author
stringlengths 3
20
| body
stringlengths 14
39.9k
| normalizedBody
stringlengths 16
39.9k
| subreddit
stringclasses 19
values | subreddit_id
stringclasses 19
values | id
stringlengths 4
9
| content
stringlengths 4
38.7k
| summary
stringlengths 1
10.1k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perservere | Didn't they lose 6 games in a row? Just because you're close for some of the games doesn't mean that you're not a lot weaker than that team. I **love** Arkansas razorbacks football. 2 years (i think) we lost to Alabama and LSU by a field goal that we missed from less than 40 yards. This year we lost to Alabam 52-0. Our team isnt' young and we we're ranked 8. Our quarterback did get injured against UL monroe, but that doesn't make up 49 points.
TL;DR just because you're close "at times" doesn't mean you didn't get stomped in a best of 5 that you lost 6 games in. | Didn't they lose 6 games in a row? Just because you're close for some of the games doesn't mean that you're not a lot weaker than that team. I love Arkansas razorbacks football. 2 years (i think) we lost to Alabama and LSU by a field goal that we missed from less than 40 yards. This year we lost to Alabam 52-0. Our team isnt' young and we we're ranked 8. Our quarterback did get injured against UL monroe, but that doesn't make up 49 points.
TL;DR just because you're close "at times" doesn't mean you didn't get stomped in a best of 5 that you lost 6 games in.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6bftvc | Didn't they lose 6 games in a row? Just because you're close for some of the games doesn't mean that you're not a lot weaker than that team. I love Arkansas razorbacks football. 2 years (i think) we lost to Alabama and LSU by a field goal that we missed from less than 40 yards. This year we lost to Alabam 52-0. Our team isnt' young and we we're ranked 8. Our quarterback did get injured against UL monroe, but that doesn't make up 49 points. | just because you're close "at times" doesn't mean you didn't get stomped in a best of 5 that you lost 6 games in. |
FrankManic | And that is, hands down, the coolest aspect of the game. It rewards creativity, careful planning, and experimenting with unconventional ideas. There is no optimum build or gear allocation. You can do things that the designers never even dreamed of and come up with a very effective build that might be unlike anything that anyone else does.
TLDR; Play balance is for wimps. Welcome to the deep end of the pool. | And that is, hands down, the coolest aspect of the game. It rewards creativity, careful planning, and experimenting with unconventional ideas. There is no optimum build or gear allocation. You can do things that the designers never even dreamed of and come up with a very effective build that might be unlike anything that anyone else does.
TLDR; Play balance is for wimps. Welcome to the deep end of the pool.
| Games | t5_2qhwp | c6c7pgn | And that is, hands down, the coolest aspect of the game. It rewards creativity, careful planning, and experimenting with unconventional ideas. There is no optimum build or gear allocation. You can do things that the designers never even dreamed of and come up with a very effective build that might be unlike anything that anyone else does. | Play balance is for wimps. Welcome to the deep end of the pool. |
nervousnelli | She's been honest with you the entire time. And it's all about the drugs.
You have to admit that you do like to use a lot. We all like drugs and the feelings but anything in moderation ya know?
What are your goals besides drugs? Why can't you be happy with yourself and not rely on a pill and a high to make you happy? Why not take up a sport, running or even skydiving? You know, something that actually accomplishes life and you can share your experience with anyone anywhere?
You'd really impress her if you cut most of those out. Why should she invest in you if you end up getting thrown in jail, overdose on something, or ruin your health.
She definitely cares about you more than you know, and that's kinda hot. But you're not seeing it. You could have an amazing future with this beautiful girl and you're willing to throw it away for some "high" with your friends.
You have a lot to be thankful for with her, and I don't think the pills are worth it.
TL;DR - create your own natural highs. Gym - get a physical goal. Drugs are the lazy, trashy, and tacky way to be something you're not. | She's been honest with you the entire time. And it's all about the drugs.
You have to admit that you do like to use a lot. We all like drugs and the feelings but anything in moderation ya know?
What are your goals besides drugs? Why can't you be happy with yourself and not rely on a pill and a high to make you happy? Why not take up a sport, running or even skydiving? You know, something that actually accomplishes life and you can share your experience with anyone anywhere?
You'd really impress her if you cut most of those out. Why should she invest in you if you end up getting thrown in jail, overdose on something, or ruin your health.
She definitely cares about you more than you know, and that's kinda hot. But you're not seeing it. You could have an amazing future with this beautiful girl and you're willing to throw it away for some "high" with your friends.
You have a lot to be thankful for with her, and I don't think the pills are worth it.
TL;DR - create your own natural highs. Gym - get a physical goal. Drugs are the lazy, trashy, and tacky way to be something you're not.
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | c6da92z | She's been honest with you the entire time. And it's all about the drugs.
You have to admit that you do like to use a lot. We all like drugs and the feelings but anything in moderation ya know?
What are your goals besides drugs? Why can't you be happy with yourself and not rely on a pill and a high to make you happy? Why not take up a sport, running or even skydiving? You know, something that actually accomplishes life and you can share your experience with anyone anywhere?
You'd really impress her if you cut most of those out. Why should she invest in you if you end up getting thrown in jail, overdose on something, or ruin your health.
She definitely cares about you more than you know, and that's kinda hot. But you're not seeing it. You could have an amazing future with this beautiful girl and you're willing to throw it away for some "high" with your friends.
You have a lot to be thankful for with her, and I don't think the pills are worth it. | create your own natural highs. Gym - get a physical goal. Drugs are the lazy, trashy, and tacky way to be something you're not. |
rockyTron | You love yourself more than her. That's not inherently wrong, at your age this is natural. You should probably leave her though because you will hurt her in the end. I won't advocate changing yourself to her expectations because I think her expectations do not take you into account either. I think both of you would be better off with more compatible people.
I use drugs a lot like you do. I'm not opposed to a bump of coke or two a couple times a year when it's around, I'll eat some mushrooms on a camping trip in the woods every couple years or so for a good cerebral dump and wipe, I smoke marijuana fairly regularly it's a good way to unwind with a beer at the end of the day, I drink beer and have begun brewing my own because it's a fun hobby, and I enjoy smoking cigars with my dad or my uncles when we have time to visit. My girlfriend and I live together and I've never pushed anything on her. She is aware of how I take my pleasure by the dose sometimes. She enjoys beer, and has taken an interest in brewing so we have a shared hobby, and the occasional toke, but has no interest in other drugs. I don't need her to take drugs to validate myself, and she doesn't require me to abstain to appease her own self-interest. We are compatible and sensible with each other. This is how we are and I wouldn't change her, and she doesn't need to change me.
However I have a problem with your story. Why do you feel the need to validate yourself by pressuring her to use these substances the way you do? It's obvious she has no interest. On the other hand she is asking the same of you from a different perspective, that you abstain like her. It's obvious you have no interest to change either.
There's your answer, staring you right in the face. If you have experienced such incompatibility on such regular intervals over the same issue which neither of you have an interest in changing, then stop beating yourself up. Give up on this rollercoaster because it is emotionally draining and hurtful for both of you. You are young, probably intelligent, and have a lot of time ahead of you. Learn from this and be yourself. You are yourself, she is herself, and if either has to change to fit the other's expectations, when these expectations are unreal, then be yourself by yourself and not what she wants you to be. I don't think you're going to be able to compromise with your current attitude about drugs. You need to find somebody less hung up on your drug use, and you also need to reexamine why you need her so badly to "try before you say no" to validate your own use. You yourself validate your own actions, no one else. Own that and get yourself out of this relationship before you damage yourselves even further.
There are millions of other girls out there who could make a better match for you. Probably an older you, because I think I've been you and I think you still have some growing up to do before you commit to long term relationships especially ones as emotionally draining as this one. You're only 23 and you've been with her since 18? I've seen this happen in my own friends' relationships and it's usually an impediment to adulthood. Think about it, you've been together since you were children. You've become emotionally dependent on each other even though you're both growing up into very different adults. Time to move on and into your own adulthood and stop holding each other back. It can be an amicable break, time shared in love is very meaningful and will stay with you both forever, but every good thing must come to an end and you've postponed that point for too long now.
TL;DR: Stop getting back together when it doesn't work out. | You love yourself more than her. That's not inherently wrong, at your age this is natural. You should probably leave her though because you will hurt her in the end. I won't advocate changing yourself to her expectations because I think her expectations do not take you into account either. I think both of you would be better off with more compatible people.
I use drugs a lot like you do. I'm not opposed to a bump of coke or two a couple times a year when it's around, I'll eat some mushrooms on a camping trip in the woods every couple years or so for a good cerebral dump and wipe, I smoke marijuana fairly regularly it's a good way to unwind with a beer at the end of the day, I drink beer and have begun brewing my own because it's a fun hobby, and I enjoy smoking cigars with my dad or my uncles when we have time to visit. My girlfriend and I live together and I've never pushed anything on her. She is aware of how I take my pleasure by the dose sometimes. She enjoys beer, and has taken an interest in brewing so we have a shared hobby, and the occasional toke, but has no interest in other drugs. I don't need her to take drugs to validate myself, and she doesn't require me to abstain to appease her own self-interest. We are compatible and sensible with each other. This is how we are and I wouldn't change her, and she doesn't need to change me.
However I have a problem with your story. Why do you feel the need to validate yourself by pressuring her to use these substances the way you do? It's obvious she has no interest. On the other hand she is asking the same of you from a different perspective, that you abstain like her. It's obvious you have no interest to change either.
There's your answer, staring you right in the face. If you have experienced such incompatibility on such regular intervals over the same issue which neither of you have an interest in changing, then stop beating yourself up. Give up on this rollercoaster because it is emotionally draining and hurtful for both of you. You are young, probably intelligent, and have a lot of time ahead of you. Learn from this and be yourself. You are yourself, she is herself, and if either has to change to fit the other's expectations, when these expectations are unreal, then be yourself by yourself and not what she wants you to be. I don't think you're going to be able to compromise with your current attitude about drugs. You need to find somebody less hung up on your drug use, and you also need to reexamine why you need her so badly to "try before you say no" to validate your own use. You yourself validate your own actions, no one else. Own that and get yourself out of this relationship before you damage yourselves even further.
There are millions of other girls out there who could make a better match for you. Probably an older you, because I think I've been you and I think you still have some growing up to do before you commit to long term relationships especially ones as emotionally draining as this one. You're only 23 and you've been with her since 18? I've seen this happen in my own friends' relationships and it's usually an impediment to adulthood. Think about it, you've been together since you were children. You've become emotionally dependent on each other even though you're both growing up into very different adults. Time to move on and into your own adulthood and stop holding each other back. It can be an amicable break, time shared in love is very meaningful and will stay with you both forever, but every good thing must come to an end and you've postponed that point for too long now.
TL;DR: Stop getting back together when it doesn't work out.
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | c6dj2mm | You love yourself more than her. That's not inherently wrong, at your age this is natural. You should probably leave her though because you will hurt her in the end. I won't advocate changing yourself to her expectations because I think her expectations do not take you into account either. I think both of you would be better off with more compatible people.
I use drugs a lot like you do. I'm not opposed to a bump of coke or two a couple times a year when it's around, I'll eat some mushrooms on a camping trip in the woods every couple years or so for a good cerebral dump and wipe, I smoke marijuana fairly regularly it's a good way to unwind with a beer at the end of the day, I drink beer and have begun brewing my own because it's a fun hobby, and I enjoy smoking cigars with my dad or my uncles when we have time to visit. My girlfriend and I live together and I've never pushed anything on her. She is aware of how I take my pleasure by the dose sometimes. She enjoys beer, and has taken an interest in brewing so we have a shared hobby, and the occasional toke, but has no interest in other drugs. I don't need her to take drugs to validate myself, and she doesn't require me to abstain to appease her own self-interest. We are compatible and sensible with each other. This is how we are and I wouldn't change her, and she doesn't need to change me.
However I have a problem with your story. Why do you feel the need to validate yourself by pressuring her to use these substances the way you do? It's obvious she has no interest. On the other hand she is asking the same of you from a different perspective, that you abstain like her. It's obvious you have no interest to change either.
There's your answer, staring you right in the face. If you have experienced such incompatibility on such regular intervals over the same issue which neither of you have an interest in changing, then stop beating yourself up. Give up on this rollercoaster because it is emotionally draining and hurtful for both of you. You are young, probably intelligent, and have a lot of time ahead of you. Learn from this and be yourself. You are yourself, she is herself, and if either has to change to fit the other's expectations, when these expectations are unreal, then be yourself by yourself and not what she wants you to be. I don't think you're going to be able to compromise with your current attitude about drugs. You need to find somebody less hung up on your drug use, and you also need to reexamine why you need her so badly to "try before you say no" to validate your own use. You yourself validate your own actions, no one else. Own that and get yourself out of this relationship before you damage yourselves even further.
There are millions of other girls out there who could make a better match for you. Probably an older you, because I think I've been you and I think you still have some growing up to do before you commit to long term relationships especially ones as emotionally draining as this one. You're only 23 and you've been with her since 18? I've seen this happen in my own friends' relationships and it's usually an impediment to adulthood. Think about it, you've been together since you were children. You've become emotionally dependent on each other even though you're both growing up into very different adults. Time to move on and into your own adulthood and stop holding each other back. It can be an amicable break, time shared in love is very meaningful and will stay with you both forever, but every good thing must come to an end and you've postponed that point for too long now. | Stop getting back together when it doesn't work out. |
Duckylicious | If this Plan B is the same as the "morning after pill" I was prescribed 10 years ago (it wasn't OTC then, and going to get it from a furious hospital doctor [because doctor's offices were closed on a Saturday] who almost kicked me out because I didn't have a regular gyno, which meant she had to do a bunch of other checks on me as well was rather traumatic to me - for almost a year I turned sheet white at the notion of having to see a gyno), I'd have to agree. It screwed up my periods completely (I got them every 2 weeks for months, and even prescribing me the regular BC pill didn't fix it).
Edit: So my tl;dr is I'm all for it being somewhat more easily accessible than it was then, but if it's the same pill, it's definitely a hormonal whopper with side effects.
Second edit: Thanks to everyone who actually sent me thoughtful replies instead of going "no she's wrong, downvote herp derp". | If this Plan B is the same as the "morning after pill" I was prescribed 10 years ago (it wasn't OTC then, and going to get it from a furious hospital doctor [because doctor's offices were closed on a Saturday] who almost kicked me out because I didn't have a regular gyno, which meant she had to do a bunch of other checks on me as well was rather traumatic to me - for almost a year I turned sheet white at the notion of having to see a gyno), I'd have to agree. It screwed up my periods completely (I got them every 2 weeks for months, and even prescribing me the regular BC pill didn't fix it).
Edit: So my tl;dr is I'm all for it being somewhat more easily accessible than it was then, but if it's the same pill, it's definitely a hormonal whopper with side effects.
Second edit: Thanks to everyone who actually sent me thoughtful replies instead of going "no she's wrong, downvote herp derp".
| TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | c6de3nf | If this Plan B is the same as the "morning after pill" I was prescribed 10 years ago (it wasn't OTC then, and going to get it from a furious hospital doctor [because doctor's offices were closed on a Saturday] who almost kicked me out because I didn't have a regular gyno, which meant she had to do a bunch of other checks on me as well was rather traumatic to me - for almost a year I turned sheet white at the notion of having to see a gyno), I'd have to agree. It screwed up my periods completely (I got them every 2 weeks for months, and even prescribing me the regular BC pill didn't fix it).
Edit: So my | is I'm all for it being somewhat more easily accessible than it was then, but if it's the same pill, it's definitely a hormonal whopper with side effects.
Second edit: Thanks to everyone who actually sent me thoughtful replies instead of going "no she's wrong, downvote herp derp". |
ChinPelt | Because spinning axe is a massive damage buff(percent based damage buff that applies his passive dot), even at rank one. Because he can use the spell once and keep the buff for an extended amount of time, and even re-apply. Because asking for a massive damage increase that can't be countered and doesn't expire after a set time is like asking for Corki's rockets to home in on the nearest low heath champion and deal true damage.
TLDR;
quit whining. figure out the difference between a good axe and a bad one. don't chase bad axes. | Because spinning axe is a massive damage buff(percent based damage buff that applies his passive dot), even at rank one. Because he can use the spell once and keep the buff for an extended amount of time, and even re-apply. Because asking for a massive damage increase that can't be countered and doesn't expire after a set time is like asking for Corki's rockets to home in on the nearest low heath champion and deal true damage.
TLDR;
quit whining. figure out the difference between a good axe and a bad one. don't chase bad axes.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6esl1r | Because spinning axe is a massive damage buff(percent based damage buff that applies his passive dot), even at rank one. Because he can use the spell once and keep the buff for an extended amount of time, and even re-apply. Because asking for a massive damage increase that can't be countered and doesn't expire after a set time is like asking for Corki's rockets to home in on the nearest low heath champion and deal true damage. | quit whining. figure out the difference between a good axe and a bad one. don't chase bad axes. |
ProfessorBuds | Question: I'm a Canadian and came home from university to find our internet connection was no longer secured. My mom said it just randomly happened. Tried to log-on to my modem and add a security but it wouldn't let me in. Called the support line posted on cisco's (my modem company) website. I went through a very similar process that was explained by this guy but on my mac. He showed me the console and the error messages gained control of my computer, etc, etc. charged me around $170 to resecure the network and wipe the viruses of the 4 macs that were connected to the modem.
TL;DR - Did i get scammed by Cisco? | Question: I'm a Canadian and came home from university to find our internet connection was no longer secured. My mom said it just randomly happened. Tried to log-on to my modem and add a security but it wouldn't let me in. Called the support line posted on cisco's (my modem company) website. I went through a very similar process that was explained by this guy but on my mac. He showed me the console and the error messages gained control of my computer, etc, etc. charged me around $170 to resecure the network and wipe the viruses of the 4 macs that were connected to the modem.
TL;DR - Did i get scammed by Cisco?
| technology | t5_2qh16 | c6hlkqq | Question: I'm a Canadian and came home from university to find our internet connection was no longer secured. My mom said it just randomly happened. Tried to log-on to my modem and add a security but it wouldn't let me in. Called the support line posted on cisco's (my modem company) website. I went through a very similar process that was explained by this guy but on my mac. He showed me the console and the error messages gained control of my computer, etc, etc. charged me around $170 to resecure the network and wipe the viruses of the 4 macs that were connected to the modem. | Did i get scammed by Cisco? |
Molkin | I got a few of these calls a few months ago. One time when I had nothing better to do, I played along. When he said the errors were caused by viruses, I told him that I knew about the viruses and I liked them. He said they were bad viruses, and he wanted to help me remove them. I explained that I didn't want to remove them, because they are my pets, and I want them to grow up big and strong. My goal was to train them and enter into the Johto Virus Battle Championship. He got angry, told me I was wasting his time and hung up.
TL;DR: I told a scammer that computer viruses are my pets, and I raise them like pokemon. | I got a few of these calls a few months ago. One time when I had nothing better to do, I played along. When he said the errors were caused by viruses, I told him that I knew about the viruses and I liked them. He said they were bad viruses, and he wanted to help me remove them. I explained that I didn't want to remove them, because they are my pets, and I want them to grow up big and strong. My goal was to train them and enter into the Johto Virus Battle Championship. He got angry, told me I was wasting his time and hung up.
TL;DR: I told a scammer that computer viruses are my pets, and I raise them like pokemon.
| technology | t5_2qh16 | c6honxu | I got a few of these calls a few months ago. One time when I had nothing better to do, I played along. When he said the errors were caused by viruses, I told him that I knew about the viruses and I liked them. He said they were bad viruses, and he wanted to help me remove them. I explained that I didn't want to remove them, because they are my pets, and I want them to grow up big and strong. My goal was to train them and enter into the Johto Virus Battle Championship. He got angry, told me I was wasting his time and hung up. | I told a scammer that computer viruses are my pets, and I raise them like pokemon. |
bowdo | I did this exact thing when they called me - I was bored and had played around for about 45 minutes. Originally he had got me to the eventviewer by spelling it out, e for egg, v for vision etc. I started having 'issues' and started spellling out the errors to him - f for foxtrot, u for uniform, c for charlie etc. I told him to suck my dick, eat my ass in the same way before he passed me off to his manager. His manager hung up fairly quickly.
The kicker? The first guy who was too thick to pick up on what i was doing FUCKING CALLED BACK TO ABUSE ME! I shit you not. I remained calm and told him how much fun I had with him, he asked me to suck his dick, I said I'd love that because he sounds like a pretty boy. He was fucking furious, it was beautiful. I love the nerve of the asshole, calling back a potential target for wasting his precious time.
TL;DR scammer calls back to abuse me for wasting his time
| I did this exact thing when they called me - I was bored and had played around for about 45 minutes. Originally he had got me to the eventviewer by spelling it out, e for egg, v for vision etc. I started having 'issues' and started spellling out the errors to him - f for foxtrot, u for uniform, c for charlie etc. I told him to suck my dick, eat my ass in the same way before he passed me off to his manager. His manager hung up fairly quickly.
The kicker? The first guy who was too thick to pick up on what i was doing FUCKING CALLED BACK TO ABUSE ME! I shit you not. I remained calm and told him how much fun I had with him, he asked me to suck his dick, I said I'd love that because he sounds like a pretty boy. He was fucking furious, it was beautiful. I love the nerve of the asshole, calling back a potential target for wasting his precious time.
TL;DR scammer calls back to abuse me for wasting his time
| technology | t5_2qh16 | c6hrm48 | I did this exact thing when they called me - I was bored and had played around for about 45 minutes. Originally he had got me to the eventviewer by spelling it out, e for egg, v for vision etc. I started having 'issues' and started spellling out the errors to him - f for foxtrot, u for uniform, c for charlie etc. I told him to suck my dick, eat my ass in the same way before he passed me off to his manager. His manager hung up fairly quickly.
The kicker? The first guy who was too thick to pick up on what i was doing FUCKING CALLED BACK TO ABUSE ME! I shit you not. I remained calm and told him how much fun I had with him, he asked me to suck his dick, I said I'd love that because he sounds like a pretty boy. He was fucking furious, it was beautiful. I love the nerve of the asshole, calling back a potential target for wasting his precious time. | scammer calls back to abuse me for wasting his time |
Occamsrazor1 | Every basic ecology class teaches this. The idea situation would be to harvest and maintain the population when they are at K/2 (half the carrying capacity). This would mean they are experiencing the highest rate of increase. If you keep a population very low (which is usually as, as seen in this article), there will be an large number of small or juvenile fish that aren't participating in reproduction, and there is also a chance of local extinction. Additionally, if you keep the population high (although this never really happens), the rate of increase is greatly reduced due to the population being close to it's carrying capacity - basically wasting potential fish.
TL;DR We need to stop being such selfish bastards | Every basic ecology class teaches this. The idea situation would be to harvest and maintain the population when they are at K/2 (half the carrying capacity). This would mean they are experiencing the highest rate of increase. If you keep a population very low (which is usually as, as seen in this article), there will be an large number of small or juvenile fish that aren't participating in reproduction, and there is also a chance of local extinction. Additionally, if you keep the population high (although this never really happens), the rate of increase is greatly reduced due to the population being close to it's carrying capacity - basically wasting potential fish.
TL;DR We need to stop being such selfish bastards
| science | t5_mouw | c6hj5o3 | Every basic ecology class teaches this. The idea situation would be to harvest and maintain the population when they are at K/2 (half the carrying capacity). This would mean they are experiencing the highest rate of increase. If you keep a population very low (which is usually as, as seen in this article), there will be an large number of small or juvenile fish that aren't participating in reproduction, and there is also a chance of local extinction. Additionally, if you keep the population high (although this never really happens), the rate of increase is greatly reduced due to the population being close to it's carrying capacity - basically wasting potential fish. | We need to stop being such selfish bastards |
Suddenfury | i was thinking about exactly this just yesterday and my thought was,
how is it even possible that we are out-fishing the seas? i'm not doubting it's happening just that there is enough food for everyone (if evenly distributed) and we are not over-harvesting our crops or over-slaughtering our cattle. there might be cases of over-hunting but that is usually not for food. why is there so few fish-farms? 70% of earth is water, and no one lives there! super much room for farms. of course there is some engineering and ecologic difficulties but really, we went to the moon 50 years ago! today we have robots that can learn and are able to see peoples thoughts, we built a 828 meter high tower. surely we should be able to build fishfarms. this should have been happening long ago, i feel traditions and conservationism is to blame here.
TL;DR: why are the fishfarm industry so small scale? | i was thinking about exactly this just yesterday and my thought was,
how is it even possible that we are out-fishing the seas? i'm not doubting it's happening just that there is enough food for everyone (if evenly distributed) and we are not over-harvesting our crops or over-slaughtering our cattle. there might be cases of over-hunting but that is usually not for food. why is there so few fish-farms? 70% of earth is water, and no one lives there! super much room for farms. of course there is some engineering and ecologic difficulties but really, we went to the moon 50 years ago! today we have robots that can learn and are able to see peoples thoughts, we built a 828 meter high tower. surely we should be able to build fishfarms. this should have been happening long ago, i feel traditions and conservationism is to blame here.
TL;DR: why are the fishfarm industry so small scale?
| science | t5_mouw | c6hml12 | i was thinking about exactly this just yesterday and my thought was,
how is it even possible that we are out-fishing the seas? i'm not doubting it's happening just that there is enough food for everyone (if evenly distributed) and we are not over-harvesting our crops or over-slaughtering our cattle. there might be cases of over-hunting but that is usually not for food. why is there so few fish-farms? 70% of earth is water, and no one lives there! super much room for farms. of course there is some engineering and ecologic difficulties but really, we went to the moon 50 years ago! today we have robots that can learn and are able to see peoples thoughts, we built a 828 meter high tower. surely we should be able to build fishfarms. this should have been happening long ago, i feel traditions and conservationism is to blame here. | why are the fishfarm industry so small scale? |
_pupil_ | On the face of it, yeah, 700 grams is a lot. But I don't think it's necessarily as bad as you might think. In fact, if you're offended by drug related crime, you should probably be in favor of casual users stock piling around that much...
See, if you smoke on the regular, that much weed is still going to run out. You're not going to use 700 grams all at once, so that volume has to be judged by consumption rate and accessibility of resupply. That resin might be his absolute primo stash that he dips into on rare occasion, and if he can only resupply every 3 years.... Basically, for some smokers (all day, erry day, amiright?), 700 grams can be 'just enough' and then they are totally satisfied in terms of drug transactions for a long while.
Which brings me back to crime: since we can't keep even drugs out of super max prisons, let's work under the assumption that people are still going to be able to score on occasion. Do we want lots of drug transactions with lots of hard to prosecute interactions, easy cash flow, and low costs of entry to the market combined with high investigatory costs? Or do we want an industry that requires deep pockets to play around in (providing legal surface area and related assets), is continually dealing in significant volumes (minimizing the number of players), and with a minimum number of targets to legislate, investigate, and regulate all while having a more predictable supply to minimize market opportunity to new entrants?
Smokers going out and scoring here and there keeps the drug war broad and wide, and punishes responsible users who get hit with disproportionate penalties for living their lives in a more law abiding manner. And the only upside is more drug dealers who exist in an easier, more profitable, market. Home or regional growers supplying large volumes of nationally grown weed to residential users for personal use (through the mail for example), would be indistinguishable from our current drug *use* situation, but would give us a fighting chance to eliminate the violent crime aspect of prohibition. It also provides a reasonable framework for full taxation and national price competition (putting unsustainable cost pressure on illegal dealers), and can even be extended (through NAFTA), to deny *billions* of dollars every year to central and south american crime syndicates.
tl;dr: middle aged white dudes who aren't sketching around in back alleys but blaze like a motherfucker when they come back from the office are gonna be prone to stockpile. And that helps keep the suburbs lookin like suburbs, and the ghetto still and always the place to score a dime bag... | On the face of it, yeah, 700 grams is a lot. But I don't think it's necessarily as bad as you might think. In fact, if you're offended by drug related crime, you should probably be in favor of casual users stock piling around that much...
See, if you smoke on the regular, that much weed is still going to run out. You're not going to use 700 grams all at once, so that volume has to be judged by consumption rate and accessibility of resupply. That resin might be his absolute primo stash that he dips into on rare occasion, and if he can only resupply every 3 years.... Basically, for some smokers (all day, erry day, amiright?), 700 grams can be 'just enough' and then they are totally satisfied in terms of drug transactions for a long while.
Which brings me back to crime: since we can't keep even drugs out of super max prisons, let's work under the assumption that people are still going to be able to score on occasion. Do we want lots of drug transactions with lots of hard to prosecute interactions, easy cash flow, and low costs of entry to the market combined with high investigatory costs? Or do we want an industry that requires deep pockets to play around in (providing legal surface area and related assets), is continually dealing in significant volumes (minimizing the number of players), and with a minimum number of targets to legislate, investigate, and regulate all while having a more predictable supply to minimize market opportunity to new entrants?
Smokers going out and scoring here and there keeps the drug war broad and wide, and punishes responsible users who get hit with disproportionate penalties for living their lives in a more law abiding manner. And the only upside is more drug dealers who exist in an easier, more profitable, market. Home or regional growers supplying large volumes of nationally grown weed to residential users for personal use (through the mail for example), would be indistinguishable from our current drug use situation, but would give us a fighting chance to eliminate the violent crime aspect of prohibition. It also provides a reasonable framework for full taxation and national price competition (putting unsustainable cost pressure on illegal dealers), and can even be extended (through NAFTA), to deny billions of dollars every year to central and south american crime syndicates.
tl;dr: middle aged white dudes who aren't sketching around in back alleys but blaze like a motherfucker when they come back from the office are gonna be prone to stockpile. And that helps keep the suburbs lookin like suburbs, and the ghetto still and always the place to score a dime bag...
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c6hy9sx | On the face of it, yeah, 700 grams is a lot. But I don't think it's necessarily as bad as you might think. In fact, if you're offended by drug related crime, you should probably be in favor of casual users stock piling around that much...
See, if you smoke on the regular, that much weed is still going to run out. You're not going to use 700 grams all at once, so that volume has to be judged by consumption rate and accessibility of resupply. That resin might be his absolute primo stash that he dips into on rare occasion, and if he can only resupply every 3 years.... Basically, for some smokers (all day, erry day, amiright?), 700 grams can be 'just enough' and then they are totally satisfied in terms of drug transactions for a long while.
Which brings me back to crime: since we can't keep even drugs out of super max prisons, let's work under the assumption that people are still going to be able to score on occasion. Do we want lots of drug transactions with lots of hard to prosecute interactions, easy cash flow, and low costs of entry to the market combined with high investigatory costs? Or do we want an industry that requires deep pockets to play around in (providing legal surface area and related assets), is continually dealing in significant volumes (minimizing the number of players), and with a minimum number of targets to legislate, investigate, and regulate all while having a more predictable supply to minimize market opportunity to new entrants?
Smokers going out and scoring here and there keeps the drug war broad and wide, and punishes responsible users who get hit with disproportionate penalties for living their lives in a more law abiding manner. And the only upside is more drug dealers who exist in an easier, more profitable, market. Home or regional growers supplying large volumes of nationally grown weed to residential users for personal use (through the mail for example), would be indistinguishable from our current drug use situation, but would give us a fighting chance to eliminate the violent crime aspect of prohibition. It also provides a reasonable framework for full taxation and national price competition (putting unsustainable cost pressure on illegal dealers), and can even be extended (through NAFTA), to deny billions of dollars every year to central and south american crime syndicates. | middle aged white dudes who aren't sketching around in back alleys but blaze like a motherfucker when they come back from the office are gonna be prone to stockpile. And that helps keep the suburbs lookin like suburbs, and the ghetto still and always the place to score a dime bag... |
sleeplessone | Go play Guild Wars 2, step into World vs World and watch what happens when your 100 players runs into the enemy group of 100 players.
Spoiler: You get killed by invisible enemy players and AOE because they aren't loaded up on your screen before they kill you.
The massive battles that take place in EVE would be able to take place if it was an FPS twitch combat game.
TL;DR - Don't expect to see battles anywhere near the scale you see in EVE. | Go play Guild Wars 2, step into World vs World and watch what happens when your 100 players runs into the enemy group of 100 players.
Spoiler: You get killed by invisible enemy players and AOE because they aren't loaded up on your screen before they kill you.
The massive battles that take place in EVE would be able to take place if it was an FPS twitch combat game.
TL;DR - Don't expect to see battles anywhere near the scale you see in EVE.
| Games | t5_2qhwp | c6ktzne | Go play Guild Wars 2, step into World vs World and watch what happens when your 100 players runs into the enemy group of 100 players.
Spoiler: You get killed by invisible enemy players and AOE because they aren't loaded up on your screen before they kill you.
The massive battles that take place in EVE would be able to take place if it was an FPS twitch combat game. | Don't expect to see battles anywhere near the scale you see in EVE. |
argv_minus_one | If your opponent's policies are bad for the country, inform the public as to how and why this is the case, and let said public remove him on the next election cycle if they see fit. That is how democracy works: *obeying the will of the people.* The politicians in Washington are supposed to be public servants, not public tyrants.
By doing otherwise, the Republicans prove that they are not acting in the best interests of America. They further prove that they are acting in a way that is fundamentally anti-democratic, and thus, anti-American.
tl;dr: Republicans are traitors to the United States. | If your opponent's policies are bad for the country, inform the public as to how and why this is the case, and let said public remove him on the next election cycle if they see fit. That is how democracy works: obeying the will of the people. The politicians in Washington are supposed to be public servants, not public tyrants.
By doing otherwise, the Republicans prove that they are not acting in the best interests of America. They further prove that they are acting in a way that is fundamentally anti-democratic, and thus, anti-American.
tl;dr: Republicans are traitors to the United States.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c6ku714 | If your opponent's policies are bad for the country, inform the public as to how and why this is the case, and let said public remove him on the next election cycle if they see fit. That is how democracy works: obeying the will of the people. The politicians in Washington are supposed to be public servants, not public tyrants.
By doing otherwise, the Republicans prove that they are not acting in the best interests of America. They further prove that they are acting in a way that is fundamentally anti-democratic, and thus, anti-American. | Republicans are traitors to the United States. |
randomquestiontimeee | I agree, and feel like TRM...may or may not get a lot of unnecessary hate on Reddit a lot of the time (not that everyone doesn't, but still). He wears his emotions on his sleeve like a lot of people do, Oce is a good example, and is another of the players either loved of hated on a every other day basis.
Being emotional isn't always a bad thing either, and there are people like that in every part of life. NBA fans either else love or hate Kevin Garnett, a very vocal emotional player who is generally liked by everyone on his team...and not so much by his opponents. But he has won a MVP and lead teams to titles regardless.
TL;DR Wearing your emotions on your sleeve is alright, I do the ramblings | I agree, and feel like TRM...may or may not get a lot of unnecessary hate on Reddit a lot of the time (not that everyone doesn't, but still). He wears his emotions on his sleeve like a lot of people do, Oce is a good example, and is another of the players either loved of hated on a every other day basis.
Being emotional isn't always a bad thing either, and there are people like that in every part of life. NBA fans either else love or hate Kevin Garnett, a very vocal emotional player who is generally liked by everyone on his team...and not so much by his opponents. But he has won a MVP and lead teams to titles regardless.
TL;DR Wearing your emotions on your sleeve is alright, I do the ramblings
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6ku0b6 | I agree, and feel like TRM...may or may not get a lot of unnecessary hate on Reddit a lot of the time (not that everyone doesn't, but still). He wears his emotions on his sleeve like a lot of people do, Oce is a good example, and is another of the players either loved of hated on a every other day basis.
Being emotional isn't always a bad thing either, and there are people like that in every part of life. NBA fans either else love or hate Kevin Garnett, a very vocal emotional player who is generally liked by everyone on his team...and not so much by his opponents. But he has won a MVP and lead teams to titles regardless. | Wearing your emotions on your sleeve is alright, I do the ramblings |
MinistryofPain | I kinda of have issue with putting blame on just one party.
Yes, I agree 154.37 (repeating, of course) % that Riot should have had booths (or at least some sort of method blocking the minimap). They offer so many positive benefits that its almost a necessity. Hell, given the chance I'd argue this with Carmac, who is against the idea of booths (just look at any IEM).
BUT looking behind you is against the rules that Riot set in place before the tournament began. And rules is rules. You don't see guys running up and down a court in basketball not dribbling the ball because it is easier and faster that way. You don't see American Footballers making horse-collar tackles because its a good place to get a grip - and if they do, they get penalized.
For those saying riot is just using frost as a fall guy: Redbeard posted this, and might have been skipped over, in the rulings post:
"In hindsight, the potential visibility of minimap screens for players was a mistake. Despite on-site referees, close monitoring of player cams backstage, and stage design that ensured players would have to turn more than 90 degrees to be able to catch a glimpse of the minimaps, even the possibility of unfair play was simply unacceptable. We’re taking steps to ensure the minimap screens are not visible to players."
tl;dr Riot should have had booths, but at the same time Frost did break the rules | I kinda of have issue with putting blame on just one party.
Yes, I agree 154.37 (repeating, of course) % that Riot should have had booths (or at least some sort of method blocking the minimap). They offer so many positive benefits that its almost a necessity. Hell, given the chance I'd argue this with Carmac, who is against the idea of booths (just look at any IEM).
BUT looking behind you is against the rules that Riot set in place before the tournament began. And rules is rules. You don't see guys running up and down a court in basketball not dribbling the ball because it is easier and faster that way. You don't see American Footballers making horse-collar tackles because its a good place to get a grip - and if they do, they get penalized.
For those saying riot is just using frost as a fall guy: Redbeard posted this, and might have been skipped over, in the rulings post:
"In hindsight, the potential visibility of minimap screens for players was a mistake. Despite on-site referees, close monitoring of player cams backstage, and stage design that ensured players would have to turn more than 90 degrees to be able to catch a glimpse of the minimaps, even the possibility of unfair play was simply unacceptable. We’re taking steps to ensure the minimap screens are not visible to players."
tl;dr Riot should have had booths, but at the same time Frost did break the rules
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6kubaa | I kinda of have issue with putting blame on just one party.
Yes, I agree 154.37 (repeating, of course) % that Riot should have had booths (or at least some sort of method blocking the minimap). They offer so many positive benefits that its almost a necessity. Hell, given the chance I'd argue this with Carmac, who is against the idea of booths (just look at any IEM).
BUT looking behind you is against the rules that Riot set in place before the tournament began. And rules is rules. You don't see guys running up and down a court in basketball not dribbling the ball because it is easier and faster that way. You don't see American Footballers making horse-collar tackles because its a good place to get a grip - and if they do, they get penalized.
For those saying riot is just using frost as a fall guy: Redbeard posted this, and might have been skipped over, in the rulings post:
"In hindsight, the potential visibility of minimap screens for players was a mistake. Despite on-site referees, close monitoring of player cams backstage, and stage design that ensured players would have to turn more than 90 degrees to be able to catch a glimpse of the minimaps, even the possibility of unfair play was simply unacceptable. We’re taking steps to ensure the minimap screens are not visible to players." | Riot should have had booths, but at the same time Frost did break the rules |
Azurphax | Well, I suppose you are getting great color reproduction and screen response time
but... DAT RESOLUTION.
CRTs (typically) don't go higher than 480p, or 640x480, which is ~307,000 pixels, while 1080p is 1920x1080 which is 2,073,600 pixels.
1080p is 6.75 as many pixels at 480p.
You can get 1080p monitors for, on the low end, about [$120]( That's the 22" stuff, nice 23" are about $150. I'm a big fan of the [VH236H]( which has HDMI, 2ms response time and currently is going for $140.
tl:dr; You're a monster for taking 3 seconds to write that note, Mr. or Ms. atrocious penmanship. | Well, I suppose you are getting great color reproduction and screen response time
but... DAT RESOLUTION.
CRTs (typically) don't go higher than 480p, or 640x480, which is ~307,000 pixels, while 1080p is 1920x1080 which is 2,073,600 pixels.
1080p is 6.75 as many pixels at 480p.
You can get 1080p monitors for, on the low end, about [$120]( That's the 22" stuff, nice 23" are about $150. I'm a big fan of the [VH236H]( which has HDMI, 2ms response time and currently is going for $140.
tl:dr; You're a monster for taking 3 seconds to write that note, Mr. or Ms. atrocious penmanship.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c6lufkk | Well, I suppose you are getting great color reproduction and screen response time
but... DAT RESOLUTION.
CRTs (typically) don't go higher than 480p, or 640x480, which is ~307,000 pixels, while 1080p is 1920x1080 which is 2,073,600 pixels.
1080p is 6.75 as many pixels at 480p.
You can get 1080p monitors for, on the low end, about [$120]( That's the 22" stuff, nice 23" are about $150. I'm a big fan of the [VH236H]( which has HDMI, 2ms response time and currently is going for $140. | You're a monster for taking 3 seconds to write that note, Mr. or Ms. atrocious penmanship. |
ughthatguy | There's nothing wrong with being turned off by some ideas; everyone has their limits. But you must realize that the scenes in porn create unrealistic expectations. They're a dramatization and nothing like most people's experiences. Even people's personal stories are often embellished to make them appear more interesting than the actual truth. Stop watching that stuff. It's doing nothing to help you. If you must consume erotic media (man's gotta *eat*), try tasteful art for a change.
When you meet a girl whose company you enjoy and for whom you care, your feelings for her won't just go away when you get into bed. In fact, these feelings are often required for some people to feel comfortable enough to open up both literally and figuratively. I think the reason you are having a hard time reconciling your feelings is because your ideas about sex are separate from your ideas of friendship when they are in fact very closely related. My personal definition of romantic love is friendship plus mutual attraction.
tl;dr - Focus on forming real friendships with people and let nature take it course. | There's nothing wrong with being turned off by some ideas; everyone has their limits. But you must realize that the scenes in porn create unrealistic expectations. They're a dramatization and nothing like most people's experiences. Even people's personal stories are often embellished to make them appear more interesting than the actual truth. Stop watching that stuff. It's doing nothing to help you. If you must consume erotic media (man's gotta eat ), try tasteful art for a change.
When you meet a girl whose company you enjoy and for whom you care, your feelings for her won't just go away when you get into bed. In fact, these feelings are often required for some people to feel comfortable enough to open up both literally and figuratively. I think the reason you are having a hard time reconciling your feelings is because your ideas about sex are separate from your ideas of friendship when they are in fact very closely related. My personal definition of romantic love is friendship plus mutual attraction.
tl;dr - Focus on forming real friendships with people and let nature take it course.
| sex | t5_2qh3p | c6mtev3 | There's nothing wrong with being turned off by some ideas; everyone has their limits. But you must realize that the scenes in porn create unrealistic expectations. They're a dramatization and nothing like most people's experiences. Even people's personal stories are often embellished to make them appear more interesting than the actual truth. Stop watching that stuff. It's doing nothing to help you. If you must consume erotic media (man's gotta eat ), try tasteful art for a change.
When you meet a girl whose company you enjoy and for whom you care, your feelings for her won't just go away when you get into bed. In fact, these feelings are often required for some people to feel comfortable enough to open up both literally and figuratively. I think the reason you are having a hard time reconciling your feelings is because your ideas about sex are separate from your ideas of friendship when they are in fact very closely related. My personal definition of romantic love is friendship plus mutual attraction. | Focus on forming real friendships with people and let nature take it course. |
RelateOrDate | i got cha... i'm going to try and get out of it, what should I tell my ex? she did nothing wrong and she was planning on meeting up asthe only thing to do on her one night here
TL;DR- How can I nicely cancel the plans with my ex? | i got cha... i'm going to try and get out of it, what should I tell my ex? she did nothing wrong and she was planning on meeting up asthe only thing to do on her one night here
TL;DR- How can I nicely cancel the plans with my ex?
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | c6nhacv | i got cha... i'm going to try and get out of it, what should I tell my ex? she did nothing wrong and she was planning on meeting up asthe only thing to do on her one night here | How can I nicely cancel the plans with my ex? |
RelateOrDate | i got cha... i'm going to try and get out of it, what should I tell my ex? she did nothing wrong and she was planning on meeting up asthe only thing to do on her one night here
TL;DR- How can I nicely cancel the plans with my ex?
| i got cha... i'm going to try and get out of it, what should I tell my ex? she did nothing wrong and she was planning on meeting up asthe only thing to do on her one night here
TL;DR- How can I nicely cancel the plans with my ex?
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | c6nhaif | i got cha... i'm going to try and get out of it, what should I tell my ex? she did nothing wrong and she was planning on meeting up asthe only thing to do on her one night here | How can I nicely cancel the plans with my ex? |
IVIystical | True story: Raiding back in wotlk, (Naxx 25), and before we pull the 2nd boss in Plague quarter our holy priest says 'Can you guys wait 2-4 minutes', Our leader asked him why, and his response was 'Bit of confusion at the next platform and I want to pay attention. Shouldn't take too long'. It was at that moment we understood why he couldn't use teamspeak.
TL;DR: Our priest healer in wotlk was a Train driver. | True story: Raiding back in wotlk, (Naxx 25), and before we pull the 2nd boss in Plague quarter our holy priest says 'Can you guys wait 2-4 minutes', Our leader asked him why, and his response was 'Bit of confusion at the next platform and I want to pay attention. Shouldn't take too long'. It was at that moment we understood why he couldn't use teamspeak.
TL;DR: Our priest healer in wotlk was a Train driver.
| wow | t5_2qio8 | c6nhaxm | True story: Raiding back in wotlk, (Naxx 25), and before we pull the 2nd boss in Plague quarter our holy priest says 'Can you guys wait 2-4 minutes', Our leader asked him why, and his response was 'Bit of confusion at the next platform and I want to pay attention. Shouldn't take too long'. It was at that moment we understood why he couldn't use teamspeak. | Our priest healer in wotlk was a Train driver. |
finalej | tbh, I haven't seen one change the guys done that I've liked. While pulsefire might not've been his fault I didn't like it and I was gosh darn lucky to have the rp saved for months waiting for pfe to come out and they had him half price, it was cool when I got it but tbh it's like my other 5 legendaries they're really cool and I don't regret buying them but tbh pfe wasn't worth 3k rp for, 1860 rp is where he should've gone. Kog' Maw's been out for 2 years now same with anivia and corki. Kog'maw should've been 3150 ip alongside corki. Anivia is a high skill champ then put her down to 4800 ip so super newbie's don't just get her and get destroyed. I mean reducing the rp costs by less than a dollar on champions that have been out SINCE BETA! I could see if this was a champ released early this year, but...beta champs? champs we can get the digital pack for 30 bucks as a newbie and get about 45 bucks worth of champs for plus 2 skins? This guy apperently doesn't know his crap if he's experimenting with prices. You go by history, and history has shown that nobody gives a hoodah about the spread of what you get in a champ bundle, kha'zix's bundle is the same price...fine but tbh, that skin is no more different any recent 975 skin, sure it has new models and crap but so does jayce he has 2 models, udyr has 4! their skins are still 975! and people don't generally buy champs with rp unless it's the bundle or if it's on sale...yes preadopters are good they've always sold many a bundle on release I've bought a good many of them, but I don't wanna see the new guys face that gets to play this kha' zix guy on a free week 2 weeks after his bundle is gone and say "wait why does his skin cost more than the one that has the same level of detail on other champions" ppl just won't buy it and you lose people's interest in your product. It's probably why black ops 2's elite is gonna be free, NOBODY CARED TO BUY IT LAST TIME.
tl:dr - this ecommerce guy is a joke imho and he needs to stop experimenting and look at history not just his experiments. | tbh, I haven't seen one change the guys done that I've liked. While pulsefire might not've been his fault I didn't like it and I was gosh darn lucky to have the rp saved for months waiting for pfe to come out and they had him half price, it was cool when I got it but tbh it's like my other 5 legendaries they're really cool and I don't regret buying them but tbh pfe wasn't worth 3k rp for, 1860 rp is where he should've gone. Kog' Maw's been out for 2 years now same with anivia and corki. Kog'maw should've been 3150 ip alongside corki. Anivia is a high skill champ then put her down to 4800 ip so super newbie's don't just get her and get destroyed. I mean reducing the rp costs by less than a dollar on champions that have been out SINCE BETA! I could see if this was a champ released early this year, but...beta champs? champs we can get the digital pack for 30 bucks as a newbie and get about 45 bucks worth of champs for plus 2 skins? This guy apperently doesn't know his crap if he's experimenting with prices. You go by history, and history has shown that nobody gives a hoodah about the spread of what you get in a champ bundle, kha'zix's bundle is the same price...fine but tbh, that skin is no more different any recent 975 skin, sure it has new models and crap but so does jayce he has 2 models, udyr has 4! their skins are still 975! and people don't generally buy champs with rp unless it's the bundle or if it's on sale...yes preadopters are good they've always sold many a bundle on release I've bought a good many of them, but I don't wanna see the new guys face that gets to play this kha' zix guy on a free week 2 weeks after his bundle is gone and say "wait why does his skin cost more than the one that has the same level of detail on other champions" ppl just won't buy it and you lose people's interest in your product. It's probably why black ops 2's elite is gonna be free, NOBODY CARED TO BUY IT LAST TIME.
tl:dr - this ecommerce guy is a joke imho and he needs to stop experimenting and look at history not just his experiments.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6ogfki | tbh, I haven't seen one change the guys done that I've liked. While pulsefire might not've been his fault I didn't like it and I was gosh darn lucky to have the rp saved for months waiting for pfe to come out and they had him half price, it was cool when I got it but tbh it's like my other 5 legendaries they're really cool and I don't regret buying them but tbh pfe wasn't worth 3k rp for, 1860 rp is where he should've gone. Kog' Maw's been out for 2 years now same with anivia and corki. Kog'maw should've been 3150 ip alongside corki. Anivia is a high skill champ then put her down to 4800 ip so super newbie's don't just get her and get destroyed. I mean reducing the rp costs by less than a dollar on champions that have been out SINCE BETA! I could see if this was a champ released early this year, but...beta champs? champs we can get the digital pack for 30 bucks as a newbie and get about 45 bucks worth of champs for plus 2 skins? This guy apperently doesn't know his crap if he's experimenting with prices. You go by history, and history has shown that nobody gives a hoodah about the spread of what you get in a champ bundle, kha'zix's bundle is the same price...fine but tbh, that skin is no more different any recent 975 skin, sure it has new models and crap but so does jayce he has 2 models, udyr has 4! their skins are still 975! and people don't generally buy champs with rp unless it's the bundle or if it's on sale...yes preadopters are good they've always sold many a bundle on release I've bought a good many of them, but I don't wanna see the new guys face that gets to play this kha' zix guy on a free week 2 weeks after his bundle is gone and say "wait why does his skin cost more than the one that has the same level of detail on other champions" ppl just won't buy it and you lose people's interest in your product. It's probably why black ops 2's elite is gonna be free, NOBODY CARED TO BUY IT LAST TIME. | this ecommerce guy is a joke imho and he needs to stop experimenting and look at history not just his experiments. |
adjecentautophobe | >Please point me to which provision removed regulation on credit default swaps, which would have prevented the crisis.
First, are you really arguing that deregulation of derivatives didnt play a role in the crisis?
And um, credit default swaps caused the crisis? Do you even know what a credit default swap is? Its almost like youre just throwing words together in an attempt to arrive at a coherent sounding argument. Because it should be obvious that credit defaults swaps didnt cause the crisis, just by the definition of the term.
Credit default swaps are what sank AIG. But they didnt cause the crisis. A credit default swap is essentially insurance on a financial security. If the issuer of the bond thats insured defaults, you get paid by the agency that you insured it with (probably AIG).
CDS's didnt cause the crisis. I mean, just ask yourself, *why* did the insured securities default in the first place?? *That,* the reason why the default happened, is what caused the crisis.
And the failure to regulate derivatives *directly* ties in with CDS. In the derivative market, where people are making bets on the value of a MBS without actually owning it, any number of people can take out a credit default swap on an MBS. Its like your neighbor taking insurance out on your house and then burning it down. There was no regulation there when common sense overwhelmingly indicated that there should be.
>Blah, blah, blah. This isn't why people in my town bought multiple condos for $400,000 a piece, when they could only rent then out for $15,000/yr. Anybody settling for a <4% yield (especially when risk-free 10yr treasuries were offering close to 5%) is asking for disaster.
This is just bullshit. Of course in your mind the crisis was just driven by poor people that took out mortgages they shouldnt have.
In reality Gramm Leach Bliley ended the separation between investment and commercial banking. Your local bank could give you a mortgage, package it together with others, and sell it off. It ended really any correlation between the quality of the mortgage and the amount of money the bank issuing it made. You can say an individual shouldnt have taken out that mortgage, but basic economic theory should tell you that if banks make it easier to get mortgages, more people will take out mortgages.
Pretending that the repeal of glass steagal didnt enable the root cause of the crisis is just naive.
>Bush didn't hold a gun to their head and force them to sign their mortgages.
Obviously not. But you're basically acting like housing policy and financial regulation had nothing to do with the crisis, and thats just wrong. Just because bush didnt hold a gun to someones head and make them take out a mortgages doesnt mean his policies and the policies of his party didnt cause it.
>Without this, it's impossible for any of the other shit to have happened. Remember, cause, not symptom.
You should really be telling yourself that, Mr. Credit-Default-Swaps-Cause-the-Crisis. Exactly what do you think I've got backwards?
>The number of regulators at the SEC grew substantially under Bush. I can't find the chart now. Will look for it.
I dont know the number youre referring to, you could be right considering government employment surged under bush. but thats not my argument. Sure there might have been more regulators, they just werent doing their job. And thats exactly what i said.
>Sure, it doesn't help when the Democrat spawned agencies continue to create a market for subprime mortgages by buying them on the secondary market. Maybe it wasn't a huge amount, but still encouraged banks to continue to make risky loans.
How did they make the market more risky when [default rates on fannie and freddie mortages were between 4 - 5.5 percent at their worst,]( while [default rates on mortgages issued by commercial banks reached more than 11%?](
This one is really important, it goes directly to your point that fannie and freddie (and the community reinvestment act that concerned them) made the market more risky. [Loans by banks regulated by the CRA had lower default rates](
Furthermore, [the vast majority of loans issued during the crisis were issued by private banks](
So no, fannie and freddie and the CRA did not increase risk. In fact their default rates pretty conclusively prove that they were some of the safest institutions in the market.
>The recovery is meager at best. Look at how much cash corporations are sitting on. The recovery is dependent on deleveraging. It could all have happened at once, or gradually. Maybe the stimulus helped soften the fall. But it's a natural cycle, that had to take its course either way.
Speaking of deleveraging, this is another place where obama has overseen a [tremendous recovery.](
How exactly is this recovery meager at best?? Private employment and GDP are both growing at the same pace they grew during the recovery in bush's first term. Corporate profits are at record highs. The dow has doubled. Manufacturing hasnt grown this much in decades.
And even if it has been meager, which it hasnt, the american jobs act would have created 1.4 million jobs and your party blocked it! Not to mention all of the austerity and layoffs at the state level decreasing aggregate demand and increasing unemployment
Its quite obvious that you've reached your own conclusion about how you think the world works without first looking at the facts. Usually people, at least smart people, look at the facts and then make their opinions based on those facts. But you, not you. You've obviously made your decision based on your inherent biases. And then you went out and tried to find data that backs up your bias, and ignored any data that contradicted it.
**TL;DR** You dont seem to know what a credit default swap is. Refusal to regulate derivatives along with the repeal of glass steagal both played significant roles in the crisis. Fannie and freddie were among the safest institutions in the market. The recovery has actually been fairly robust, and the reason its not stronger is mostly because of republicans in congress and in state and local legislatures. | >Please point me to which provision removed regulation on credit default swaps, which would have prevented the crisis.
First, are you really arguing that deregulation of derivatives didnt play a role in the crisis?
And um, credit default swaps caused the crisis? Do you even know what a credit default swap is? Its almost like youre just throwing words together in an attempt to arrive at a coherent sounding argument. Because it should be obvious that credit defaults swaps didnt cause the crisis, just by the definition of the term.
Credit default swaps are what sank AIG. But they didnt cause the crisis. A credit default swap is essentially insurance on a financial security. If the issuer of the bond thats insured defaults, you get paid by the agency that you insured it with (probably AIG).
CDS's didnt cause the crisis. I mean, just ask yourself, why did the insured securities default in the first place?? That, the reason why the default happened, is what caused the crisis.
And the failure to regulate derivatives directly ties in with CDS. In the derivative market, where people are making bets on the value of a MBS without actually owning it, any number of people can take out a credit default swap on an MBS. Its like your neighbor taking insurance out on your house and then burning it down. There was no regulation there when common sense overwhelmingly indicated that there should be.
>Blah, blah, blah. This isn't why people in my town bought multiple condos for $400,000 a piece, when they could only rent then out for $15,000/yr. Anybody settling for a <4% yield (especially when risk-free 10yr treasuries were offering close to 5%) is asking for disaster.
This is just bullshit. Of course in your mind the crisis was just driven by poor people that took out mortgages they shouldnt have.
In reality Gramm Leach Bliley ended the separation between investment and commercial banking. Your local bank could give you a mortgage, package it together with others, and sell it off. It ended really any correlation between the quality of the mortgage and the amount of money the bank issuing it made. You can say an individual shouldnt have taken out that mortgage, but basic economic theory should tell you that if banks make it easier to get mortgages, more people will take out mortgages.
Pretending that the repeal of glass steagal didnt enable the root cause of the crisis is just naive.
>Bush didn't hold a gun to their head and force them to sign their mortgages.
Obviously not. But you're basically acting like housing policy and financial regulation had nothing to do with the crisis, and thats just wrong. Just because bush didnt hold a gun to someones head and make them take out a mortgages doesnt mean his policies and the policies of his party didnt cause it.
>Without this, it's impossible for any of the other shit to have happened. Remember, cause, not symptom.
You should really be telling yourself that, Mr. Credit-Default-Swaps-Cause-the-Crisis. Exactly what do you think I've got backwards?
>The number of regulators at the SEC grew substantially under Bush. I can't find the chart now. Will look for it.
I dont know the number youre referring to, you could be right considering government employment surged under bush. but thats not my argument. Sure there might have been more regulators, they just werent doing their job. And thats exactly what i said.
>Sure, it doesn't help when the Democrat spawned agencies continue to create a market for subprime mortgages by buying them on the secondary market. Maybe it wasn't a huge amount, but still encouraged banks to continue to make risky loans.
How did they make the market more risky when [default rates on fannie and freddie mortages were between 4 - 5.5 percent at their worst,]( while [default rates on mortgages issued by commercial banks reached more than 11%?](
This one is really important, it goes directly to your point that fannie and freddie (and the community reinvestment act that concerned them) made the market more risky. [Loans by banks regulated by the CRA had lower default rates](
Furthermore, [the vast majority of loans issued during the crisis were issued by private banks](
So no, fannie and freddie and the CRA did not increase risk. In fact their default rates pretty conclusively prove that they were some of the safest institutions in the market.
>The recovery is meager at best. Look at how much cash corporations are sitting on. The recovery is dependent on deleveraging. It could all have happened at once, or gradually. Maybe the stimulus helped soften the fall. But it's a natural cycle, that had to take its course either way.
Speaking of deleveraging, this is another place where obama has overseen a [tremendous recovery.](
How exactly is this recovery meager at best?? Private employment and GDP are both growing at the same pace they grew during the recovery in bush's first term. Corporate profits are at record highs. The dow has doubled. Manufacturing hasnt grown this much in decades.
And even if it has been meager, which it hasnt, the american jobs act would have created 1.4 million jobs and your party blocked it! Not to mention all of the austerity and layoffs at the state level decreasing aggregate demand and increasing unemployment
Its quite obvious that you've reached your own conclusion about how you think the world works without first looking at the facts. Usually people, at least smart people, look at the facts and then make their opinions based on those facts. But you, not you. You've obviously made your decision based on your inherent biases. And then you went out and tried to find data that backs up your bias, and ignored any data that contradicted it.
TL;DR You dont seem to know what a credit default swap is. Refusal to regulate derivatives along with the repeal of glass steagal both played significant roles in the crisis. Fannie and freddie were among the safest institutions in the market. The recovery has actually been fairly robust, and the reason its not stronger is mostly because of republicans in congress and in state and local legislatures.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c6opxxp | Please point me to which provision removed regulation on credit default swaps, which would have prevented the crisis.
First, are you really arguing that deregulation of derivatives didnt play a role in the crisis?
And um, credit default swaps caused the crisis? Do you even know what a credit default swap is? Its almost like youre just throwing words together in an attempt to arrive at a coherent sounding argument. Because it should be obvious that credit defaults swaps didnt cause the crisis, just by the definition of the term.
Credit default swaps are what sank AIG. But they didnt cause the crisis. A credit default swap is essentially insurance on a financial security. If the issuer of the bond thats insured defaults, you get paid by the agency that you insured it with (probably AIG).
CDS's didnt cause the crisis. I mean, just ask yourself, why did the insured securities default in the first place?? That, the reason why the default happened, is what caused the crisis.
And the failure to regulate derivatives directly ties in with CDS. In the derivative market, where people are making bets on the value of a MBS without actually owning it, any number of people can take out a credit default swap on an MBS. Its like your neighbor taking insurance out on your house and then burning it down. There was no regulation there when common sense overwhelmingly indicated that there should be.
>Blah, blah, blah. This isn't why people in my town bought multiple condos for $400,000 a piece, when they could only rent then out for $15,000/yr. Anybody settling for a <4% yield (especially when risk-free 10yr treasuries were offering close to 5%) is asking for disaster.
This is just bullshit. Of course in your mind the crisis was just driven by poor people that took out mortgages they shouldnt have.
In reality Gramm Leach Bliley ended the separation between investment and commercial banking. Your local bank could give you a mortgage, package it together with others, and sell it off. It ended really any correlation between the quality of the mortgage and the amount of money the bank issuing it made. You can say an individual shouldnt have taken out that mortgage, but basic economic theory should tell you that if banks make it easier to get mortgages, more people will take out mortgages.
Pretending that the repeal of glass steagal didnt enable the root cause of the crisis is just naive.
>Bush didn't hold a gun to their head and force them to sign their mortgages.
Obviously not. But you're basically acting like housing policy and financial regulation had nothing to do with the crisis, and thats just wrong. Just because bush didnt hold a gun to someones head and make them take out a mortgages doesnt mean his policies and the policies of his party didnt cause it.
>Without this, it's impossible for any of the other shit to have happened. Remember, cause, not symptom.
You should really be telling yourself that, Mr. Credit-Default-Swaps-Cause-the-Crisis. Exactly what do you think I've got backwards?
>The number of regulators at the SEC grew substantially under Bush. I can't find the chart now. Will look for it.
I dont know the number youre referring to, you could be right considering government employment surged under bush. but thats not my argument. Sure there might have been more regulators, they just werent doing their job. And thats exactly what i said.
>Sure, it doesn't help when the Democrat spawned agencies continue to create a market for subprime mortgages by buying them on the secondary market. Maybe it wasn't a huge amount, but still encouraged banks to continue to make risky loans.
How did they make the market more risky when [default rates on fannie and freddie mortages were between 4 - 5.5 percent at their worst,]( while [default rates on mortgages issued by commercial banks reached more than 11%?](
This one is really important, it goes directly to your point that fannie and freddie (and the community reinvestment act that concerned them) made the market more risky. [Loans by banks regulated by the CRA had lower default rates](
Furthermore, [the vast majority of loans issued during the crisis were issued by private banks](
So no, fannie and freddie and the CRA did not increase risk. In fact their default rates pretty conclusively prove that they were some of the safest institutions in the market.
>The recovery is meager at best. Look at how much cash corporations are sitting on. The recovery is dependent on deleveraging. It could all have happened at once, or gradually. Maybe the stimulus helped soften the fall. But it's a natural cycle, that had to take its course either way.
Speaking of deleveraging, this is another place where obama has overseen a [tremendous recovery.](
How exactly is this recovery meager at best?? Private employment and GDP are both growing at the same pace they grew during the recovery in bush's first term. Corporate profits are at record highs. The dow has doubled. Manufacturing hasnt grown this much in decades.
And even if it has been meager, which it hasnt, the american jobs act would have created 1.4 million jobs and your party blocked it! Not to mention all of the austerity and layoffs at the state level decreasing aggregate demand and increasing unemployment
Its quite obvious that you've reached your own conclusion about how you think the world works without first looking at the facts. Usually people, at least smart people, look at the facts and then make their opinions based on those facts. But you, not you. You've obviously made your decision based on your inherent biases. And then you went out and tried to find data that backs up your bias, and ignored any data that contradicted it. | You dont seem to know what a credit default swap is. Refusal to regulate derivatives along with the repeal of glass steagal both played significant roles in the crisis. Fannie and freddie were among the safest institutions in the market. The recovery has actually been fairly robust, and the reason its not stronger is mostly because of republicans in congress and in state and local legislatures. |
offerfoxache | Long-term CM player here.. started out playing CM 92-93 on the Amiga, CM Italia 93-94 on the Atari.. then 96-97, 97-98, 01-02 before eventually moving onto FM 05, 06, 08 & 10. I haven't played any others since then but have put a fair amount of hours into FM10.. probably more than is healthy.
Anyway, I digress as this post isn't about that.
I went back to play 97-98 recently purely for nostalgic reasons and it was so simple. Very simple. Three subs on the bench in the Scottish league and one of those had to be a keeper. Hah, changed days! What I missed most from that is being involved with the running of the club. I love being able to take charge of training sessions, get board requests, send the scouts to foreign countries, develop youth players and everything else that 10 did. What I hate most about it is the press conferences. No, I like them... but what I actually hate is that you say one thing or even if you don't comment on it, and it picks that up as the main story which in turn upsets the entire squad or a player that goes in the huff. I sincerely hope that this has been fixed for '13. What I'm really looking forward to is the challenges. The ones where you're bottom of the table at Christmas and have to save the club from relegation. This has the potential to be an excellent feature and I sincerely hope that it is.
TL;DR - I ramble my previous experiences with FM and I'm looking for updates for how good/in-depth this version is to know whether I want to get involved with another FM campaign. | Long-term CM player here.. started out playing CM 92-93 on the Amiga, CM Italia 93-94 on the Atari.. then 96-97, 97-98, 01-02 before eventually moving onto FM 05, 06, 08 & 10. I haven't played any others since then but have put a fair amount of hours into FM10.. probably more than is healthy.
Anyway, I digress as this post isn't about that.
I went back to play 97-98 recently purely for nostalgic reasons and it was so simple. Very simple. Three subs on the bench in the Scottish league and one of those had to be a keeper. Hah, changed days! What I missed most from that is being involved with the running of the club. I love being able to take charge of training sessions, get board requests, send the scouts to foreign countries, develop youth players and everything else that 10 did. What I hate most about it is the press conferences. No, I like them... but what I actually hate is that you say one thing or even if you don't comment on it, and it picks that up as the main story which in turn upsets the entire squad or a player that goes in the huff. I sincerely hope that this has been fixed for '13. What I'm really looking forward to is the challenges. The ones where you're bottom of the table at Christmas and have to save the club from relegation. This has the potential to be an excellent feature and I sincerely hope that it is.
TL;DR - I ramble my previous experiences with FM and I'm looking for updates for how good/in-depth this version is to know whether I want to get involved with another FM campaign.
| Games | t5_2qhwp | c6oyphw | Long-term CM player here.. started out playing CM 92-93 on the Amiga, CM Italia 93-94 on the Atari.. then 96-97, 97-98, 01-02 before eventually moving onto FM 05, 06, 08 & 10. I haven't played any others since then but have put a fair amount of hours into FM10.. probably more than is healthy.
Anyway, I digress as this post isn't about that.
I went back to play 97-98 recently purely for nostalgic reasons and it was so simple. Very simple. Three subs on the bench in the Scottish league and one of those had to be a keeper. Hah, changed days! What I missed most from that is being involved with the running of the club. I love being able to take charge of training sessions, get board requests, send the scouts to foreign countries, develop youth players and everything else that 10 did. What I hate most about it is the press conferences. No, I like them... but what I actually hate is that you say one thing or even if you don't comment on it, and it picks that up as the main story which in turn upsets the entire squad or a player that goes in the huff. I sincerely hope that this has been fixed for '13. What I'm really looking forward to is the challenges. The ones where you're bottom of the table at Christmas and have to save the club from relegation. This has the potential to be an excellent feature and I sincerely hope that it is. | I ramble my previous experiences with FM and I'm looking for updates for how good/in-depth this version is to know whether I want to get involved with another FM campaign. |
debee1jp | A few months ago: "Brand is SO good but his ult is too unreliable! But he would be so broken if his ult prioritized champions!"
Still isn't played.
Now he needs a MS buff because he has no escapes?
Anivia, Galio, Karthus, Ryze, Twisted Fate, and Zyra would like to have a word with you.
tl;dr Brand is fine | A few months ago: "Brand is SO good but his ult is too unreliable! But he would be so broken if his ult prioritized champions!"
Still isn't played.
Now he needs a MS buff because he has no escapes?
Anivia, Galio, Karthus, Ryze, Twisted Fate, and Zyra would like to have a word with you.
tl;dr Brand is fine
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6r75ss | A few months ago: "Brand is SO good but his ult is too unreliable! But he would be so broken if his ult prioritized champions!"
Still isn't played.
Now he needs a MS buff because he has no escapes?
Anivia, Galio, Karthus, Ryze, Twisted Fate, and Zyra would like to have a word with you. | Brand is fine |
mauxly | I'm so confused. I really am. On one hand I think, "Well fuck that ACORN shit, those dicks made a mountain out of a molehill."
And I think, "I'm glad that I support a party that doesn't play like that."
And then I see all of the ELECTION fraud wierdness, all of the turdplay that the other side that puts our entire system at risk and I wonder, "Are Democrats simply lazy? Or that fearful of confrontation?"
And..I honestly don't know if I want us to become more like them. Sometimes I'm glad that Obama has Biden as his pitbull. Sometimes I wish he had a pack of them. And then, I worry that if he did, we'd become a party of dirty tricks. And that would gross me out.
TLDR; Circular ramblings of an incoherent mind. Yay Ambien. I should go night night now. | I'm so confused. I really am. On one hand I think, "Well fuck that ACORN shit, those dicks made a mountain out of a molehill."
And I think, "I'm glad that I support a party that doesn't play like that."
And then I see all of the ELECTION fraud wierdness, all of the turdplay that the other side that puts our entire system at risk and I wonder, "Are Democrats simply lazy? Or that fearful of confrontation?"
And..I honestly don't know if I want us to become more like them. Sometimes I'm glad that Obama has Biden as his pitbull. Sometimes I wish he had a pack of them. And then, I worry that if he did, we'd become a party of dirty tricks. And that would gross me out.
TLDR; Circular ramblings of an incoherent mind. Yay Ambien. I should go night night now.
| politics | t5_2cneq | c6upphz | I'm so confused. I really am. On one hand I think, "Well fuck that ACORN shit, those dicks made a mountain out of a molehill."
And I think, "I'm glad that I support a party that doesn't play like that."
And then I see all of the ELECTION fraud wierdness, all of the turdplay that the other side that puts our entire system at risk and I wonder, "Are Democrats simply lazy? Or that fearful of confrontation?"
And..I honestly don't know if I want us to become more like them. Sometimes I'm glad that Obama has Biden as his pitbull. Sometimes I wish he had a pack of them. And then, I worry that if he did, we'd become a party of dirty tricks. And that would gross me out. | Circular ramblings of an incoherent mind. Yay Ambien. I should go night night now. |
Seafor_c4 | It is okay to date multiple guys at a time, absolutely. I'm 28 and male. I date regularly. I'm cycling through women pretty much constantly. I'm not a player. I'm actually seeking a relationship. I just haven't found the right girl. Until the girl I'm dating and I sit down and decide that we want to exclusively date each other and evolve our dating into a relationship boyfriend/girlfriend thing I will date as many people as I feel like. This being said I generally know after about 4-6 dates whether it is going to work or not, so I'm not exactly leading them on either.
tl;dr: Date as many people as you want till you find the one you want to settle down with. | It is okay to date multiple guys at a time, absolutely. I'm 28 and male. I date regularly. I'm cycling through women pretty much constantly. I'm not a player. I'm actually seeking a relationship. I just haven't found the right girl. Until the girl I'm dating and I sit down and decide that we want to exclusively date each other and evolve our dating into a relationship boyfriend/girlfriend thing I will date as many people as I feel like. This being said I generally know after about 4-6 dates whether it is going to work or not, so I'm not exactly leading them on either.
tl;dr: Date as many people as you want till you find the one you want to settle down with.
| dating_advice | t5_2s4kl | c6uuk2y | It is okay to date multiple guys at a time, absolutely. I'm 28 and male. I date regularly. I'm cycling through women pretty much constantly. I'm not a player. I'm actually seeking a relationship. I just haven't found the right girl. Until the girl I'm dating and I sit down and decide that we want to exclusively date each other and evolve our dating into a relationship boyfriend/girlfriend thing I will date as many people as I feel like. This being said I generally know after about 4-6 dates whether it is going to work or not, so I'm not exactly leading them on either. | Date as many people as you want till you find the one you want to settle down with. |
HardcoreHorst | i know that feel bro but once in a while u will get such offers and u can actually take it... u just have to make silly-sounding offers to the peoples where they think they will win...
I once had a guy that had no clue of the game and flamed me like hell and i told him that he simply doesnt have the mindset nor the skillset to call me a bad player and i simply told him that i could crash him even if i play soraka against any champ he wants.
Since i was pretty sure he isnt good enogh to know about counters and stuff. SO he agreed to soraka and picked xin in his 1v1 and i smashed his face to the ground over and over again and at the end of the game he came and said: "Okay, gg, you are a good player and i am just too bad to notice it. exactly what u said earlier on"
I was crying to see such awesome behaviour even if the most stupid players would rage and say it was luck.
tl;Dr: I got my 1v1 once as Soraka vs Xin and owned him. Afterwards he said: u were right | i know that feel bro but once in a while u will get such offers and u can actually take it... u just have to make silly-sounding offers to the peoples where they think they will win...
I once had a guy that had no clue of the game and flamed me like hell and i told him that he simply doesnt have the mindset nor the skillset to call me a bad player and i simply told him that i could crash him even if i play soraka against any champ he wants.
Since i was pretty sure he isnt good enogh to know about counters and stuff. SO he agreed to soraka and picked xin in his 1v1 and i smashed his face to the ground over and over again and at the end of the game he came and said: "Okay, gg, you are a good player and i am just too bad to notice it. exactly what u said earlier on"
I was crying to see such awesome behaviour even if the most stupid players would rage and say it was luck.
tl;Dr: I got my 1v1 once as Soraka vs Xin and owned him. Afterwards he said: u were right
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6v1guy | i know that feel bro but once in a while u will get such offers and u can actually take it... u just have to make silly-sounding offers to the peoples where they think they will win...
I once had a guy that had no clue of the game and flamed me like hell and i told him that he simply doesnt have the mindset nor the skillset to call me a bad player and i simply told him that i could crash him even if i play soraka against any champ he wants.
Since i was pretty sure he isnt good enogh to know about counters and stuff. SO he agreed to soraka and picked xin in his 1v1 and i smashed his face to the ground over and over again and at the end of the game he came and said: "Okay, gg, you are a good player and i am just too bad to notice it. exactly what u said earlier on"
I was crying to see such awesome behaviour even if the most stupid players would rage and say it was luck. | I got my 1v1 once as Soraka vs Xin and owned him. Afterwards he said: u were right |
fomorian | You sound like you need to read this:
"Not fun isn't the same as anti-fun - it's an interesting distinction actually.
Think of it in positive, negative and zero terms. Fun is clearly positive. Not fun is Zero. Anti-fun is negative on that scale. Skills that fail the fun vs. anti-fun test is when one player's fun isn't really counterbalanced by the negative on the other player - And the important thing is this isn't zero-sum, suprisingly.
The subjectivity of this comes where you set your zero-point for things.
However, there are lots of things that simply aren't fun from a player perspective that is negative fun for the opponent - If for example, I made a button that lets you physically beat someone with a chair on the other side of the screen - that's not enjoyable for me - and it's very very negative for you. That's an example of a non zero-sum scenario.
As to the concern that 'anti-fun principles are hindering creativity' - well.. I'm not sure about that - you may want to ask yourself whether or not creative uniqueness is a priority for designs or not - Solid gameplay, for example, is a great goal to strive for, even if it's unoriginal.
Even though I tinker with crazy stuff all the time, I would always trade something that is solid to play rather than original/unique and mediocre."
"*Do you not understand that the people doing the stunlocking and bursting are also having fun?*
That statement kind of leads to the thought that having an infinite combo in a game is good design because it supposedly lets one player have an infinite amount of gratification.
Again, the measure is fun vs. anti-fun a lot of the time - Anivia's wall creates many more awesome moments than bad ones for your team - It's about ratios - And like I said before, it's a subjective point on where your zero point is.
Anti-fun is typically embodied by lock-down, shut down, or obscure-counter mechanics - They almost universally restrict and control the opponent's range of options - leading to less play overall simply because your opponent reacts less. Yes, while there will always be people who find pleasure in fighting helpless opponents who simply sit there and do *nothing* at all (see above, for the infinite case), I don't think this is gameplay we should encourage.
*Chair-Beating*
You're telling me that you would willingly play a game, where every so often, the opponent gets to beat you senseless with a chair? That's kind of a scary thought."
TL;DR: Giving one player the absolute most fun possible isn't the design goal for good game designers. | You sound like you need to read this:
"Not fun isn't the same as anti-fun - it's an interesting distinction actually.
Think of it in positive, negative and zero terms. Fun is clearly positive. Not fun is Zero. Anti-fun is negative on that scale. Skills that fail the fun vs. anti-fun test is when one player's fun isn't really counterbalanced by the negative on the other player - And the important thing is this isn't zero-sum, suprisingly.
The subjectivity of this comes where you set your zero-point for things.
However, there are lots of things that simply aren't fun from a player perspective that is negative fun for the opponent - If for example, I made a button that lets you physically beat someone with a chair on the other side of the screen - that's not enjoyable for me - and it's very very negative for you. That's an example of a non zero-sum scenario.
As to the concern that 'anti-fun principles are hindering creativity' - well.. I'm not sure about that - you may want to ask yourself whether or not creative uniqueness is a priority for designs or not - Solid gameplay, for example, is a great goal to strive for, even if it's unoriginal.
Even though I tinker with crazy stuff all the time, I would always trade something that is solid to play rather than original/unique and mediocre."
" Do you not understand that the people doing the stunlocking and bursting are also having fun?
That statement kind of leads to the thought that having an infinite combo in a game is good design because it supposedly lets one player have an infinite amount of gratification.
Again, the measure is fun vs. anti-fun a lot of the time - Anivia's wall creates many more awesome moments than bad ones for your team - It's about ratios - And like I said before, it's a subjective point on where your zero point is.
Anti-fun is typically embodied by lock-down, shut down, or obscure-counter mechanics - They almost universally restrict and control the opponent's range of options - leading to less play overall simply because your opponent reacts less. Yes, while there will always be people who find pleasure in fighting helpless opponents who simply sit there and do nothing at all (see above, for the infinite case), I don't think this is gameplay we should encourage.
Chair-Beating
You're telling me that you would willingly play a game, where every so often, the opponent gets to beat you senseless with a chair? That's kind of a scary thought."
TL;DR: Giving one player the absolute most fun possible isn't the design goal for good game designers.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6yovuw | You sound like you need to read this:
"Not fun isn't the same as anti-fun - it's an interesting distinction actually.
Think of it in positive, negative and zero terms. Fun is clearly positive. Not fun is Zero. Anti-fun is negative on that scale. Skills that fail the fun vs. anti-fun test is when one player's fun isn't really counterbalanced by the negative on the other player - And the important thing is this isn't zero-sum, suprisingly.
The subjectivity of this comes where you set your zero-point for things.
However, there are lots of things that simply aren't fun from a player perspective that is negative fun for the opponent - If for example, I made a button that lets you physically beat someone with a chair on the other side of the screen - that's not enjoyable for me - and it's very very negative for you. That's an example of a non zero-sum scenario.
As to the concern that 'anti-fun principles are hindering creativity' - well.. I'm not sure about that - you may want to ask yourself whether or not creative uniqueness is a priority for designs or not - Solid gameplay, for example, is a great goal to strive for, even if it's unoriginal.
Even though I tinker with crazy stuff all the time, I would always trade something that is solid to play rather than original/unique and mediocre."
" Do you not understand that the people doing the stunlocking and bursting are also having fun?
That statement kind of leads to the thought that having an infinite combo in a game is good design because it supposedly lets one player have an infinite amount of gratification.
Again, the measure is fun vs. anti-fun a lot of the time - Anivia's wall creates many more awesome moments than bad ones for your team - It's about ratios - And like I said before, it's a subjective point on where your zero point is.
Anti-fun is typically embodied by lock-down, shut down, or obscure-counter mechanics - They almost universally restrict and control the opponent's range of options - leading to less play overall simply because your opponent reacts less. Yes, while there will always be people who find pleasure in fighting helpless opponents who simply sit there and do nothing at all (see above, for the infinite case), I don't think this is gameplay we should encourage.
Chair-Beating
You're telling me that you would willingly play a game, where every so often, the opponent gets to beat you senseless with a chair? That's kind of a scary thought." | Giving one player the absolute most fun possible isn't the design goal for good game designers. |
JCVDaaayum | This all day long, i was on with my brother last night, it was his first PVP game after learning the maps and controls and such like against AI, we told everyone before hand he was new and he went Ashe, i took Pantheon and we said we were going top lane. Soon as we start two other guys went top and we got barrated with things like "little noobs go bottom" "GG guys lost already got a noob", now i'd like to state im level 15 now, and even though these guys claimed to be on Smurf accounts and were going to boss the game, they fed and the lane collapsed and they blamed it on us for being noobs even though our lane stayed strong and i ganked mid a couple of times to help out.
TL:DR People on Smurf accounts or who CLAIM to be on Smurf accounts but actually just suck....STFU
P.S. be helpful to nooblets, not condescending dickshits. | This all day long, i was on with my brother last night, it was his first PVP game after learning the maps and controls and such like against AI, we told everyone before hand he was new and he went Ashe, i took Pantheon and we said we were going top lane. Soon as we start two other guys went top and we got barrated with things like "little noobs go bottom" "GG guys lost already got a noob", now i'd like to state im level 15 now, and even though these guys claimed to be on Smurf accounts and were going to boss the game, they fed and the lane collapsed and they blamed it on us for being noobs even though our lane stayed strong and i ganked mid a couple of times to help out.
TL:DR People on Smurf accounts or who CLAIM to be on Smurf accounts but actually just suck....STFU
P.S. be helpful to nooblets, not condescending dickshits.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6woqo1 | This all day long, i was on with my brother last night, it was his first PVP game after learning the maps and controls and such like against AI, we told everyone before hand he was new and he went Ashe, i took Pantheon and we said we were going top lane. Soon as we start two other guys went top and we got barrated with things like "little noobs go bottom" "GG guys lost already got a noob", now i'd like to state im level 15 now, and even though these guys claimed to be on Smurf accounts and were going to boss the game, they fed and the lane collapsed and they blamed it on us for being noobs even though our lane stayed strong and i ganked mid a couple of times to help out. | People on Smurf accounts or who CLAIM to be on Smurf accounts but actually just suck....STFU
P.S. be helpful to nooblets, not condescending dickshits. |
Ch4zu | Www.solomid.net is currently **one** of the best sites to get trusty (is this how you say it ? :> ) information. Don't go to MOBAfire, it is quite unreliable but on Solomid, Guides need to be approved by the Solomid-team + TSM (a pro team) makes guides themselves.
I know that when I started playing a year ago and found out the recommended items sucked, I'd pick my champion go to a site and look up my build. You don't need to memorize it, when you need to buy something you "Alt+Tb", pick your browser screen and look what items are viable on your champion.
You can follow the standard build if you don't feel confident enough yet or you can pick more Magic resists/armor/damage (depends on if you are losing/winning lane) in the items that are selected as 'good' for your chosen champion. Either way is better than following recommended and if you do just follow the standard builds, don't worry. The longer you play, the more confident you'll get in picking what items are the best in what situation.
**TL;DR -** Don't follow recommended, look up your champion on www.solomid.net/guides, follow build if you don't feel confident, change build order fo what you need if you do feel confident.
**PS:** Don't rush ranked when you hit 30, you'll maybe lose and people in ranked flame way harder than in normals when losing (or even winning). | Www.solomid.net is currently one of the best sites to get trusty (is this how you say it ? :> ) information. Don't go to MOBAfire, it is quite unreliable but on Solomid, Guides need to be approved by the Solomid-team + TSM (a pro team) makes guides themselves.
I know that when I started playing a year ago and found out the recommended items sucked, I'd pick my champion go to a site and look up my build. You don't need to memorize it, when you need to buy something you "Alt+Tb", pick your browser screen and look what items are viable on your champion.
You can follow the standard build if you don't feel confident enough yet or you can pick more Magic resists/armor/damage (depends on if you are losing/winning lane) in the items that are selected as 'good' for your chosen champion. Either way is better than following recommended and if you do just follow the standard builds, don't worry. The longer you play, the more confident you'll get in picking what items are the best in what situation.
TL;DR - Don't follow recommended, look up your champion on www.solomid.net/guides, follow build if you don't feel confident, change build order fo what you need if you do feel confident.
PS: Don't rush ranked when you hit 30, you'll maybe lose and people in ranked flame way harder than in normals when losing (or even winning).
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6wp04n | Www.solomid.net is currently one of the best sites to get trusty (is this how you say it ? :> ) information. Don't go to MOBAfire, it is quite unreliable but on Solomid, Guides need to be approved by the Solomid-team + TSM (a pro team) makes guides themselves.
I know that when I started playing a year ago and found out the recommended items sucked, I'd pick my champion go to a site and look up my build. You don't need to memorize it, when you need to buy something you "Alt+Tb", pick your browser screen and look what items are viable on your champion.
You can follow the standard build if you don't feel confident enough yet or you can pick more Magic resists/armor/damage (depends on if you are losing/winning lane) in the items that are selected as 'good' for your chosen champion. Either way is better than following recommended and if you do just follow the standard builds, don't worry. The longer you play, the more confident you'll get in picking what items are the best in what situation. | Don't follow recommended, look up your champion on www.solomid.net/guides, follow build if you don't feel confident, change build order fo what you need if you do feel confident.
PS: Don't rush ranked when you hit 30, you'll maybe lose and people in ranked flame way harder than in normals when losing (or even winning). |
FredWeedMax | Dude i have a smurf as well, and I dislike those lvl 30 being rude and stuff to you real noobs (nothing offending)
Theyre like OMG noob stop feeding while the guy's just got 50 games max.
Hate that cause you can't learn from that.
And actually I found out that most lvl 10-15 players I play with are lvl 30 smurfs, and that shocks me.
Ofcourse i'm trollin people at those game, getting strange picks, AP ashe and stuff, and I still carry cause I know the mechanics, but i'm sick of people here to rape noobs, and raging flaming at their teamates.
TL : DR when i play on my smurf I dont give a fuck, i troll and carry, and i dont rage at my mates.
I'm having fun after maybe a lose streak or something but I dont shit on other's game | Dude i have a smurf as well, and I dislike those lvl 30 being rude and stuff to you real noobs (nothing offending)
Theyre like OMG noob stop feeding while the guy's just got 50 games max.
Hate that cause you can't learn from that.
And actually I found out that most lvl 10-15 players I play with are lvl 30 smurfs, and that shocks me.
Ofcourse i'm trollin people at those game, getting strange picks, AP ashe and stuff, and I still carry cause I know the mechanics, but i'm sick of people here to rape noobs, and raging flaming at their teamates.
TL : DR when i play on my smurf I dont give a fuck, i troll and carry, and i dont rage at my mates.
I'm having fun after maybe a lose streak or something but I dont shit on other's game
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6wpj11 | Dude i have a smurf as well, and I dislike those lvl 30 being rude and stuff to you real noobs (nothing offending)
Theyre like OMG noob stop feeding while the guy's just got 50 games max.
Hate that cause you can't learn from that.
And actually I found out that most lvl 10-15 players I play with are lvl 30 smurfs, and that shocks me.
Ofcourse i'm trollin people at those game, getting strange picks, AP ashe and stuff, and I still carry cause I know the mechanics, but i'm sick of people here to rape noobs, and raging flaming at their teamates. | when i play on my smurf I dont give a fuck, i troll and carry, and i dont rage at my mates.
I'm having fun after maybe a lose streak or something but I dont shit on other's game |
ubersaurus | I just want to say that: I just made a new smurf account so that I could get a new account to try ranked with, without tainting my main.
When I chose the initial skill level, I selected the easiest one because I figured that would match me against the most people.
What I have found is that 7 out of 10 people in my matches (myself included) are all smurfing. People are building double GP10, warding, using shurelya's, randuins and aegis.
I must say that there are a few people that have been absofuckinglutely retarded, but most people that *aren't* smurfing seem to be picking up the game a *lot* faster than I did because of people being helpful for honor points.
That being said, if you're a new player and your teammate explains last-hitting, build advice, and the point that boots are a must-have item, and you do not listen, you are going to be in for a rough time.
tl;dr: My experience smurfing has been largely positive, but for a rare few | I just want to say that: I just made a new smurf account so that I could get a new account to try ranked with, without tainting my main.
When I chose the initial skill level, I selected the easiest one because I figured that would match me against the most people.
What I have found is that 7 out of 10 people in my matches (myself included) are all smurfing. People are building double GP10, warding, using shurelya's, randuins and aegis.
I must say that there are a few people that have been absofuckinglutely retarded, but most people that aren't smurfing seem to be picking up the game a lot faster than I did because of people being helpful for honor points.
That being said, if you're a new player and your teammate explains last-hitting, build advice, and the point that boots are a must-have item, and you do not listen, you are going to be in for a rough time.
tl;dr: My experience smurfing has been largely positive, but for a rare few
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6wv26f | I just want to say that: I just made a new smurf account so that I could get a new account to try ranked with, without tainting my main.
When I chose the initial skill level, I selected the easiest one because I figured that would match me against the most people.
What I have found is that 7 out of 10 people in my matches (myself included) are all smurfing. People are building double GP10, warding, using shurelya's, randuins and aegis.
I must say that there are a few people that have been absofuckinglutely retarded, but most people that aren't smurfing seem to be picking up the game a lot faster than I did because of people being helpful for honor points.
That being said, if you're a new player and your teammate explains last-hitting, build advice, and the point that boots are a must-have item, and you do not listen, you are going to be in for a rough time. | My experience smurfing has been largely positive, but for a rare few |
Draoken | Yeah, but at least they are absolutely terrible. You'll catch up eventually, just ignore them.
Real smurfs are only there to play with their friends, and will rarely rage at you because they actually know what they are doing and will not rely on team mates to do the same. They feel bad when they stomp too hard, and will usually apologize or try hard not to rub it in people's faces or go out of their way to steal kills from team mates
Bad smurfs will get angry at every mistake you do, use terms like "meta" or "counter jungle" to try to confuse you and to make themselves look cool, and then get angry when you couldn't tryhard as hard as them. They will get angry at team mates saying "gg noob team" at end of the game. They will usually lose because they are unable to adapt to lower level playstyles and will get stomped because they try to conform to "high elo play tactics" while playing againts level 5's.
tl;dr all those people calling you bad are bad. Just keep playing, and keep ignoring players. Just remember, if they get matched up with you, they are just as bad, if not worse than you, due to them getting matchmaked with you. | Yeah, but at least they are absolutely terrible. You'll catch up eventually, just ignore them.
Real smurfs are only there to play with their friends, and will rarely rage at you because they actually know what they are doing and will not rely on team mates to do the same. They feel bad when they stomp too hard, and will usually apologize or try hard not to rub it in people's faces or go out of their way to steal kills from team mates
Bad smurfs will get angry at every mistake you do, use terms like "meta" or "counter jungle" to try to confuse you and to make themselves look cool, and then get angry when you couldn't tryhard as hard as them. They will get angry at team mates saying "gg noob team" at end of the game. They will usually lose because they are unable to adapt to lower level playstyles and will get stomped because they try to conform to "high elo play tactics" while playing againts level 5's.
tl;dr all those people calling you bad are bad. Just keep playing, and keep ignoring players. Just remember, if they get matched up with you, they are just as bad, if not worse than you, due to them getting matchmaked with you.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6x5lxu | Yeah, but at least they are absolutely terrible. You'll catch up eventually, just ignore them.
Real smurfs are only there to play with their friends, and will rarely rage at you because they actually know what they are doing and will not rely on team mates to do the same. They feel bad when they stomp too hard, and will usually apologize or try hard not to rub it in people's faces or go out of their way to steal kills from team mates
Bad smurfs will get angry at every mistake you do, use terms like "meta" or "counter jungle" to try to confuse you and to make themselves look cool, and then get angry when you couldn't tryhard as hard as them. They will get angry at team mates saying "gg noob team" at end of the game. They will usually lose because they are unable to adapt to lower level playstyles and will get stomped because they try to conform to "high elo play tactics" while playing againts level 5's. | all those people calling you bad are bad. Just keep playing, and keep ignoring players. Just remember, if they get matched up with you, they are just as bad, if not worse than you, due to them getting matchmaked with you. |
superman1995 | although i may be a rare case, i do get flamed at quite often for being a smurf on my level 16 account because i rage at people for not doing things that are very simple like freezing the lane and farming, although this is my main account. I do enjoy having smurfs in my team, even if they rage, because at least what they are saying holds value and they are actually helping the team win instead of simply complaining that the jungler or players nearby that doesnt save you and blame your death on them when it is your fault in the first place for running across half the map for that kill
tl:dr smurfs may rage but at least they dont do or say thing that make you facepalm, although noobs that are open to suggestions are just as good | although i may be a rare case, i do get flamed at quite often for being a smurf on my level 16 account because i rage at people for not doing things that are very simple like freezing the lane and farming, although this is my main account. I do enjoy having smurfs in my team, even if they rage, because at least what they are saying holds value and they are actually helping the team win instead of simply complaining that the jungler or players nearby that doesnt save you and blame your death on them when it is your fault in the first place for running across half the map for that kill
tl:dr smurfs may rage but at least they dont do or say thing that make you facepalm, although noobs that are open to suggestions are just as good
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6wpi5j | although i may be a rare case, i do get flamed at quite often for being a smurf on my level 16 account because i rage at people for not doing things that are very simple like freezing the lane and farming, although this is my main account. I do enjoy having smurfs in my team, even if they rage, because at least what they are saying holds value and they are actually helping the team win instead of simply complaining that the jungler or players nearby that doesnt save you and blame your death on them when it is your fault in the first place for running across half the map for that kill | smurfs may rage but at least they dont do or say thing that make you facepalm, although noobs that are open to suggestions are just as good |
alanispani | Don't sweat it, man. I'm a fairly decent player and recently made a new account on BR server for ping reasons. You would not believe the amount of flame I get even though I always score positive.
~~Assholes~~ People smurfing believe they're incredibly good even though they probably don't get a good grasp on the game yet.
Yes, that includes me and almost every smurf, that's why I never flame and nor should anyone. Try to give constructive advice and just enjoy the game.
[TL;DR: Carry team 90% of the time, still get flamed]( | Don't sweat it, man. I'm a fairly decent player and recently made a new account on BR server for ping reasons. You would not believe the amount of flame I get even though I always score positive.
Assholes People smurfing believe they're incredibly good even though they probably don't get a good grasp on the game yet.
Yes, that includes me and almost every smurf, that's why I never flame and nor should anyone. Try to give constructive advice and just enjoy the game.
[TL;DR: Carry team 90% of the time, still get flamed](
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c6wp9pn | Don't sweat it, man. I'm a fairly decent player and recently made a new account on BR server for ping reasons. You would not believe the amount of flame I get even though I always score positive.
Assholes People smurfing believe they're incredibly good even though they probably don't get a good grasp on the game yet.
Yes, that includes me and almost every smurf, that's why I never flame and nor should anyone. Try to give constructive advice and just enjoy the game.
[ | Carry team 90% of the time, still get flamed]( |
Carnagh | The companies are doing just fine [digital music report 2012](
What we're finally seeing is an industry that realises it has to change its business model. The pressure for this change was brought by piracy. Where the industry has changed it has done extremely well.
TL;DR You're making shit up. | The companies are doing just fine [digital music report 2012](
What we're finally seeing is an industry that realises it has to change its business model. The pressure for this change was brought by piracy. Where the industry has changed it has done extremely well.
TL;DR You're making shit up.
| technology | t5_2qh16 | c6x66u9 | The companies are doing just fine [digital music report 2012](
What we're finally seeing is an industry that realises it has to change its business model. The pressure for this change was brought by piracy. Where the industry has changed it has done extremely well. | You're making shit up. |
Carnagh | > Overall music sales have fallen
Cite your source please. As far as I'm aware profits overall are up.
Physical sales are down because people now want to obtain their media online. This is a desire the media industry was fighting because they could inflate prices on physical media... Something that got them into very deep water with the EU.
TL;DR I'm talking about the only part of the picture that matters any more. | > Overall music sales have fallen
Cite your source please. As far as I'm aware profits overall are up.
Physical sales are down because people now want to obtain their media online. This is a desire the media industry was fighting because they could inflate prices on physical media... Something that got them into very deep water with the EU.
TL;DR I'm talking about the only part of the picture that matters any more.
| technology | t5_2qh16 | c6x6cdp | Overall music sales have fallen
Cite your source please. As far as I'm aware profits overall are up.
Physical sales are down because people now want to obtain their media online. This is a desire the media industry was fighting because they could inflate prices on physical media... Something that got them into very deep water with the EU. | I'm talking about the only part of the picture that matters any more. |
skoy | It was a poll by a biased party using dubious methodology, asking highly biased *rhetorical* questions. Does it really surprise you that the results show what they wanted it to show?
Also see a [previous comment]( of mine about that poll. TL-DR: Even the pro-Palestinian organization supposedly behind the poll were distancing themselves from having any relation to it.
There is indeed a whiff of confirmation bias here, but I don't think I'm the one who smells... | It was a poll by a biased party using dubious methodology, asking highly biased rhetorical questions. Does it really surprise you that the results show what they wanted it to show?
Also see a [previous comment]( of mine about that poll. TL-DR: Even the pro-Palestinian organization supposedly behind the poll were distancing themselves from having any relation to it.
There is indeed a whiff of confirmation bias here, but I don't think I'm the one who smells...
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c6xwvfl | It was a poll by a biased party using dubious methodology, asking highly biased rhetorical questions. Does it really surprise you that the results show what they wanted it to show?
Also see a [previous comment]( of mine about that poll. | Even the pro-Palestinian organization supposedly behind the poll were distancing themselves from having any relation to it.
There is indeed a whiff of confirmation bias here, but I don't think I'm the one who smells... |
MyNameIsNotJeff | As an Iranian, I'm tired of reading this narrative by other Iranians. This is dishonest not only to non-Iranians but a self delusional explanation for the dire state of Iran. Not only do I think it's foolish to compare Iranians to Israelis culturally, a lot of Iranians tend to say the mullahs are different than the people and that their policies is not a reflection of everyday Iranians. This is simply not true.
The Islamic Republic has a strong support in Iran among merchants, rural residents, low-mid income families and the religious elite. And although some of its social values are not shared among the young educated Iranians, its culture of oppression and "king like rule" is still relevant even among them.
Iranians may set up rave parties in their basements or have bottles of whiskey in their homes, but culturally they're not ready for democracy. The idea of freedom of speech or questioning authority is something that has not settled well in Persian culture. For example the father figure still has the last word on most family matters and the idea of younger people speaking their minds is usually frowned upon. These are traditions that have defined Persian people for generation, and until they're overcome at the micro level, you can't expect a regime like the Islamic Republic becoming irrelevant at the macro level.
That was just one example, but there many more like it that demonstrate a lack of readiness by Iranian for true democracy. However, I don't believe it's all bad news. I believe out of all islamic/arab countries in the middle east, Iran is by far the most progressive. For example in recent years there has been a progressive push in sexual openness and family planning. However, like I said there is still a long way to go.
**TL;DR** The idea that the Iranian people are not the same as their government is dishonest and self delusional. Iranian culture is still fairly traditional which in turn continues to make the Islamic Republic relevant. | As an Iranian, I'm tired of reading this narrative by other Iranians. This is dishonest not only to non-Iranians but a self delusional explanation for the dire state of Iran. Not only do I think it's foolish to compare Iranians to Israelis culturally, a lot of Iranians tend to say the mullahs are different than the people and that their policies is not a reflection of everyday Iranians. This is simply not true.
The Islamic Republic has a strong support in Iran among merchants, rural residents, low-mid income families and the religious elite. And although some of its social values are not shared among the young educated Iranians, its culture of oppression and "king like rule" is still relevant even among them.
Iranians may set up rave parties in their basements or have bottles of whiskey in their homes, but culturally they're not ready for democracy. The idea of freedom of speech or questioning authority is something that has not settled well in Persian culture. For example the father figure still has the last word on most family matters and the idea of younger people speaking their minds is usually frowned upon. These are traditions that have defined Persian people for generation, and until they're overcome at the micro level, you can't expect a regime like the Islamic Republic becoming irrelevant at the macro level.
That was just one example, but there many more like it that demonstrate a lack of readiness by Iranian for true democracy. However, I don't believe it's all bad news. I believe out of all islamic/arab countries in the middle east, Iran is by far the most progressive. For example in recent years there has been a progressive push in sexual openness and family planning. However, like I said there is still a long way to go.
TL;DR The idea that the Iranian people are not the same as their government is dishonest and self delusional. Iranian culture is still fairly traditional which in turn continues to make the Islamic Republic relevant.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c6y0tmg | As an Iranian, I'm tired of reading this narrative by other Iranians. This is dishonest not only to non-Iranians but a self delusional explanation for the dire state of Iran. Not only do I think it's foolish to compare Iranians to Israelis culturally, a lot of Iranians tend to say the mullahs are different than the people and that their policies is not a reflection of everyday Iranians. This is simply not true.
The Islamic Republic has a strong support in Iran among merchants, rural residents, low-mid income families and the religious elite. And although some of its social values are not shared among the young educated Iranians, its culture of oppression and "king like rule" is still relevant even among them.
Iranians may set up rave parties in their basements or have bottles of whiskey in their homes, but culturally they're not ready for democracy. The idea of freedom of speech or questioning authority is something that has not settled well in Persian culture. For example the father figure still has the last word on most family matters and the idea of younger people speaking their minds is usually frowned upon. These are traditions that have defined Persian people for generation, and until they're overcome at the micro level, you can't expect a regime like the Islamic Republic becoming irrelevant at the macro level.
That was just one example, but there many more like it that demonstrate a lack of readiness by Iranian for true democracy. However, I don't believe it's all bad news. I believe out of all islamic/arab countries in the middle east, Iran is by far the most progressive. For example in recent years there has been a progressive push in sexual openness and family planning. However, like I said there is still a long way to go. | The idea that the Iranian people are not the same as their government is dishonest and self delusional. Iranian culture is still fairly traditional which in turn continues to make the Islamic Republic relevant. |
ethanmad | As a Persian-American, I understand what you mean. I used to have this notion that all Iranians are crazy and insane, but my grandfather who somehow managed to visit without getting killed (he's Jewish and has been to Israel) keeps telling me that people in Tehran and other cities are hospitable and generous, even though they know he is a Jew.
However, he did tell say that the rural people support the idiots that are the Mullah. And the entire government is run by monkeys and the brilliant politician that is Ahmedinajad (I do not like him, nor do I approve of his actions, but he is a very charismatic and manipulative puppet--the perfect politician).
tl;dr: urban Iranians aren't insane terrorists that run on nuclear "energy", but the Mullah needs to die. Also, Ahmedinajad looks like a monkey. | As a Persian-American, I understand what you mean. I used to have this notion that all Iranians are crazy and insane, but my grandfather who somehow managed to visit without getting killed (he's Jewish and has been to Israel) keeps telling me that people in Tehran and other cities are hospitable and generous, even though they know he is a Jew.
However, he did tell say that the rural people support the idiots that are the Mullah. And the entire government is run by monkeys and the brilliant politician that is Ahmedinajad (I do not like him, nor do I approve of his actions, but he is a very charismatic and manipulative puppet--the perfect politician).
tl;dr: urban Iranians aren't insane terrorists that run on nuclear "energy", but the Mullah needs to die. Also, Ahmedinajad looks like a monkey.
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c6y0u99 | As a Persian-American, I understand what you mean. I used to have this notion that all Iranians are crazy and insane, but my grandfather who somehow managed to visit without getting killed (he's Jewish and has been to Israel) keeps telling me that people in Tehran and other cities are hospitable and generous, even though they know he is a Jew.
However, he did tell say that the rural people support the idiots that are the Mullah. And the entire government is run by monkeys and the brilliant politician that is Ahmedinajad (I do not like him, nor do I approve of his actions, but he is a very charismatic and manipulative puppet--the perfect politician). | urban Iranians aren't insane terrorists that run on nuclear "energy", but the Mullah needs to die. Also, Ahmedinajad looks like a monkey. |
whenimoveyoumove | can we get some TL/DR action here | can we get some TL/DR action here
| worldnews | t5_2qh13 | c6xyxbk | can we get some | action here |
3lfk1ng | There will be a PC port, there has not been a single GTA that hasn't been on PC.
Anyway, here is why:
When Microsoft sees that console sales go up when a particular game comes out, they have successful done their job. Microsoft realizes that as long as they set up some sort of early release before PC, or some sort of content exclusivity deal, they stand to earn a lot more money because people are willing to spend an additional $200 on a console. Or PC gamers that also own and XBOX will buy it on XBOX so tey don't have to wait. Then, when the game comes out on PC, users like you won't buy it because you have already played it 6 months ago and then the games industry points fingers and says "See, I told you people don't game on PC anymore". Meanwhile, some of the butthurt fans that didn't get the PC version on the same day as the console version, feel betrayed so they decide not to purchase the game or support that 'evil' company by pirating the game instead.
As mature PC gamers, it is kind of our responsibility to tell the companies that we aren't happy being treated differently. It is also kind of our responsibility to buy the games when they do come out to support the company and let them know that we do exist and that we are a major part of their income. A lot of these companies also need to start putting fans slightly before overall income. The more you love your fans, the better your fans will treat you.
As much as some people don't like to hear it, piracy can be nearly eliminated by putting the game on Steam. The amount of money Valve earns from this deal is far less than the amount Rockstar would lose from piracy on the internet.
tl:dr - PC gamers need to show the companies what platform we prefer and that we aren't willing to make a sacrifice. | There will be a PC port, there has not been a single GTA that hasn't been on PC.
Anyway, here is why:
When Microsoft sees that console sales go up when a particular game comes out, they have successful done their job. Microsoft realizes that as long as they set up some sort of early release before PC, or some sort of content exclusivity deal, they stand to earn a lot more money because people are willing to spend an additional $200 on a console. Or PC gamers that also own and XBOX will buy it on XBOX so tey don't have to wait. Then, when the game comes out on PC, users like you won't buy it because you have already played it 6 months ago and then the games industry points fingers and says "See, I told you people don't game on PC anymore". Meanwhile, some of the butthurt fans that didn't get the PC version on the same day as the console version, feel betrayed so they decide not to purchase the game or support that 'evil' company by pirating the game instead.
As mature PC gamers, it is kind of our responsibility to tell the companies that we aren't happy being treated differently. It is also kind of our responsibility to buy the games when they do come out to support the company and let them know that we do exist and that we are a major part of their income. A lot of these companies also need to start putting fans slightly before overall income. The more you love your fans, the better your fans will treat you.
As much as some people don't like to hear it, piracy can be nearly eliminated by putting the game on Steam. The amount of money Valve earns from this deal is far less than the amount Rockstar would lose from piracy on the internet.
tl:dr - PC gamers need to show the companies what platform we prefer and that we aren't willing to make a sacrifice.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c71sdv1 | There will be a PC port, there has not been a single GTA that hasn't been on PC.
Anyway, here is why:
When Microsoft sees that console sales go up when a particular game comes out, they have successful done their job. Microsoft realizes that as long as they set up some sort of early release before PC, or some sort of content exclusivity deal, they stand to earn a lot more money because people are willing to spend an additional $200 on a console. Or PC gamers that also own and XBOX will buy it on XBOX so tey don't have to wait. Then, when the game comes out on PC, users like you won't buy it because you have already played it 6 months ago and then the games industry points fingers and says "See, I told you people don't game on PC anymore". Meanwhile, some of the butthurt fans that didn't get the PC version on the same day as the console version, feel betrayed so they decide not to purchase the game or support that 'evil' company by pirating the game instead.
As mature PC gamers, it is kind of our responsibility to tell the companies that we aren't happy being treated differently. It is also kind of our responsibility to buy the games when they do come out to support the company and let them know that we do exist and that we are a major part of their income. A lot of these companies also need to start putting fans slightly before overall income. The more you love your fans, the better your fans will treat you.
As much as some people don't like to hear it, piracy can be nearly eliminated by putting the game on Steam. The amount of money Valve earns from this deal is far less than the amount Rockstar would lose from piracy on the internet. | PC gamers need to show the companies what platform we prefer and that we aren't willing to make a sacrifice. |
Jayem163 | The reason DoTa could easily implement duplicates is because it started from Warcraft and the champs were units in Warcraft which could be duplicated and thus code had to be in place to account for this. Since LoL has had the assumption of unique champs on a team from the beginning the process of allowing multiples would require a code review of essentially the entire game.
TL;DR: Duplicates = too much work. Not gonna happen. | The reason DoTa could easily implement duplicates is because it started from Warcraft and the champs were units in Warcraft which could be duplicated and thus code had to be in place to account for this. Since LoL has had the assumption of unique champs on a team from the beginning the process of allowing multiples would require a code review of essentially the entire game.
TL;DR: Duplicates = too much work. Not gonna happen.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c71t8c0 | The reason DoTa could easily implement duplicates is because it started from Warcraft and the champs were units in Warcraft which could be duplicated and thus code had to be in place to account for this. Since LoL has had the assumption of unique champs on a team from the beginning the process of allowing multiples would require a code review of essentially the entire game. | Duplicates = too much work. Not gonna happen. |
Bhangbhangduc | That's what would happen if the Covenant were smart. In halo lore, the reason the Covies lost was because their idea of combat was a sort of close-ranged, honor-based system. To humans, massive hammers or glowing sword were just sorta outdated after gunpowder become more accurate over long distances, but the Elites and Brutes saw them as par-for-the-course, and their tech reflects that. Why build a tanks with a short-range, slow-moving mortar when you could have a tank with a faster, more damaging shell? When you want to thin up the enemy *right behind this wall* so that your swordsmen can focus on the infantry out front.
In addition, the Covanent saw Forerunner tech a sacrosanct, and updating was a sin. Thus, human tech, while technically more simple, could be more effective when employed intellegently.
The problem faced by the UNSC was how to fight them in space. Human ships were generally more frail, and packed less firepower. For instance, the MAC guns on UNSC frigates required about a minute to fully charge up, and needed to be pointed in the right direction. For a slower moving ship facing a faster-moving ship, using the MAC guns would have been suicidal without extensive preperation.
TL;DR Covenant were shitty ground troops, but space superiority gave them the upper hand. | That's what would happen if the Covenant were smart. In halo lore, the reason the Covies lost was because their idea of combat was a sort of close-ranged, honor-based system. To humans, massive hammers or glowing sword were just sorta outdated after gunpowder become more accurate over long distances, but the Elites and Brutes saw them as par-for-the-course, and their tech reflects that. Why build a tanks with a short-range, slow-moving mortar when you could have a tank with a faster, more damaging shell? When you want to thin up the enemy right behind this wall so that your swordsmen can focus on the infantry out front.
In addition, the Covanent saw Forerunner tech a sacrosanct, and updating was a sin. Thus, human tech, while technically more simple, could be more effective when employed intellegently.
The problem faced by the UNSC was how to fight them in space. Human ships were generally more frail, and packed less firepower. For instance, the MAC guns on UNSC frigates required about a minute to fully charge up, and needed to be pointed in the right direction. For a slower moving ship facing a faster-moving ship, using the MAC guns would have been suicidal without extensive preperation.
TL;DR Covenant were shitty ground troops, but space superiority gave them the upper hand.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c72b7ha | That's what would happen if the Covenant were smart. In halo lore, the reason the Covies lost was because their idea of combat was a sort of close-ranged, honor-based system. To humans, massive hammers or glowing sword were just sorta outdated after gunpowder become more accurate over long distances, but the Elites and Brutes saw them as par-for-the-course, and their tech reflects that. Why build a tanks with a short-range, slow-moving mortar when you could have a tank with a faster, more damaging shell? When you want to thin up the enemy right behind this wall so that your swordsmen can focus on the infantry out front.
In addition, the Covanent saw Forerunner tech a sacrosanct, and updating was a sin. Thus, human tech, while technically more simple, could be more effective when employed intellegently.
The problem faced by the UNSC was how to fight them in space. Human ships were generally more frail, and packed less firepower. For instance, the MAC guns on UNSC frigates required about a minute to fully charge up, and needed to be pointed in the right direction. For a slower moving ship facing a faster-moving ship, using the MAC guns would have been suicidal without extensive preperation. | Covenant were shitty ground troops, but space superiority gave them the upper hand. |
dcLookAtThis | I really think people need to calm down calling this change a horrible/stupid mistake on riot's end. I feel this is a change that will work out better in the long run.
Honestly, they want to make the game less farm oriented for laners but more about having choices. I wanna see more people roaming and getting kills and taking advantage of that AFK farming Karthus/Anivia/Zyra. I hate seeing pure farm lanes.
This will also allow more interaction between the lanes and greater emphasis on dragon control, and with a lot of the new jungler items we could see a lot more crazy things coming out from teams b/c of a change in gold income for laners.
TL;DR Don't hate on something we have yet to see go live. | I really think people need to calm down calling this change a horrible/stupid mistake on riot's end. I feel this is a change that will work out better in the long run.
Honestly, they want to make the game less farm oriented for laners but more about having choices. I wanna see more people roaming and getting kills and taking advantage of that AFK farming Karthus/Anivia/Zyra. I hate seeing pure farm lanes.
This will also allow more interaction between the lanes and greater emphasis on dragon control, and with a lot of the new jungler items we could see a lot more crazy things coming out from teams b/c of a change in gold income for laners.
TL;DR Don't hate on something we have yet to see go live.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c7364le | I really think people need to calm down calling this change a horrible/stupid mistake on riot's end. I feel this is a change that will work out better in the long run.
Honestly, they want to make the game less farm oriented for laners but more about having choices. I wanna see more people roaming and getting kills and taking advantage of that AFK farming Karthus/Anivia/Zyra. I hate seeing pure farm lanes.
This will also allow more interaction between the lanes and greater emphasis on dragon control, and with a lot of the new jungler items we could see a lot more crazy things coming out from teams b/c of a change in gold income for laners. | Don't hate on something we have yet to see go live. |
pv505 | there's no way to verify that somebody creating an account is a minor or not, plain and simple. Despite the fact that I disagree with this policy, it wouldn't be possible to enforce it or check it. I can't remember if a date of birth was asked when creating a LoL account (it's been a long time since I created mine) but even so, whoever's below 18 (assuming that this policy is in place) would just change his year of birth.
TL;DR
Even if it was a good policy (which it isn't), change year of birth = gg | there's no way to verify that somebody creating an account is a minor or not, plain and simple. Despite the fact that I disagree with this policy, it wouldn't be possible to enforce it or check it. I can't remember if a date of birth was asked when creating a LoL account (it's been a long time since I created mine) but even so, whoever's below 18 (assuming that this policy is in place) would just change his year of birth.
TL;DR
Even if it was a good policy (which it isn't), change year of birth = gg
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c73myda | there's no way to verify that somebody creating an account is a minor or not, plain and simple. Despite the fact that I disagree with this policy, it wouldn't be possible to enforce it or check it. I can't remember if a date of birth was asked when creating a LoL account (it's been a long time since I created mine) but even so, whoever's below 18 (assuming that this policy is in place) would just change his year of birth. | Even if it was a good policy (which it isn't), change year of birth = gg |
Ihmhi | My friend lent me a box of condoms when I got my first girlfriend. They didn't fit, so we just awkwardly 69'd my "first time".
I immediately went out and bought new condoms (and I called my friend "midget dick" for a week). After an actual go at it, I actually lasted a fair while - because I couldn't feel anything. My girlfriend switched to being on top of me, and I guess it was the weight of her or something but something activated Two-Pump Chump mode.
I couldn't feel anything through a condom (and never did) and pretty much had a shitty time all around.
On the upside, I found out my friend's girlfriend bought those small-ish condoms for him. They didn't fit him, so he gave them to me. I gave him hell for a *month* thanks to that shit.
tl;dr: been there, bro. | My friend lent me a box of condoms when I got my first girlfriend. They didn't fit, so we just awkwardly 69'd my "first time".
I immediately went out and bought new condoms (and I called my friend "midget dick" for a week). After an actual go at it, I actually lasted a fair while - because I couldn't feel anything. My girlfriend switched to being on top of me, and I guess it was the weight of her or something but something activated Two-Pump Chump mode.
I couldn't feel anything through a condom (and never did) and pretty much had a shitty time all around.
On the upside, I found out my friend's girlfriend bought those small-ish condoms for him. They didn't fit him, so he gave them to me. I gave him hell for a month thanks to that shit.
tl;dr: been there, bro.
| sex | t5_2qh3p | c75q7cx | My friend lent me a box of condoms when I got my first girlfriend. They didn't fit, so we just awkwardly 69'd my "first time".
I immediately went out and bought new condoms (and I called my friend "midget dick" for a week). After an actual go at it, I actually lasted a fair while - because I couldn't feel anything. My girlfriend switched to being on top of me, and I guess it was the weight of her or something but something activated Two-Pump Chump mode.
I couldn't feel anything through a condom (and never did) and pretty much had a shitty time all around.
On the upside, I found out my friend's girlfriend bought those small-ish condoms for him. They didn't fit him, so he gave them to me. I gave him hell for a month thanks to that shit. | been there, bro. |
hobasileus | Don't lose heart! First times are usually a bit rough, and an experienced partner will--or at least should--be understanding of any fumbles you make because they've most likely been there themselves, in one way or another. Less-than-excellent performance the first time (or several times) is not merely okay, it's to be expected. Don't equate yourself with your performance the first time you have sex.
As for the lack of protection thing, my general sense is that's generally an unwise thing to do outside of a monogamous relationship, even if she is, or claims to be, on the pill. So I'd say avoid doing it in the future, though the odds are you'll get away with doing it just once. (They do make larger condoms if endowment's the issue there.) If you're still preoccupied by the risk, getting tested is probably the best way to set your mind at rest.
As for this nonsense in the other comments, at least if my own experience is any guide, you'd have to be fapping a *lot* more than once a day for it to impact your sex life negatively. I suspect the problem with being able to get it up was more "performance anxiety" than anything else--which, as I said, is normal and to be expected.
TL;DR Don't worry about it, it's normal; get tested if it'll set your mind at ease; keep fapping if you like it
Edit: I see GatorChomp beat me to the punch. What he said. | Don't lose heart! First times are usually a bit rough, and an experienced partner will--or at least should--be understanding of any fumbles you make because they've most likely been there themselves, in one way or another. Less-than-excellent performance the first time (or several times) is not merely okay, it's to be expected. Don't equate yourself with your performance the first time you have sex.
As for the lack of protection thing, my general sense is that's generally an unwise thing to do outside of a monogamous relationship, even if she is, or claims to be, on the pill. So I'd say avoid doing it in the future, though the odds are you'll get away with doing it just once. (They do make larger condoms if endowment's the issue there.) If you're still preoccupied by the risk, getting tested is probably the best way to set your mind at rest.
As for this nonsense in the other comments, at least if my own experience is any guide, you'd have to be fapping a lot more than once a day for it to impact your sex life negatively. I suspect the problem with being able to get it up was more "performance anxiety" than anything else--which, as I said, is normal and to be expected.
TL;DR Don't worry about it, it's normal; get tested if it'll set your mind at ease; keep fapping if you like it
Edit: I see GatorChomp beat me to the punch. What he said.
| sex | t5_2qh3p | c75qj6u | Don't lose heart! First times are usually a bit rough, and an experienced partner will--or at least should--be understanding of any fumbles you make because they've most likely been there themselves, in one way or another. Less-than-excellent performance the first time (or several times) is not merely okay, it's to be expected. Don't equate yourself with your performance the first time you have sex.
As for the lack of protection thing, my general sense is that's generally an unwise thing to do outside of a monogamous relationship, even if she is, or claims to be, on the pill. So I'd say avoid doing it in the future, though the odds are you'll get away with doing it just once. (They do make larger condoms if endowment's the issue there.) If you're still preoccupied by the risk, getting tested is probably the best way to set your mind at rest.
As for this nonsense in the other comments, at least if my own experience is any guide, you'd have to be fapping a lot more than once a day for it to impact your sex life negatively. I suspect the problem with being able to get it up was more "performance anxiety" than anything else--which, as I said, is normal and to be expected. | Don't worry about it, it's normal; get tested if it'll set your mind at ease; keep fapping if you like it
Edit: I see GatorChomp beat me to the punch. What he said. |
jchav38685 | It's always better. My first time was when I was 19 and with a 24-year-old. It was all going good for a minute give or take until I started going numb and then...nothing. She tried using her hands and mouth to bring it back to no avail. I tried going in the bathroom and jerking it back to life, but nothing.
I was pretty depressed and frustrated about it for a few weeks and eventually stopped seeing that woman. The next year I was 20 and got with this hooott 18-year-old with a ton of experience and sure enough, it was fantastic! For 45 seconds. But then we cuddled for a bit and she guided my hands to her vagina and sure enough I got hard again...and went for about 75 minutes (I kept looking at the digital clock by my bed). Luckily, at that age you have two things going for you:
* If they it's your first time you're almost expected to cum quickly.
* Your recovery time is almost superhero-like. As long as you know your inexperience will lead to a quick first time (nobody ever told me), there's no need to freak out about it--just switch in to girl-pleasuring mode until you get hard again.
**TL;DR** First time is bad for most guys; I literally had almost the same situation as you. Don't get depressed, just try it again. You'll probably cum quick, but if you keep at it during the same session you'll more than likely have great sex. | It's always better. My first time was when I was 19 and with a 24-year-old. It was all going good for a minute give or take until I started going numb and then...nothing. She tried using her hands and mouth to bring it back to no avail. I tried going in the bathroom and jerking it back to life, but nothing.
I was pretty depressed and frustrated about it for a few weeks and eventually stopped seeing that woman. The next year I was 20 and got with this hooott 18-year-old with a ton of experience and sure enough, it was fantastic! For 45 seconds. But then we cuddled for a bit and she guided my hands to her vagina and sure enough I got hard again...and went for about 75 minutes (I kept looking at the digital clock by my bed). Luckily, at that age you have two things going for you:
If they it's your first time you're almost expected to cum quickly.
Your recovery time is almost superhero-like. As long as you know your inexperience will lead to a quick first time (nobody ever told me), there's no need to freak out about it--just switch in to girl-pleasuring mode until you get hard again.
TL;DR First time is bad for most guys; I literally had almost the same situation as you. Don't get depressed, just try it again. You'll probably cum quick, but if you keep at it during the same session you'll more than likely have great sex.
| sex | t5_2qh3p | c75rurl | It's always better. My first time was when I was 19 and with a 24-year-old. It was all going good for a minute give or take until I started going numb and then...nothing. She tried using her hands and mouth to bring it back to no avail. I tried going in the bathroom and jerking it back to life, but nothing.
I was pretty depressed and frustrated about it for a few weeks and eventually stopped seeing that woman. The next year I was 20 and got with this hooott 18-year-old with a ton of experience and sure enough, it was fantastic! For 45 seconds. But then we cuddled for a bit and she guided my hands to her vagina and sure enough I got hard again...and went for about 75 minutes (I kept looking at the digital clock by my bed). Luckily, at that age you have two things going for you:
If they it's your first time you're almost expected to cum quickly.
Your recovery time is almost superhero-like. As long as you know your inexperience will lead to a quick first time (nobody ever told me), there's no need to freak out about it--just switch in to girl-pleasuring mode until you get hard again. | First time is bad for most guys; I literally had almost the same situation as you. Don't get depressed, just try it again. You'll probably cum quick, but if you keep at it during the same session you'll more than likely have great sex. |
Jordo_99 | The only way you're going to have a chance at being correct in this is if time have no bearing on this...starting from the corner gives you a more consistent, but far inferior on average, start.
Starting from the corner gives you 5/8 of the squares bomb-free, but only 1/4 of the area to expand into...so stupid to make the arguement that 62.5% less bombs is worth a drop in 75% expansion.
Further proof still (they also make the arguement that corner is SAFER, but NOT BETTER):
...if that's not convincing enough, go watch any "pro" or fast minesweeper video and I can guarantee they start around the middle. They're going to be hovering the F2 key to restart a new game and just spam middle clicks and F2 until they get a good start...while I was more of a casual player and never used this "try hard" method, it is by far the most efficient way to drop times in your games after switching to double-click (though, double-click is really only helpful in expert and sometimes in intermediate)
EDIT:
I've actually started a lot of games from the top/bottom edges and that seems to be a very good concession of the two.
TL;DR
You're math isn't necessarily wrong, you're just looking at it the wrong way...if you want to play a game like minesweeper (that usually requires guessing/chance to complete) for completion percentages go right ahead...I just don't see the point in playing that way...if I'm going for accuracy/completion then I set something like "I want to see how many I can complete "in under 100 seconds" since a percentage of games completed isn't a proper attribute of skill. | The only way you're going to have a chance at being correct in this is if time have no bearing on this...starting from the corner gives you a more consistent, but far inferior on average, start.
Starting from the corner gives you 5/8 of the squares bomb-free, but only 1/4 of the area to expand into...so stupid to make the arguement that 62.5% less bombs is worth a drop in 75% expansion.
Further proof still (they also make the arguement that corner is SAFER, but NOT BETTER):
...if that's not convincing enough, go watch any "pro" or fast minesweeper video and I can guarantee they start around the middle. They're going to be hovering the F2 key to restart a new game and just spam middle clicks and F2 until they get a good start...while I was more of a casual player and never used this "try hard" method, it is by far the most efficient way to drop times in your games after switching to double-click (though, double-click is really only helpful in expert and sometimes in intermediate)
EDIT:
I've actually started a lot of games from the top/bottom edges and that seems to be a very good concession of the two.
TL;DR
You're math isn't necessarily wrong, you're just looking at it the wrong way...if you want to play a game like minesweeper (that usually requires guessing/chance to complete) for completion percentages go right ahead...I just don't see the point in playing that way...if I'm going for accuracy/completion then I set something like "I want to see how many I can complete "in under 100 seconds" since a percentage of games completed isn't a proper attribute of skill.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c77qahq | The only way you're going to have a chance at being correct in this is if time have no bearing on this...starting from the corner gives you a more consistent, but far inferior on average, start.
Starting from the corner gives you 5/8 of the squares bomb-free, but only 1/4 of the area to expand into...so stupid to make the arguement that 62.5% less bombs is worth a drop in 75% expansion.
Further proof still (they also make the arguement that corner is SAFER, but NOT BETTER):
...if that's not convincing enough, go watch any "pro" or fast minesweeper video and I can guarantee they start around the middle. They're going to be hovering the F2 key to restart a new game and just spam middle clicks and F2 until they get a good start...while I was more of a casual player and never used this "try hard" method, it is by far the most efficient way to drop times in your games after switching to double-click (though, double-click is really only helpful in expert and sometimes in intermediate)
EDIT:
I've actually started a lot of games from the top/bottom edges and that seems to be a very good concession of the two. | You're math isn't necessarily wrong, you're just looking at it the wrong way...if you want to play a game like minesweeper (that usually requires guessing/chance to complete) for completion percentages go right ahead...I just don't see the point in playing that way...if I'm going for accuracy/completion then I set something like "I want to see how many I can complete "in under 100 seconds" since a percentage of games completed isn't a proper attribute of skill. |
chetbartisek | i tried to close the window by hitting the 'x'
tldr; im dumb. | i tried to close the window by hitting the 'x'
tldr; im dumb.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c776f94 | i tried to close the window by hitting the 'x' | im dumb. |
Jordo_99 | I'm glad you're seeing the light XD
...I'm not sure that giving you a free square when the chances are already low matters enough to make an impact:
30x16 array makes 480 squares and 99 bombs gives you a 79.375% chance of hitting an empty square on the first click...making that 100% isn't really making much of a difference
Now, that becomes even less important when you consider that someone going for a record/fast time isn't going to continue until they hit a large expanse...something that very rarely happens on the first try and usually takes numerous clicks...say 3 clicks and the total percentage is (forgive me for not making lazy stats) 35% vs 49% which is only 14% difference -- meaning you'd have to spend roughly 1/8th more time before getting a good start at 3 clicks and that figure is only going to dwindle as the number of clicks are increased.
when I would go for a personal best time, I wouldn't start playing unless I had an expanse of roughly 1/5 of the board showing--whether that be one huge expanse or multiple small ones
Further more, the "free click" versions of Minesweeper (post-XP) aren't even legal for competition and official scores.
...not trying to be pretentious in this last bit (or any of my posts...full intent is to make other people better players) but a serious player just isn't going to use the windows version at all...there is a special "official" version. I remember that it kept track of stats that shown the amount of skill for any given game (taking into consideration the empty spaces and the amount of work needed to pass the level) and it might have even have a feature which records games for playback.
Edit:
Here's the site for "official minesweeper records" -- the download section has the "hard-core version of minesweeper if anybody wants to try it out:
TL;DR
Just trying to help people get better and middle is still best...sorry if I came off abrasive at all...I've got an obsession with providing sources/examples when I try to convince people of something, hence the long posts.
Check out if you're interested in the serious side of the game XD | I'm glad you're seeing the light XD
...I'm not sure that giving you a free square when the chances are already low matters enough to make an impact:
30x16 array makes 480 squares and 99 bombs gives you a 79.375% chance of hitting an empty square on the first click...making that 100% isn't really making much of a difference
Now, that becomes even less important when you consider that someone going for a record/fast time isn't going to continue until they hit a large expanse...something that very rarely happens on the first try and usually takes numerous clicks...say 3 clicks and the total percentage is (forgive me for not making lazy stats) 35% vs 49% which is only 14% difference -- meaning you'd have to spend roughly 1/8th more time before getting a good start at 3 clicks and that figure is only going to dwindle as the number of clicks are increased.
when I would go for a personal best time, I wouldn't start playing unless I had an expanse of roughly 1/5 of the board showing--whether that be one huge expanse or multiple small ones
Further more, the "free click" versions of Minesweeper (post-XP) aren't even legal for competition and official scores.
...not trying to be pretentious in this last bit (or any of my posts...full intent is to make other people better players) but a serious player just isn't going to use the windows version at all...there is a special "official" version. I remember that it kept track of stats that shown the amount of skill for any given game (taking into consideration the empty spaces and the amount of work needed to pass the level) and it might have even have a feature which records games for playback.
Edit:
Here's the site for "official minesweeper records" -- the download section has the "hard-core version of minesweeper if anybody wants to try it out:
TL;DR
Just trying to help people get better and middle is still best...sorry if I came off abrasive at all...I've got an obsession with providing sources/examples when I try to convince people of something, hence the long posts.
Check out if you're interested in the serious side of the game XD
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c78bxih | I'm glad you're seeing the light XD
...I'm not sure that giving you a free square when the chances are already low matters enough to make an impact:
30x16 array makes 480 squares and 99 bombs gives you a 79.375% chance of hitting an empty square on the first click...making that 100% isn't really making much of a difference
Now, that becomes even less important when you consider that someone going for a record/fast time isn't going to continue until they hit a large expanse...something that very rarely happens on the first try and usually takes numerous clicks...say 3 clicks and the total percentage is (forgive me for not making lazy stats) 35% vs 49% which is only 14% difference -- meaning you'd have to spend roughly 1/8th more time before getting a good start at 3 clicks and that figure is only going to dwindle as the number of clicks are increased.
when I would go for a personal best time, I wouldn't start playing unless I had an expanse of roughly 1/5 of the board showing--whether that be one huge expanse or multiple small ones
Further more, the "free click" versions of Minesweeper (post-XP) aren't even legal for competition and official scores.
...not trying to be pretentious in this last bit (or any of my posts...full intent is to make other people better players) but a serious player just isn't going to use the windows version at all...there is a special "official" version. I remember that it kept track of stats that shown the amount of skill for any given game (taking into consideration the empty spaces and the amount of work needed to pass the level) and it might have even have a feature which records games for playback.
Edit:
Here's the site for "official minesweeper records" -- the download section has the "hard-core version of minesweeper if anybody wants to try it out: | Just trying to help people get better and middle is still best...sorry if I came off abrasive at all...I've got an obsession with providing sources/examples when I try to convince people of something, hence the long posts.
Check out if you're interested in the serious side of the game XD |
Jordo_99 | There are equal chances that a corner will contain a bomb as any other square...yet clicking he corner only provides insight on up to 3 neighboring squares compared to 8 if starting from the middle. After that first click you have only 3 moves to follow up with...if any if those has a bomb you have no "free" moves...if going from he middle you have options under the same circumstances.
TL;DR Corner is the worst possible first move...sometimes natural instincts aren't helpful at all. | There are equal chances that a corner will contain a bomb as any other square...yet clicking he corner only provides insight on up to 3 neighboring squares compared to 8 if starting from the middle. After that first click you have only 3 moves to follow up with...if any if those has a bomb you have no "free" moves...if going from he middle you have options under the same circumstances.
TL;DR Corner is the worst possible first move...sometimes natural instincts aren't helpful at all.
| gaming | t5_2qh03 | c7764j0 | There are equal chances that a corner will contain a bomb as any other square...yet clicking he corner only provides insight on up to 3 neighboring squares compared to 8 if starting from the middle. After that first click you have only 3 moves to follow up with...if any if those has a bomb you have no "free" moves...if going from he middle you have options under the same circumstances. | Corner is the worst possible first move...sometimes natural instincts aren't helpful at all. |
crystanow | This is for a 2 month relationship? Your 19 you don't need this, and you clearly don't work together. She sounds immature and loves drama - although she's young so maybe she will grow out of it. But just like whatever she wants you to change, it won't happen in 5 days.
tldr: this is in no way worth it. | This is for a 2 month relationship? Your 19 you don't need this, and you clearly don't work together. She sounds immature and loves drama - although she's young so maybe she will grow out of it. But just like whatever she wants you to change, it won't happen in 5 days.
tldr: this is in no way worth it.
| relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | c776ef3 | This is for a 2 month relationship? Your 19 you don't need this, and you clearly don't work together. She sounds immature and loves drama - although she's young so maybe she will grow out of it. But just like whatever she wants you to change, it won't happen in 5 days. | this is in no way worth it. |
buttercat | I agree, I think splitting checks is tacky. As a female, however, I always feels slightly awkward when the bill comes on a first date. I much prefer when the guy smoothly has his credit card/cash out and just hands it to the server. So then there is no awkward moment when we're both staring at the check. Then I will proceed to thank him for dinner and offer to buy drinks after dinner. This also leads to extended date time :).
After the 3rd or 4th date is when I will start alternating paying for dinners, tickets etc.. And for the guys, if she does not start buying a few drinks, dinners etc by the 3rd or 4th date, she is probably high maintenance and you should run far far away.
TL;DR: Guys should just pay the bill without her noticing on the first few dates. If she doesn't return the favor after 3 dates, move on. | I agree, I think splitting checks is tacky. As a female, however, I always feels slightly awkward when the bill comes on a first date. I much prefer when the guy smoothly has his credit card/cash out and just hands it to the server. So then there is no awkward moment when we're both staring at the check. Then I will proceed to thank him for dinner and offer to buy drinks after dinner. This also leads to extended date time :).
After the 3rd or 4th date is when I will start alternating paying for dinners, tickets etc.. And for the guys, if she does not start buying a few drinks, dinners etc by the 3rd or 4th date, she is probably high maintenance and you should run far far away.
TL;DR: Guys should just pay the bill without her noticing on the first few dates. If she doesn't return the favor after 3 dates, move on.
| AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | c78i0t3 | I agree, I think splitting checks is tacky. As a female, however, I always feels slightly awkward when the bill comes on a first date. I much prefer when the guy smoothly has his credit card/cash out and just hands it to the server. So then there is no awkward moment when we're both staring at the check. Then I will proceed to thank him for dinner and offer to buy drinks after dinner. This also leads to extended date time :).
After the 3rd or 4th date is when I will start alternating paying for dinners, tickets etc.. And for the guys, if she does not start buying a few drinks, dinners etc by the 3rd or 4th date, she is probably high maintenance and you should run far far away. | Guys should just pay the bill without her noticing on the first few dates. If she doesn't return the favor after 3 dates, move on. |
gentlegentleman | Although this (like most things) might differ from man to man, here is my opinion:
I think it's a nice gesture, since not offering to pay any of it seems as if you expected him to pay the bill in the first place. Normally, if he has manners he would insist at least once on paying it after your suggestion. Then let him.
If you enjoyed your time together you could add something like "Ok, I'll pick it up the next time ;)" which gives him a positive feedback and steers him towards not having any doubts about "should I ask her out again?". Furthermore it gives you feedback as well. If he enjoyed it as well he won't be able to not smile on that comment.
The worst that could happen: There won't be a second date but the first one didn't cost you anything but your time.
Last but not least a scenario like that would at least take a little weight off of that awkward moment at the end, since it just became more clear for both of you that you (both) had a great time!
**TL;DR: I think it's not threatening at all, it shows manners... do it but let him pay anyway ;)** | Although this (like most things) might differ from man to man, here is my opinion:
I think it's a nice gesture, since not offering to pay any of it seems as if you expected him to pay the bill in the first place. Normally, if he has manners he would insist at least once on paying it after your suggestion. Then let him.
If you enjoyed your time together you could add something like "Ok, I'll pick it up the next time ;)" which gives him a positive feedback and steers him towards not having any doubts about "should I ask her out again?". Furthermore it gives you feedback as well. If he enjoyed it as well he won't be able to not smile on that comment.
The worst that could happen: There won't be a second date but the first one didn't cost you anything but your time.
Last but not least a scenario like that would at least take a little weight off of that awkward moment at the end, since it just became more clear for both of you that you (both) had a great time!
TL;DR: I think it's not threatening at all, it shows manners... do it but let him pay anyway ;)
| AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | c78btbq | Although this (like most things) might differ from man to man, here is my opinion:
I think it's a nice gesture, since not offering to pay any of it seems as if you expected him to pay the bill in the first place. Normally, if he has manners he would insist at least once on paying it after your suggestion. Then let him.
If you enjoyed your time together you could add something like "Ok, I'll pick it up the next time ;)" which gives him a positive feedback and steers him towards not having any doubts about "should I ask her out again?". Furthermore it gives you feedback as well. If he enjoyed it as well he won't be able to not smile on that comment.
The worst that could happen: There won't be a second date but the first one didn't cost you anything but your time.
Last but not least a scenario like that would at least take a little weight off of that awkward moment at the end, since it just became more clear for both of you that you (both) had a great time! | I think it's not threatening at all, it shows manners... do it but let him pay anyway ;) |
Clicker8371 | It really comes down to your teammates. Do they have the patience to wait out a Katarina that sits on top of ward? If so, push that tower to the ground.
If they're getting upset or playing recklessly, you're going to want to follow and try to turn the fight around. Or prevent it all together.
If for instance your mid laner roams top and your top lane is wardless, ping and call MIA, but you're going to want to follow just in case.
tldr: Depends on the skill/awareness/patience of your team. | It really comes down to your teammates. Do they have the patience to wait out a Katarina that sits on top of ward? If so, push that tower to the ground.
If they're getting upset or playing recklessly, you're going to want to follow and try to turn the fight around. Or prevent it all together.
If for instance your mid laner roams top and your top lane is wardless, ping and call MIA, but you're going to want to follow just in case.
tldr: Depends on the skill/awareness/patience of your team.
| summonerschool | t5_2t9x3 | c79iz15 | It really comes down to your teammates. Do they have the patience to wait out a Katarina that sits on top of ward? If so, push that tower to the ground.
If they're getting upset or playing recklessly, you're going to want to follow and try to turn the fight around. Or prevent it all together.
If for instance your mid laner roams top and your top lane is wardless, ping and call MIA, but you're going to want to follow just in case. | Depends on the skill/awareness/patience of your team. |
BlueTact | I don't really see a problem. It is just a surrender box with colours. All you are doing is jumping on the season 3 patch hate train.
**TLDR: Downvote me plz** | I don't really see a problem. It is just a surrender box with colours. All you are doing is jumping on the season 3 patch hate train.
TLDR: Downvote me plz
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c7bhiz4 | I don't really see a problem. It is just a surrender box with colours. All you are doing is jumping on the season 3 patch hate train. | Downvote me plz |
Deutro | I agree with you in most of what you said. The problem I see is that football players now that they will get "banned" for doing shit and behaving like douches.
We dont know if IWDominate knew that he can get banned from professional gaming. He knew that his account may get permabanned but that is his personal problem.
Imho its right to ban players from professional games if they act like IWDominate did but you should get a warning like: "Hey IWDominate change your behaviour or we will ban you from the professional scene".
Tl;dr: Ban justified, correct way to handle the situation from Riot? Imo no! | I agree with you in most of what you said. The problem I see is that football players now that they will get "banned" for doing shit and behaving like douches.
We dont know if IWDominate knew that he can get banned from professional gaming. He knew that his account may get permabanned but that is his personal problem.
Imho its right to ban players from professional games if they act like IWDominate did but you should get a warning like: "Hey IWDominate change your behaviour or we will ban you from the professional scene".
Tl;dr: Ban justified, correct way to handle the situation from Riot? Imo no!
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c7bk3rz | I agree with you in most of what you said. The problem I see is that football players now that they will get "banned" for doing shit and behaving like douches.
We dont know if IWDominate knew that he can get banned from professional gaming. He knew that his account may get permabanned but that is his personal problem.
Imho its right to ban players from professional games if they act like IWDominate did but you should get a warning like: "Hey IWDominate change your behaviour or we will ban you from the professional scene". | Ban justified, correct way to handle the situation from Riot? Imo no! |
SeriousDan | It's definately a good step to "clean up" in high elo territory for once, especially when players get money from Riot to be a professional gamer and represent their game.
On the other hand though, the times I've seen IWD on streams he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. There's joking trash talking in almost all games and since the introduction of the Tribunal everybody has grown really thin-skinned.
Now I don't say that what he did was right but a year long ban is also a grave punishment for somebody who relies on tournament earnings (aka pro players). Being probably 10 years above the age of the average league player I don't really get upset about flaming (which seems to be what IWD has been banned for); everyone has bad games/days every now and then and of course, you only hear about the bad ones on the Tribunal.
On the other hand you have players like Dyrus who troll and feed on purpose (on a stream with 10k viewers no less) or just afk/ragequit games. As a player I'd rather have somebody on my team who's raging at me for making a mistake (nobody rages at somebody for no reason to be honest) than somebody who's actively working for the other team to win. Of course, we won't see any punishment for Dyrus though because Riot loves TSM for some reason (also inb4 fanboy downvotes).
TL;DR: If Riot really wants punishment this harsh for the pro players that made their game famous in the first place they should hold all pro players to the same standards. Also stop getting upset about words, people. | It's definately a good step to "clean up" in high elo territory for once, especially when players get money from Riot to be a professional gamer and represent their game.
On the other hand though, the times I've seen IWD on streams he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. There's joking trash talking in almost all games and since the introduction of the Tribunal everybody has grown really thin-skinned.
Now I don't say that what he did was right but a year long ban is also a grave punishment for somebody who relies on tournament earnings (aka pro players). Being probably 10 years above the age of the average league player I don't really get upset about flaming (which seems to be what IWD has been banned for); everyone has bad games/days every now and then and of course, you only hear about the bad ones on the Tribunal.
On the other hand you have players like Dyrus who troll and feed on purpose (on a stream with 10k viewers no less) or just afk/ragequit games. As a player I'd rather have somebody on my team who's raging at me for making a mistake (nobody rages at somebody for no reason to be honest) than somebody who's actively working for the other team to win. Of course, we won't see any punishment for Dyrus though because Riot loves TSM for some reason (also inb4 fanboy downvotes).
TL;DR: If Riot really wants punishment this harsh for the pro players that made their game famous in the first place they should hold all pro players to the same standards. Also stop getting upset about words, people.
| leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | c7blhtq | It's definately a good step to "clean up" in high elo territory for once, especially when players get money from Riot to be a professional gamer and represent their game.
On the other hand though, the times I've seen IWD on streams he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary. There's joking trash talking in almost all games and since the introduction of the Tribunal everybody has grown really thin-skinned.
Now I don't say that what he did was right but a year long ban is also a grave punishment for somebody who relies on tournament earnings (aka pro players). Being probably 10 years above the age of the average league player I don't really get upset about flaming (which seems to be what IWD has been banned for); everyone has bad games/days every now and then and of course, you only hear about the bad ones on the Tribunal.
On the other hand you have players like Dyrus who troll and feed on purpose (on a stream with 10k viewers no less) or just afk/ragequit games. As a player I'd rather have somebody on my team who's raging at me for making a mistake (nobody rages at somebody for no reason to be honest) than somebody who's actively working for the other team to win. Of course, we won't see any punishment for Dyrus though because Riot loves TSM for some reason (also inb4 fanboy downvotes). | If Riot really wants punishment this harsh for the pro players that made their game famous in the first place they should hold all pro players to the same standards. Also stop getting upset about words, people. |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 37