, near the base of the neck, where you are guaranteed to hit; is there a similar thing for those I mentioned ?
Then there are those whose head is hard to hit from the beginning. I can't quite pin down the location of Hermitaur's, for instance, so I don't KO it consistently. Gravios' is easy to find, but not to reach.
I had the same problem with Nerscylla initially, but I found superpounds seemed to easily hit the head when fired from the side, rather than the front. It's also a very mobile monster, so uppercuts (lvl2 charges) serve me better to follow her around.
Tips, anyone ?
TLDR: how do i hit screwy heads
| MonsterHunter | t5_2rron | cqatm5p | Let us talk about the nemeses of all hammer hunters. Enemies more elusive than Chameleos, more rage-inducing than Plesioth...
The Wildly Shaking Head and its accomplice in frustration, the Hard-to-Reach Head.
As we know, some monsters stand still when they fall, allowing us to hit their head and do our job without a problem.
Then there are those. Alatreon, Kushala Daora, the dromes, Fanged Beasts (Rajang, Kecha Wacha, Congalala)... They have so little dignity they would probably shove their head up their arse to protect themselves if they could, but instead they choose to make it a wildly moving target.
I heard there was a sweet spot for Alatreon, near the base of the neck, where you are guaranteed to hit; is there a similar thing for those I mentioned ?
Then there are those whose head is hard to hit from the beginning. I can't quite pin down the location of Hermitaur's, for instance, so I don't KO it consistently. Gravios' is easy to find, but not to reach.
I had the same problem with Nerscylla initially, but I found superpounds seemed to easily hit the head when fired from the side, rather than the front. It's also a very mobile monster, so uppercuts (lvl2 charges) serve me better to follow her around.
Tips, anyone ? | how do i hit screwy heads |
TheFlyingAlbino | I had mained hammers in Freedom 2 and Freedom Unite. I've been playing since the original Monster Hunter on the PS2. I stopped using SnS after the nerfs going into Freedom 2. I didn't play any Nintendo Monster Hunter games until 4U. 4U has nerfed the hammer quite hard, while not directly. I know a few others have talked about it already, but I'll go into my thoughts.
Hammer was the powerhouse of all the games I played previously. It was always top two, usually fighting with the GS for the top spot. Now, every weapon has had damage buffs and the gap in damage isn't as wide. You don't absolutely need a hammer if you want to deal large amounts of damage.
It was the only weapon that could KO. Then the Hunting Horn was added. I liked the addition. It was more of a support role, helped the whole group, and could add in some KO. Now the CB can one hit KO pretty much anything pretty reliably. It's even a cutting type weapon! Other weapons got moves that do KO damage, while not really practical, they can KO. And there is the addition of punishing draw, any melee weapon can add KO. So hammers are no longer the only weapon that can KO.
This game added vertical movement into the mechanics. It added an additional plane of movement for the monsters to travel to. The hammer is all about sustained damage. Sit at the head, triple pound. That's what a hammer is all about. With the addition of another plane of movement, it's harder to sustain damage. You can't stick to the head of something like you could in the Freedom series. The mechanics for this game reward burst damage, like GS charge or CB, over a hammer.
Every weapon got vastly improved moveset since implementation except the hammer. GS got the charges, LS got improved spirit attacks, SnS got item usage along with mounting up ledges, DS got improved demon mode, bowguns got parts, rapid fire, siege mode, new shots, bows got new attacks, HH got new recital for a more fluid motion, Lance got counter attacks and mounting attacks, GLs got full burst, SAs got new moves, IGs and CBs were just added. What have hammers gotten? They got a switch to their second charge attack, super armor if you start A first, and a change to the attack on the spinning charge if you press X early. All weapons have been buffed with new moves, some even changed radically like the GS. The hammer has been the same since MH1.
Tails. Hammer is literally the only weapon in all of the Monster Hunter Universe to not be able to cut a tail. There are no impact breakable parts only. Sure, impact damage breaks other parts better, but if you aren't hitting the head as a hammer user, why are you using a hammer?
Someone always brings up exhaust when I talk about this. I will admit, this is the first game I have played since exhaust was added so I don't normally think about it. But, if you look up info on exhaust, Hunting Horns have the highest output possible of any weapon for exhaust. Any impact weapon, weapon with impact phials, and ranged weapon with exhaust ammo can deal exhaust damage. Hammers may be the second highest, but a large amount of other weapons deal decent exhaust damage with more pros.
Mounting has added another crowd control to the game that any weapon can do. You might think, how is this bad for a hammer? It's a more reliable cc, any weapon can do it, most maps have plenty of places to do it, and it sets up CBs for an easy KO. Adding more CC that any weapon can do takes stock away from the hammer.
So that's it. That is my rant on why hammers aren't great anymore. It was fun playing them in the freedom games but I think I'm done now. It was fun when you could just destroy a monster's head, KO them a 3-4 times in a hunt, and output a ton a damage. This game doesn't allow it that easily with this weapon anymore. Other weapons have funner playstyles too, more variety of what you can do. So in this game, I'm going to keep up my support SnS play for as long as I can, thinking about trying bow or HBG. I'd love to pick hammer back up in the future after some buffs, but it looks like for now I'm not going to be a hammer bro anymore.
**TLDR- Hammers indirectly nerfed this game. Easy CC from any weapon with mounting, damage no longer skewed so heavily, vertical gameplay leans toward burst damage, all other weapons buffed or added since MH1, tails, large amount of weapons exhaust, and no longer the undisputed KO King.**
| I had mained hammers in Freedom 2 and Freedom Unite. I've been playing since the original Monster Hunter on the PS2. I stopped using SnS after the nerfs going into Freedom 2. I didn't play any Nintendo Monster Hunter games until 4U. 4U has nerfed the hammer quite hard, while not directly. I know a few others have talked about it already, but I'll go into my thoughts.
Hammer was the powerhouse of all the games I played previously. It was always top two, usually fighting with the GS for the top spot. Now, every weapon has had damage buffs and the gap in damage isn't as wide. You don't absolutely need a hammer if you want to deal large amounts of damage.
It was the only weapon that could KO. Then the Hunting Horn was added. I liked the addition. It was more of a support role, helped the whole group, and could add in some KO. Now the CB can one hit KO pretty much anything pretty reliably. It's even a cutting type weapon! Other weapons got moves that do KO damage, while not really practical, they can KO. And there is the addition of punishing draw, any melee weapon can add KO. So hammers are no longer the only weapon that can KO.
This game added vertical movement into the mechanics. It added an additional plane of movement for the monsters to travel to. The hammer is all about sustained damage. Sit at the head, triple pound. That's what a hammer is all about. With the addition of another plane of movement, it's harder to sustain damage. You can't stick to the head of something like you could in the Freedom series. The mechanics for this game reward burst damage, like GS charge or CB, over a hammer.
Every weapon got vastly improved moveset since implementation except the hammer. GS got the charges, LS got improved spirit attacks, SnS got item usage along with mounting up ledges, DS got improved demon mode, bowguns got parts, rapid fire, siege mode, new shots, bows got new attacks, HH got new recital for a more fluid motion, Lance got counter attacks and mounting attacks, GLs got full burst, SAs got new moves, IGs and CBs were just added. What have hammers gotten? They got a switch to their second charge attack, super armor if you start A first, and a change to the attack on the spinning charge if you press X early. All weapons have been buffed with new moves, some even changed radically like the GS. The hammer has been the same since MH1.
Tails. Hammer is literally the only weapon in all of the Monster Hunter Universe to not be able to cut a tail. There are no impact breakable parts only. Sure, impact damage breaks other parts better, but if you aren't hitting the head as a hammer user, why are you using a hammer?
Someone always brings up exhaust when I talk about this. I will admit, this is the first game I have played since exhaust was added so I don't normally think about it. But, if you look up info on exhaust, Hunting Horns have the highest output possible of any weapon for exhaust. Any impact weapon, weapon with impact phials, and ranged weapon with exhaust ammo can deal exhaust damage. Hammers may be the second highest, but a large amount of other weapons deal decent exhaust damage with more pros.
Mounting has added another crowd control to the game that any weapon can do. You might think, how is this bad for a hammer? It's a more reliable cc, any weapon can do it, most maps have plenty of places to do it, and it sets up CBs for an easy KO. Adding more CC that any weapon can do takes stock away from the hammer.
So that's it. That is my rant on why hammers aren't great anymore. It was fun playing them in the freedom games but I think I'm done now. It was fun when you could just destroy a monster's head, KO them a 3-4 times in a hunt, and output a ton a damage. This game doesn't allow it that easily with this weapon anymore. Other weapons have funner playstyles too, more variety of what you can do. So in this game, I'm going to keep up my support SnS play for as long as I can, thinking about trying bow or HBG. I'd love to pick hammer back up in the future after some buffs, but it looks like for now I'm not going to be a hammer bro anymore.
TLDR- Hammers indirectly nerfed this game. Easy CC from any weapon with mounting, damage no longer skewed so heavily, vertical gameplay leans toward burst damage, all other weapons buffed or added since MH1, tails, large amount of weapons exhaust, and no longer the undisputed KO King.
| MonsterHunter | t5_2rron | cqb416b | I had mained hammers in Freedom 2 and Freedom Unite. I've been playing since the original Monster Hunter on the PS2. I stopped using SnS after the nerfs going into Freedom 2. I didn't play any Nintendo Monster Hunter games until 4U. 4U has nerfed the hammer quite hard, while not directly. I know a few others have talked about it already, but I'll go into my thoughts.
Hammer was the powerhouse of all the games I played previously. It was always top two, usually fighting with the GS for the top spot. Now, every weapon has had damage buffs and the gap in damage isn't as wide. You don't absolutely need a hammer if you want to deal large amounts of damage.
It was the only weapon that could KO. Then the Hunting Horn was added. I liked the addition. It was more of a support role, helped the whole group, and could add in some KO. Now the CB can one hit KO pretty much anything pretty reliably. It's even a cutting type weapon! Other weapons got moves that do KO damage, while not really practical, they can KO. And there is the addition of punishing draw, any melee weapon can add KO. So hammers are no longer the only weapon that can KO.
This game added vertical movement into the mechanics. It added an additional plane of movement for the monsters to travel to. The hammer is all about sustained damage. Sit at the head, triple pound. That's what a hammer is all about. With the addition of another plane of movement, it's harder to sustain damage. You can't stick to the head of something like you could in the Freedom series. The mechanics for this game reward burst damage, like GS charge or CB, over a hammer.
Every weapon got vastly improved moveset since implementation except the hammer. GS got the charges, LS got improved spirit attacks, SnS got item usage along with mounting up ledges, DS got improved demon mode, bowguns got parts, rapid fire, siege mode, new shots, bows got new attacks, HH got new recital for a more fluid motion, Lance got counter attacks and mounting attacks, GLs got full burst, SAs got new moves, IGs and CBs were just added. What have hammers gotten? They got a switch to their second charge attack, super armor if you start A first, and a change to the attack on the spinning charge if you press X early. All weapons have been buffed with new moves, some even changed radically like the GS. The hammer has been the same since MH1.
Tails. Hammer is literally the only weapon in all of the Monster Hunter Universe to not be able to cut a tail. There are no impact breakable parts only. Sure, impact damage breaks other parts better, but if you aren't hitting the head as a hammer user, why are you using a hammer?
Someone always brings up exhaust when I talk about this. I will admit, this is the first game I have played since exhaust was added so I don't normally think about it. But, if you look up info on exhaust, Hunting Horns have the highest output possible of any weapon for exhaust. Any impact weapon, weapon with impact phials, and ranged weapon with exhaust ammo can deal exhaust damage. Hammers may be the second highest, but a large amount of other weapons deal decent exhaust damage with more pros.
Mounting has added another crowd control to the game that any weapon can do. You might think, how is this bad for a hammer? It's a more reliable cc, any weapon can do it, most maps have plenty of places to do it, and it sets up CBs for an easy KO. Adding more CC that any weapon can do takes stock away from the hammer.
So that's it. That is my rant on why hammers aren't great anymore. It was fun playing them in the freedom games but I think I'm done now. It was fun when you could just destroy a monster's head, KO them a 3-4 times in a hunt, and output a ton a damage. This game doesn't allow it that easily with this weapon anymore. Other weapons have funner playstyles too, more variety of what you can do. So in this game, I'm going to keep up my support SnS play for as long as I can, thinking about trying bow or HBG. I'd love to pick hammer back up in the future after some buffs, but it looks like for now I'm not going to be a hammer bro anymore. | Hammers indirectly nerfed this game. Easy CC from any weapon with mounting, damage no longer skewed so heavily, vertical gameplay leans toward burst damage, all other weapons buffed or added since MH1, tails, large amount of weapons exhaust, and no longer the undisputed KO King. |
no_soul_ginger | Do I? No. Is it? Yep. Not in the neckbeard "lulz everybody but atheists are stupid" kind of way - because that's just as brainless. If you read carefully, you'll realize that my comments are not limited to one specific deist religion.
What I take issue with are people using or insisting on using religion in order to govern, control, coerce, or otherwise demand that others (who may or may not share their belief system) live according to certain religious tenets. It's asinine, arrogant, self-righteous behavior that serves only to exclude and divide; especially considering we have a wide range of belief systems represented in this country.
If you were to somehow poll the adherents of one certain religious sect from different places of worship, you would have varying ideologies. Even two people from the same place of worship may have varying beliefs. How then can demanding an entire society live according to one individual's beliefs be anything other than the most narcissistic of behavior?
Religion serves a purpose for many people, I understand that. It is deeply embedded, but the roots are *cultural* and not spiritual - despite claims to the contrary. This is why American Protestantism (as an example) is expressed differently than in Europe, why there are different sects of Sunni and Shiite, why there is Theravada and Shingon Buddhism, and so on. Each of these belief systems arose from their surrounding communities, or tribes, and those tribes in many cases had a disagreement about an interpretation. People identify with one tribe or another, and the availability of those identities is determinant on their geographical location more than anything else.
The sooner people realize that the disparities of their beliefs is far more related to their culture than anything spiritual, the sooner we'll stop having "leaders" demanding (through legislation) that we all adhere (through our behavior) to a specific order.
TL;DR? Not against religion, but against people demanding everyone live according to their specific religion. Many of the restrictive and prohibitive legislation we've seen passed are rooted in a religious belief, that not all citizens share - and that's wrong.
EDIT: don't read too much into the user name, it actually came from an encounter with a gigantic moth while I was in a significantly altered state. | Do I? No. Is it? Yep. Not in the neckbeard "lulz everybody but atheists are stupid" kind of way - because that's just as brainless. If you read carefully, you'll realize that my comments are not limited to one specific deist religion.
What I take issue with are people using or insisting on using religion in order to govern, control, coerce, or otherwise demand that others (who may or may not share their belief system) live according to certain religious tenets. It's asinine, arrogant, self-righteous behavior that serves only to exclude and divide; especially considering we have a wide range of belief systems represented in this country.
If you were to somehow poll the adherents of one certain religious sect from different places of worship, you would have varying ideologies. Even two people from the same place of worship may have varying beliefs. How then can demanding an entire society live according to one individual's beliefs be anything other than the most narcissistic of behavior?
Religion serves a purpose for many people, I understand that. It is deeply embedded, but the roots are cultural and not spiritual - despite claims to the contrary. This is why American Protestantism (as an example) is expressed differently than in Europe, why there are different sects of Sunni and Shiite, why there is Theravada and Shingon Buddhism, and so on. Each of these belief systems arose from their surrounding communities, or tribes, and those tribes in many cases had a disagreement about an interpretation. People identify with one tribe or another, and the availability of those identities is determinant on their geographical location more than anything else.
The sooner people realize that the disparities of their beliefs is far more related to their culture than anything spiritual, the sooner we'll stop having "leaders" demanding (through legislation) that we all adhere (through our behavior) to a specific order.
TL;DR? Not against religion, but against people demanding everyone live according to their specific religion. Many of the restrictive and prohibitive legislation we've seen passed are rooted in a religious belief, that not all citizens share - and that's wrong.
EDIT: don't read too much into the user name, it actually came from an encounter with a gigantic moth while I was in a significantly altered state.
| wisconsin | t5_2qrc2 | cqc07ze | Do I? No. Is it? Yep. Not in the neckbeard "lulz everybody but atheists are stupid" kind of way - because that's just as brainless. If you read carefully, you'll realize that my comments are not limited to one specific deist religion.
What I take issue with are people using or insisting on using religion in order to govern, control, coerce, or otherwise demand that others (who may or may not share their belief system) live according to certain religious tenets. It's asinine, arrogant, self-righteous behavior that serves only to exclude and divide; especially considering we have a wide range of belief systems represented in this country.
If you were to somehow poll the adherents of one certain religious sect from different places of worship, you would have varying ideologies. Even two people from the same place of worship may have varying beliefs. How then can demanding an entire society live according to one individual's beliefs be anything other than the most narcissistic of behavior?
Religion serves a purpose for many people, I understand that. It is deeply embedded, but the roots are cultural and not spiritual - despite claims to the contrary. This is why American Protestantism (as an example) is expressed differently than in Europe, why there are different sects of Sunni and Shiite, why there is Theravada and Shingon Buddhism, and so on. Each of these belief systems arose from their surrounding communities, or tribes, and those tribes in many cases had a disagreement about an interpretation. People identify with one tribe or another, and the availability of those identities is determinant on their geographical location more than anything else.
The sooner people realize that the disparities of their beliefs is far more related to their culture than anything spiritual, the sooner we'll stop having "leaders" demanding (through legislation) that we all adhere (through our behavior) to a specific order. | Not against religion, but against people demanding everyone live according to their specific religion. Many of the restrictive and prohibitive legislation we've seen passed are rooted in a religious belief, that not all citizens share - and that's wrong.
EDIT: don't read too much into the user name, it actually came from an encounter with a gigantic moth while I was in a significantly altered state. |
bull-doser | Its way more complicated than that! The deniers are actually the government shills! The previous mass shootings that the "deniers" say didn't happen did actually happen and weren't conspiracies at all. The CIA saw a way to discredit a group of people because the CIA is planning on carrying out false flag "mass shootings" and want to make sure no one believes the people who are clearheaded enough to see through the CIA false shootings!
tldr: Derp Derp. | Its way more complicated than that! The deniers are actually the government shills! The previous mass shootings that the "deniers" say didn't happen did actually happen and weren't conspiracies at all. The CIA saw a way to discredit a group of people because the CIA is planning on carrying out false flag "mass shootings" and want to make sure no one believes the people who are clearheaded enough to see through the CIA false shootings!
tldr: Derp Derp.
| conspiratard | t5_2r2dd | cqbgnkz | Its way more complicated than that! The deniers are actually the government shills! The previous mass shootings that the "deniers" say didn't happen did actually happen and weren't conspiracies at all. The CIA saw a way to discredit a group of people because the CIA is planning on carrying out false flag "mass shootings" and want to make sure no one believes the people who are clearheaded enough to see through the CIA false shootings! | Derp Derp. |
dem_brownies | A thompson is a great gun if you are willing to put in the effort and money to make it special and be unique. However, they are certainly not the easiest guns to deal with.
First off, the version 6 gearbox shell and bushings are unique, so spare/upgrade parts are not the easiest to find. The gears are standard, but everything else is unique to the Thompson as far as I know. Also, the hop up is unique and as far as I know, there are no aftermarket ones, so if you want to improve it, you are no your own.
As well, the design is notorious for barrel wobble/breakage, so you'll have to fix that (JB weld typically) for longevity and accuracy
In addition, the mags are are unique (no sharing) and the method of insertion/extraction is tough for those unused to it (slot engagement, no magwell, and the mag release is best pressed by the hand removing the mag).
Finally, don't get the "m1928," it is not historically accurate (mixes the m1a1 style upper, lower and stock with the m1928 style frontend and drum), so unless you are going to put in the time to make it look good (fill out the receiver primarily).
**TL;DR** I love Thompsons (I have at least 3), and it was my first gun, but if you want a gun that you can just pick up and go with, they aren't the best choice. If you want to be unique, have a solid all around gun and love to tinker (not just install parts, but actually modify existing pieces), they are great. | A thompson is a great gun if you are willing to put in the effort and money to make it special and be unique. However, they are certainly not the easiest guns to deal with.
First off, the version 6 gearbox shell and bushings are unique, so spare/upgrade parts are not the easiest to find. The gears are standard, but everything else is unique to the Thompson as far as I know. Also, the hop up is unique and as far as I know, there are no aftermarket ones, so if you want to improve it, you are no your own.
As well, the design is notorious for barrel wobble/breakage, so you'll have to fix that (JB weld typically) for longevity and accuracy
In addition, the mags are are unique (no sharing) and the method of insertion/extraction is tough for those unused to it (slot engagement, no magwell, and the mag release is best pressed by the hand removing the mag).
Finally, don't get the "m1928," it is not historically accurate (mixes the m1a1 style upper, lower and stock with the m1928 style frontend and drum), so unless you are going to put in the time to make it look good (fill out the receiver primarily).
TL;DR I love Thompsons (I have at least 3), and it was my first gun, but if you want a gun that you can just pick up and go with, they aren't the best choice. If you want to be unique, have a solid all around gun and love to tinker (not just install parts, but actually modify existing pieces), they are great.
| airsoftmarket | t5_2snfb | cqcmfr7 | A thompson is a great gun if you are willing to put in the effort and money to make it special and be unique. However, they are certainly not the easiest guns to deal with.
First off, the version 6 gearbox shell and bushings are unique, so spare/upgrade parts are not the easiest to find. The gears are standard, but everything else is unique to the Thompson as far as I know. Also, the hop up is unique and as far as I know, there are no aftermarket ones, so if you want to improve it, you are no your own.
As well, the design is notorious for barrel wobble/breakage, so you'll have to fix that (JB weld typically) for longevity and accuracy
In addition, the mags are are unique (no sharing) and the method of insertion/extraction is tough for those unused to it (slot engagement, no magwell, and the mag release is best pressed by the hand removing the mag).
Finally, don't get the "m1928," it is not historically accurate (mixes the m1a1 style upper, lower and stock with the m1928 style frontend and drum), so unless you are going to put in the time to make it look good (fill out the receiver primarily). | I love Thompsons (I have at least 3), and it was my first gun, but if you want a gun that you can just pick up and go with, they aren't the best choice. If you want to be unique, have a solid all around gun and love to tinker (not just install parts, but actually modify existing pieces), they are great. |
SteepsterDrama | What on earth does a pu'er vendor - buying all of their tea from one single family - have to gain by saying their tea is YOUNGER than it is? Doesn't everyone worry about the opposite? It seems odd that people would assume that a vendor like this - who has gone through the trouble of getting inspected and approved by the FDA, getting Fair Trade certified, etc - would lie, especially about something that gives no benefit.
TL;DR - Vendor gains no benefit from saying tea is younger than it is. Therefore, seems unlikely to assume that vendor is not telling the truth. | What on earth does a pu'er vendor - buying all of their tea from one single family - have to gain by saying their tea is YOUNGER than it is? Doesn't everyone worry about the opposite? It seems odd that people would assume that a vendor like this - who has gone through the trouble of getting inspected and approved by the FDA, getting Fair Trade certified, etc - would lie, especially about something that gives no benefit.
TL;DR - Vendor gains no benefit from saying tea is younger than it is. Therefore, seems unlikely to assume that vendor is not telling the truth.
| tea | t5_2qq5e | cqcbhaj | What on earth does a pu'er vendor - buying all of their tea from one single family - have to gain by saying their tea is YOUNGER than it is? Doesn't everyone worry about the opposite? It seems odd that people would assume that a vendor like this - who has gone through the trouble of getting inspected and approved by the FDA, getting Fair Trade certified, etc - would lie, especially about something that gives no benefit. | Vendor gains no benefit from saying tea is younger than it is. Therefore, seems unlikely to assume that vendor is not telling the truth. |
qwertyuiop15 | Exactly right on different coaches wanting different amounts of control. Cruyff and Van Gaal were/are polar opposites in this regard - Cruyff liked to allow his attacking players to improvise, to change positions, to roam - total football; whereas Van Gaal, as Neville was saying, is very organised with how his team attacks, they have very clear instructions on how to attack. Dennis Bergkamp touched on this difference in his autobiography. Bergkamp also placed Wenger somewhere in the middle of the two.
With Wenger, there are some clear instructions to players; the analysis of the Arsenal-Liverpool game showed that Wenger had picked up on a weakness of the Liverpool back 3 which involved pulling the two wingers very wide to stretch the defence. However, on the other side of things, when Arsenal are on form and flying you often see a lot of fluidity, a lot of improvisation, and a lot of roaming. Cazorla, Ozil, Sanchez, Ramsey etc. can often end up trading positions several times during a match of their own accord. It's almost like organised chaos.
The funny thing is, both approaches appear to take time to come into fruition. Van Gaal's approach has taken months to hone - most likely as players are learning how he wants to play, where to position themselves and also slowly gaining confidence in the system. On the other hand, Wenger's teams can take a while to gel if there are a lot of personnel changes as players have to learn how to play with each other on the pitch and form an understanding with each other rather than the tactical system itself as much.
I also think that Van Gaal's philosophy could apply well to lesser teams and gain results, whereas Wenger's/Cruyff's relies heavily on players having a certain level of quality and intelligence.
In recent times, the more organised approach has been preferred by the majority of top coaches - and has arguably been more successful. Mourinho and Simeone are the obvious current examples. I haven't seen enough of Barca this season to comment, but under Pep they were somewhere in the middle of the spectrum as well - clear organisation at times (Dani Alves was key to keeping width on the right flank for example), but Messi and others were allowed to improvise as well (especially once Messi was playing in his false 9 role). Bayern under Pep is still not total football, but leans more in that direction than his Barca side I think.
TL;DR: yes, while the managers of the top clubs obviously have to be tactically astute and organised, some do have philosophies that allow the players to take charge on the pitch as well. | Exactly right on different coaches wanting different amounts of control. Cruyff and Van Gaal were/are polar opposites in this regard - Cruyff liked to allow his attacking players to improvise, to change positions, to roam - total football; whereas Van Gaal, as Neville was saying, is very organised with how his team attacks, they have very clear instructions on how to attack. Dennis Bergkamp touched on this difference in his autobiography. Bergkamp also placed Wenger somewhere in the middle of the two.
With Wenger, there are some clear instructions to players; the analysis of the Arsenal-Liverpool game showed that Wenger had picked up on a weakness of the Liverpool back 3 which involved pulling the two wingers very wide to stretch the defence. However, on the other side of things, when Arsenal are on form and flying you often see a lot of fluidity, a lot of improvisation, and a lot of roaming. Cazorla, Ozil, Sanchez, Ramsey etc. can often end up trading positions several times during a match of their own accord. It's almost like organised chaos.
The funny thing is, both approaches appear to take time to come into fruition. Van Gaal's approach has taken months to hone - most likely as players are learning how he wants to play, where to position themselves and also slowly gaining confidence in the system. On the other hand, Wenger's teams can take a while to gel if there are a lot of personnel changes as players have to learn how to play with each other on the pitch and form an understanding with each other rather than the tactical system itself as much.
I also think that Van Gaal's philosophy could apply well to lesser teams and gain results, whereas Wenger's/Cruyff's relies heavily on players having a certain level of quality and intelligence.
In recent times, the more organised approach has been preferred by the majority of top coaches - and has arguably been more successful. Mourinho and Simeone are the obvious current examples. I haven't seen enough of Barca this season to comment, but under Pep they were somewhere in the middle of the spectrum as well - clear organisation at times (Dani Alves was key to keeping width on the right flank for example), but Messi and others were allowed to improvise as well (especially once Messi was playing in his false 9 role). Bayern under Pep is still not total football, but leans more in that direction than his Barca side I think.
TL;DR: yes, while the managers of the top clubs obviously have to be tactically astute and organised, some do have philosophies that allow the players to take charge on the pitch as well.
| soccer | t5_2qi58 | cqbtn20 | Exactly right on different coaches wanting different amounts of control. Cruyff and Van Gaal were/are polar opposites in this regard - Cruyff liked to allow his attacking players to improvise, to change positions, to roam - total football; whereas Van Gaal, as Neville was saying, is very organised with how his team attacks, they have very clear instructions on how to attack. Dennis Bergkamp touched on this difference in his autobiography. Bergkamp also placed Wenger somewhere in the middle of the two.
With Wenger, there are some clear instructions to players; the analysis of the Arsenal-Liverpool game showed that Wenger had picked up on a weakness of the Liverpool back 3 which involved pulling the two wingers very wide to stretch the defence. However, on the other side of things, when Arsenal are on form and flying you often see a lot of fluidity, a lot of improvisation, and a lot of roaming. Cazorla, Ozil, Sanchez, Ramsey etc. can often end up trading positions several times during a match of their own accord. It's almost like organised chaos.
The funny thing is, both approaches appear to take time to come into fruition. Van Gaal's approach has taken months to hone - most likely as players are learning how he wants to play, where to position themselves and also slowly gaining confidence in the system. On the other hand, Wenger's teams can take a while to gel if there are a lot of personnel changes as players have to learn how to play with each other on the pitch and form an understanding with each other rather than the tactical system itself as much.
I also think that Van Gaal's philosophy could apply well to lesser teams and gain results, whereas Wenger's/Cruyff's relies heavily on players having a certain level of quality and intelligence.
In recent times, the more organised approach has been preferred by the majority of top coaches - and has arguably been more successful. Mourinho and Simeone are the obvious current examples. I haven't seen enough of Barca this season to comment, but under Pep they were somewhere in the middle of the spectrum as well - clear organisation at times (Dani Alves was key to keeping width on the right flank for example), but Messi and others were allowed to improvise as well (especially once Messi was playing in his false 9 role). Bayern under Pep is still not total football, but leans more in that direction than his Barca side I think. | yes, while the managers of the top clubs obviously have to be tactically astute and organised, some do have philosophies that allow the players to take charge on the pitch as well. |
thedurka | The basic answer is that neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were considered "predominantly civilian". Both were home to major military installations, and more importantly Japanese military industry functioned very differently than the western models we're familiar with. Whereas in the US there's a handful of massive factories doing most of the work, in Japan almost every step of development and production until the very final stages was done by small local shops, with orders usually spread between dozens or even hundreds of suppliers. Only at the very end would all the different components be brought to a central military-run base to be put together into a final product.
By some estimates, more than 70% of the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were directly involved in producing military equipment. America never truly got a taste of "total war" so it can be hard to imagine, but near the end of WWII nearly the entire Japanese nation was geared toward producing stuff for war.
Now, I'm not trying to excuse the use of nuclear weapons on civilians, or start a debate on whether or not they "saved lives" compared to the alternatives. This is just the official reasoning that was given at the time, the same one given in defense of the non-nuclear destruction of Tokyo by firebombing.
TL;DR: Western governments didn't consider Nagasaki or Hiroshima to be "predominantly civilian cities." | The basic answer is that neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were considered "predominantly civilian". Both were home to major military installations, and more importantly Japanese military industry functioned very differently than the western models we're familiar with. Whereas in the US there's a handful of massive factories doing most of the work, in Japan almost every step of development and production until the very final stages was done by small local shops, with orders usually spread between dozens or even hundreds of suppliers. Only at the very end would all the different components be brought to a central military-run base to be put together into a final product.
By some estimates, more than 70% of the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were directly involved in producing military equipment. America never truly got a taste of "total war" so it can be hard to imagine, but near the end of WWII nearly the entire Japanese nation was geared toward producing stuff for war.
Now, I'm not trying to excuse the use of nuclear weapons on civilians, or start a debate on whether or not they "saved lives" compared to the alternatives. This is just the official reasoning that was given at the time, the same one given in defense of the non-nuclear destruction of Tokyo by firebombing.
TL;DR: Western governments didn't consider Nagasaki or Hiroshima to be "predominantly civilian cities."
| explainlikeimfive | t5_2sokd | cqbm0gd | The basic answer is that neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were considered "predominantly civilian". Both were home to major military installations, and more importantly Japanese military industry functioned very differently than the western models we're familiar with. Whereas in the US there's a handful of massive factories doing most of the work, in Japan almost every step of development and production until the very final stages was done by small local shops, with orders usually spread between dozens or even hundreds of suppliers. Only at the very end would all the different components be brought to a central military-run base to be put together into a final product.
By some estimates, more than 70% of the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were directly involved in producing military equipment. America never truly got a taste of "total war" so it can be hard to imagine, but near the end of WWII nearly the entire Japanese nation was geared toward producing stuff for war.
Now, I'm not trying to excuse the use of nuclear weapons on civilians, or start a debate on whether or not they "saved lives" compared to the alternatives. This is just the official reasoning that was given at the time, the same one given in defense of the non-nuclear destruction of Tokyo by firebombing. | Western governments didn't consider Nagasaki or Hiroshima to be "predominantly civilian cities." |
jesus_kreitzman | Did not read part 1 so I don't know the entire context for this article but there are a few points I wanted to bring up:
In my personal opinion from what I have observed as a University student involved in development and design the fall of the designer is a part of a much larger cultural shift in higher education. The push for STEM education (which really ought to be renamed because the only truly affected fields are honestly engineering and programming; pure science and math requires a certain outlook that really can't be coerced except maybe very early in life) is a disaster because of the disgusting strategy taken to advertise what were 20 years ago, unpopular careers. In the engineering and computer science departments at my school you will observe two types of students. The absurdly nerdy, socially awkward engineering types who would have pursued STEM with no incentive. And people who are there for the money; these are the majority.
The best incentive for STEM American society has come up with is this ridiculous promise of a 100K starting salary for majoring in an engineering field. The reverence surrounding this idea is wildly misguided, there are jobs with that starting salary in nearly every field. But in a world where every American kid under 25 was told from age 1-15 that they were special snowflakes and from age 16 onward that literally the entire job market is fucked forever, you see a mad scramble for that beautiful 100K.
How does this tie into the article? Essentially this has led to treatment of the programmer/developer/engineer as a godlike entity, but because of their salary not their skills. And when we start judging merits based on how much people make, things get scary (how valuable are the Kardashians then?).
So what you have is a bunch of extremely hirable people who really have no interest in what they do but demand to be paid a lot. On the other end, which I didn't really touch on, you have more tech startups than the dotcom bubble but this time investors are smarter so actual products need to be made, but not that much smarter because they're still massively overvaluing everything. The end result is "tech" (snapchat,tinder) companies pumping shit out as fast as possible so they can justify their valuation in pure advertising revenue or by selling data. Slapping on adsense or calculating time spent shitting based on phone use doesn't require designers.
The big companies have time for long form development from drawing board up. But the big companies are having to stoop to the level of the startups to garner any attention. Facebook's big fucking accomplishment of the year letting bedroom programmers build more crap to the messaging app. Google's just trying to pump out "revolutionary, trendy, science" stuff fast enough for people to not catch on that there is nothing cute about an advertising company ruling the world.
tldr;
Everyone is competing at the lowest bar because the millenials/Gen-Y are terrified of everything. A Computer Science degree is now the fastest track to an MBA. Everyone knows this but the only thing anyone can do is wait for a huge crash to wake everyone up.
| Did not read part 1 so I don't know the entire context for this article but there are a few points I wanted to bring up:
In my personal opinion from what I have observed as a University student involved in development and design the fall of the designer is a part of a much larger cultural shift in higher education. The push for STEM education (which really ought to be renamed because the only truly affected fields are honestly engineering and programming; pure science and math requires a certain outlook that really can't be coerced except maybe very early in life) is a disaster because of the disgusting strategy taken to advertise what were 20 years ago, unpopular careers. In the engineering and computer science departments at my school you will observe two types of students. The absurdly nerdy, socially awkward engineering types who would have pursued STEM with no incentive. And people who are there for the money; these are the majority.
The best incentive for STEM American society has come up with is this ridiculous promise of a 100K starting salary for majoring in an engineering field. The reverence surrounding this idea is wildly misguided, there are jobs with that starting salary in nearly every field. But in a world where every American kid under 25 was told from age 1-15 that they were special snowflakes and from age 16 onward that literally the entire job market is fucked forever, you see a mad scramble for that beautiful 100K.
How does this tie into the article? Essentially this has led to treatment of the programmer/developer/engineer as a godlike entity, but because of their salary not their skills. And when we start judging merits based on how much people make, things get scary (how valuable are the Kardashians then?).
So what you have is a bunch of extremely hirable people who really have no interest in what they do but demand to be paid a lot. On the other end, which I didn't really touch on, you have more tech startups than the dotcom bubble but this time investors are smarter so actual products need to be made, but not that much smarter because they're still massively overvaluing everything. The end result is "tech" (snapchat,tinder) companies pumping shit out as fast as possible so they can justify their valuation in pure advertising revenue or by selling data. Slapping on adsense or calculating time spent shitting based on phone use doesn't require designers.
The big companies have time for long form development from drawing board up. But the big companies are having to stoop to the level of the startups to garner any attention. Facebook's big fucking accomplishment of the year letting bedroom programmers build more crap to the messaging app. Google's just trying to pump out "revolutionary, trendy, science" stuff fast enough for people to not catch on that there is nothing cute about an advertising company ruling the world.
tldr;
Everyone is competing at the lowest bar because the millenials/Gen-Y are terrified of everything. A Computer Science degree is now the fastest track to an MBA. Everyone knows this but the only thing anyone can do is wait for a huge crash to wake everyone up.
| Design | t5_2qh78 | cqcsdgf | Did not read part 1 so I don't know the entire context for this article but there are a few points I wanted to bring up:
In my personal opinion from what I have observed as a University student involved in development and design the fall of the designer is a part of a much larger cultural shift in higher education. The push for STEM education (which really ought to be renamed because the only truly affected fields are honestly engineering and programming; pure science and math requires a certain outlook that really can't be coerced except maybe very early in life) is a disaster because of the disgusting strategy taken to advertise what were 20 years ago, unpopular careers. In the engineering and computer science departments at my school you will observe two types of students. The absurdly nerdy, socially awkward engineering types who would have pursued STEM with no incentive. And people who are there for the money; these are the majority.
The best incentive for STEM American society has come up with is this ridiculous promise of a 100K starting salary for majoring in an engineering field. The reverence surrounding this idea is wildly misguided, there are jobs with that starting salary in nearly every field. But in a world where every American kid under 25 was told from age 1-15 that they were special snowflakes and from age 16 onward that literally the entire job market is fucked forever, you see a mad scramble for that beautiful 100K.
How does this tie into the article? Essentially this has led to treatment of the programmer/developer/engineer as a godlike entity, but because of their salary not their skills. And when we start judging merits based on how much people make, things get scary (how valuable are the Kardashians then?).
So what you have is a bunch of extremely hirable people who really have no interest in what they do but demand to be paid a lot. On the other end, which I didn't really touch on, you have more tech startups than the dotcom bubble but this time investors are smarter so actual products need to be made, but not that much smarter because they're still massively overvaluing everything. The end result is "tech" (snapchat,tinder) companies pumping shit out as fast as possible so they can justify their valuation in pure advertising revenue or by selling data. Slapping on adsense or calculating time spent shitting based on phone use doesn't require designers.
The big companies have time for long form development from drawing board up. But the big companies are having to stoop to the level of the startups to garner any attention. Facebook's big fucking accomplishment of the year letting bedroom programmers build more crap to the messaging app. Google's just trying to pump out "revolutionary, trendy, science" stuff fast enough for people to not catch on that there is nothing cute about an advertising company ruling the world. | Everyone is competing at the lowest bar because the millenials/Gen-Y are terrified of everything. A Computer Science degree is now the fastest track to an MBA. Everyone knows this but the only thing anyone can do is wait for a huge crash to wake everyone up. |
GhostOfAebeAmraen | > **No loss of assets.** [(i)]( To accommodate the nullsec groups CCP has decided that loosing all your assets is no longer an option. The new structures will have built in security measures in them that keep your assets safe even if the structure explodes. We don't know in what shape that will be yet and maybe it will be possible to hellcamp a system 23/7 for a few weeks and manage to kill people retrieving their assets. But seriously. No one will have the will to do that.
From the dev post *that you linked*:
> Also, please note, it is possible for such mechanics to only be available in the largest structures (most likely XL) since existing Starbases do not have any kind of item safety mechanic (and would likely end up as L size equivalent in the new model).
tl;dr: too much tinfoil, not enough reading comprehension. | > No loss of assets. [(i)]( To accommodate the nullsec groups CCP has decided that loosing all your assets is no longer an option. The new structures will have built in security measures in them that keep your assets safe even if the structure explodes. We don't know in what shape that will be yet and maybe it will be possible to hellcamp a system 23/7 for a few weeks and manage to kill people retrieving their assets. But seriously. No one will have the will to do that.
From the dev post that you linked :
> Also, please note, it is possible for such mechanics to only be available in the largest structures (most likely XL) since existing Starbases do not have any kind of item safety mechanic (and would likely end up as L size equivalent in the new model).
tl;dr: too much tinfoil, not enough reading comprehension.
| Eve | t5_2qil9 | cqc5zay | No loss of assets. [(i)]( To accommodate the nullsec groups CCP has decided that loosing all your assets is no longer an option. The new structures will have built in security measures in them that keep your assets safe even if the structure explodes. We don't know in what shape that will be yet and maybe it will be possible to hellcamp a system 23/7 for a few weeks and manage to kill people retrieving their assets. But seriously. No one will have the will to do that.
From the dev post that you linked :
> Also, please note, it is possible for such mechanics to only be available in the largest structures (most likely XL) since existing Starbases do not have any kind of item safety mechanic (and would likely end up as L size equivalent in the new model). | too much tinfoil, not enough reading comprehension. |
mareox3 | Well, one of the reasons why Remote Play reviews are really mixed is because the quality is very dependent on your internet speed. While some people say they have had perfect experience with 2-3 Mbps upload speeds, it was terrible for me. It wasn’t until I upgraded my service to 5 Mbps upload that I was able to play perfectly 99% of the time. Download speeds don’t matter as much imo since chances are if you’re getting 5 Mbps upload, you’d be getting at least 3 times as much down. If you’re going to go the Direct Connect route, meaning you wont be using your home’s internet and instead connect directly to the PS4, it will depend on how far you are from your PS4 and how many different signals are around you. People have said things like having microwaves on, Bluetooth gear and even wireless land line phones get in the way of Direct Connect. I myself found that being near too many wifi signals also negatively affects the range of Direct Connect. If you live in an apartment where everyone has their own wifi router, it can be a problem. Anyways, when it works, it works amazingly well. Now on to the second problem – games. A lot of games have custom button assignments that are enabled when you Remote Play that take into consideration the Vita’s controls. Destiny IMO does an amazing job at this. Unfortunately, there are many games that just use the default Remote Play button configuration meaning you have to either use the front touchscreen or back touchpad for L2/R2, L3/R3. This becomes a huge problem for games where the L2/R2 triggers are used as a main attack or like in most FPS to aim and shoot. What makes it worse is that in many of these games theres NO WAY to change the controls, making them pretty much unplayable in some cases.
**TL:DR: the Remote Play experience depends on two things: Quality of internet speed (at least 5 Mbps upload) for a good connection and a game that features controls that actually work on the Vita. Not as plug and play as a Wii U Gamepad but when it works, Remote Play is AMAZING!**
| Well, one of the reasons why Remote Play reviews are really mixed is because the quality is very dependent on your internet speed. While some people say they have had perfect experience with 2-3 Mbps upload speeds, it was terrible for me. It wasn’t until I upgraded my service to 5 Mbps upload that I was able to play perfectly 99% of the time. Download speeds don’t matter as much imo since chances are if you’re getting 5 Mbps upload, you’d be getting at least 3 times as much down. If you’re going to go the Direct Connect route, meaning you wont be using your home’s internet and instead connect directly to the PS4, it will depend on how far you are from your PS4 and how many different signals are around you. People have said things like having microwaves on, Bluetooth gear and even wireless land line phones get in the way of Direct Connect. I myself found that being near too many wifi signals also negatively affects the range of Direct Connect. If you live in an apartment where everyone has their own wifi router, it can be a problem. Anyways, when it works, it works amazingly well. Now on to the second problem – games. A lot of games have custom button assignments that are enabled when you Remote Play that take into consideration the Vita’s controls. Destiny IMO does an amazing job at this. Unfortunately, there are many games that just use the default Remote Play button configuration meaning you have to either use the front touchscreen or back touchpad for L2/R2, L3/R3. This becomes a huge problem for games where the L2/R2 triggers are used as a main attack or like in most FPS to aim and shoot. What makes it worse is that in many of these games theres NO WAY to change the controls, making them pretty much unplayable in some cases.
TL:DR: the Remote Play experience depends on two things: Quality of internet speed (at least 5 Mbps upload) for a good connection and a game that features controls that actually work on the Vita. Not as plug and play as a Wii U Gamepad but when it works, Remote Play is AMAZING!
| vita | t5_2sjmv | cqcfal3 | Well, one of the reasons why Remote Play reviews are really mixed is because the quality is very dependent on your internet speed. While some people say they have had perfect experience with 2-3 Mbps upload speeds, it was terrible for me. It wasn’t until I upgraded my service to 5 Mbps upload that I was able to play perfectly 99% of the time. Download speeds don’t matter as much imo since chances are if you’re getting 5 Mbps upload, you’d be getting at least 3 times as much down. If you’re going to go the Direct Connect route, meaning you wont be using your home’s internet and instead connect directly to the PS4, it will depend on how far you are from your PS4 and how many different signals are around you. People have said things like having microwaves on, Bluetooth gear and even wireless land line phones get in the way of Direct Connect. I myself found that being near too many wifi signals also negatively affects the range of Direct Connect. If you live in an apartment where everyone has their own wifi router, it can be a problem. Anyways, when it works, it works amazingly well. Now on to the second problem – games. A lot of games have custom button assignments that are enabled when you Remote Play that take into consideration the Vita’s controls. Destiny IMO does an amazing job at this. Unfortunately, there are many games that just use the default Remote Play button configuration meaning you have to either use the front touchscreen or back touchpad for L2/R2, L3/R3. This becomes a huge problem for games where the L2/R2 triggers are used as a main attack or like in most FPS to aim and shoot. What makes it worse is that in many of these games theres NO WAY to change the controls, making them pretty much unplayable in some cases. | the Remote Play experience depends on two things: Quality of internet speed (at least 5 Mbps upload) for a good connection and a game that features controls that actually work on the Vita. Not as plug and play as a Wii U Gamepad but when it works, Remote Play is AMAZING! |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.