author
stringlengths 3
20
| subreddit
stringclasses 20
values | subreddit_id
stringclasses 20
values | id
stringlengths 4
9
| content
stringlengths 4
39.3k
| summary
stringlengths 1
10.1k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
divinesleeper | changemyview | t5_2w2s8 | chqm0zd | Rather than saying "look at all the atrocities that are allowed, what does one more matter", you should be saying "at least there is one atrocity less that's allowed."
As argued by others, I find all exploitation of animals messed up, it's only natural that we'd try to prevent what we can. The farming industry however is much more internalized and much more difficult to try to fix.
The next step would be to ban artificial insemination, but that'll cost the farm multinationals a lot of money, which means lots of lobbying against it, which means it is very difficult to pass. All we can do is protest by example and try our best to make some changes. | it is not the arguments against bestiality that are weak, it is the arguments for the food industry that are. |
darknesslit | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | chs7odp | When I started playing LoL I got the game in spanish and instead of ''G'' of gold it was ''O'' of oro. | it's 363 gold not 3630 |
Kyoraki | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | chtzeg1 | Oh don't worry, the Commonwealth doesn't work like that. All it is, is an exclusive set of trade deals for former members of the empire. That way all the modern economic groundwork we set in place doesn't go to waste, and everyone gets the bonus of not being forcibly ruled by a small island nation on the other side of the globe, which they never liked for some reason. | your debt and healthcare problems are still you own. Sorry about that. |
notdeadanymore | relationships | t5_2qjvn | cht4ckq | It's difficult for people to understand your point of view when they've had sex themselves, and they know first hand that there is no lasting 'special bond' from vaginal intercourse. For a long time I was an "everything but" Christian girl and my perceived virginity was very important to me. I changed my mind, but I still remember how incredibly important the line I'd drawn was to me at the time.
Honestly, you need to end this relationship. First of all, marriage matters to you and he's not sure he ever wants to get married. How can you know he will ever actually go through with marriage? I was in a relationship where he was at first lukewarm about marriage and as time went on, he became more and more sure that he never wanted to get married.
Secondly, it's unfortunate that he didn't take you seriously at the beginning of the relationship. I don't agree that your refusal to have sex before marriage means you're not committed to the relationship, but I also understand not wanting to commit to marriage with someone who won't have sex with you. I know that you feel compatible sexually already, but for many people intercourse is the main event. It is very possible to be happy with your oral/manual sex life but to be extremely mismatched when it comes to sexual intercourse. You won't know until you've tried it...and obviously, by the time you're married, it's too late.
This is why it's important that your partner also wants to wait for marriage... that it matters to him as an individual as well as being something he thinks is beneficial to your relationship. If you're both invested in waiting, then you'll be committed to making it work once you're married. If he waits because you want to, gets married because you want to... and things are tough once you're married... blame and resentment will fall on you. | You're right, there is no compromise here. Save yourselves deeper heartbreak down the line and find someone whose values line up with yours. |
HotDickens | relationships | t5_2qjvn | cht9jma | Agree wholeheartedly with this, consent is very sexy! and wanted to add:
This is coming from someone who is making a huge compromise in her own relationship.
OP, so far, it sounds like you have a closed mind about this, by saying that you KNOW you're not ever going to change your mind. You're 25, I'm sure there's something you've changed your mind on before that you thought you never would. Sometimes when we make these decisions in our values, your real feelings start to take a back seat to the principle of being consistent. Think about your decision and how you feel about it then decide if you should talk to your partner about it. Sometimes it can be really nice to hear the reasons they want something you don't and it can convince you to be more open to the idea. but first you gotta decide weather you're open to being open.
Now I want to talk to you about something really important that you touched on a little bit in your post: there are other ways partners express commitment to one another outside of marriage. You've mentioned that your boy feels that sex is an expression of commitment. You've also said it yourself that sex creates a special bond, and it even enhances the special bond that already exists. I'm willing to bet that your boyfriend probably shares this view and isn't it beautiful that your boyfriend wants to share that with you? I think too often in our society we think men just want sex because they're horny, and women want sex because of intimacy when that's a load of gender bullshit.
In your post, I think you have a somewhat unhealthy view of sex. Using language and phrases like "giving up" which I think might be rooted in putting your virginity in a weird place. You see sex as something you are sacrificing, something that you are giving up when he sees you not having sex as you giving up on wanting a fulfilling relationship. He also said he's willing to wait 1-2 years for you, and that's another expression of commitment. He is telling you he wants to be with you in a long term sense, but let's you know he still wants that physical relationship with you.
You need to be very honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it. Just because you marry someone, doesn't mean you're going to spend the rest of your life with them. And just because you're not married to someone, doesn't mean they're not going to be with you for the rest of your life. Marriage as an institution has little to do with two people staying together, the people in the relationship are the ones who have to do the work to stay together. | You've been dating this guy for 5 months, and that to me that is a very short amount of time compared to your decision to wait. Though, 5 months is also long enough to have serious feelings for a person. If you think maybe you're open to having a sexual relationship with your partner, talk to him about why he wants one and figure out what you want. If you're uncomfortable and feel no desire to change your stance, you deserve someone who respects that stance. Be honest with yourself about weather or not this value has become enforced on principle or because you really want it. |
P0MI | summonerschool | t5_2t9x3 | chx0fyr | Usually when you think of how well an ap scales you think of a few things. One - how much cc do they get as they level up? This is why elise is so popular in the jungle with a CDR build. Her cocoon becomes a 2 second stun on a 6 second cooldown with max cdr. Another way to interpret how good an ap champion scales into the late game is looking at their AP ratios, in my opinion Orianna is a perfect example of this. She has solid ap ratios and a lot of them as well. Her passive, q, w, e shield and e damage on return, and ult all have ap ratios, and she provides utility and cc so she is like the queen of scaling mids. Other reasons ap champs can scale is because they build items that get stronger as the game goes on. Champs like ryze and karthus come to mind because they build tear into rod of ages most of the time thus making them weak early but incredibly strong later in the game. | AP Ratios > Item Builds> CC> Utility - all of these qualities are what determines how well an ap champs scales into the late game. |
Sacrix | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | chy2e87 | No they won't, because customers will never use them again if they do so
Been living under a rock? Snowden exposed how many companies including the big players pass all kinds of data towards the NSA, yet everyone still uses services by these companies.
>You are the type of tin-foil conspiracy theorist that will call every corporation innately evil because, by law, directors' owe a duty to the company and this means making financially sound (as opposed to morally ethical) decisions.
Uh, no. What the fuck. Also, you'll find that "conspiracy theorist" doesn't carry much weight anymore. Everyone who claimed the governments are spying on us were correct. Again, been living under a rock? Ever heard of what Snowden did?
>But part of this 'evil' is the counterbalance that outright selling personal information to the government will lose customers and thus be against the interests of that company.
That depends. If a company makes money by doing so, they do so. Economics 101. If a company can do so without the public knowing about it, they do so. If a company earns more money by selling the data than they lose customers (see above, they barely lose customers), they do so. It takes a twisted mind or one intended to spread propaganda to view it any other way.
>Furthermore, most companies are contractually obliged by their privacy policy not to sell your personal information to an intelligence department and only marketing relevant information is used (e.g. your viewing habits on Youtube).
First of all, my "viewing habits on YouTube" are personal information. "Marketing relevant information" is personal information, especially in the case of targeted advertisements everyone's doing these days. It is a characteristic unique to the individual. But that aside, these "most companies" you refer to have designed their contracts in such a way they can sell it to whom they please and get away with it. That's how it works. That's how it's been going for years, if not ever since the emergence of the Internet. On top of that: You don't need to be a member of any service for the company to collect data on you. See Facebook ghost/shadow profiles.
>If the public got wind of one company that was selling incredibly private information to the Government they would absolutely be fucked - competitors could use it against them in smear campaigns, contracts will be broken and sued upon, faith will be lost in the company, shareholders will get spooked and sell their shares.
Hahahahahahaha- you aren't serious, are you? Have you really been offline for the past 10 years? Sorry, but what you claim is downright false. Companies have been selling your data to other companies, especially advertising companies. Where do you think targeted ads come from?
>So again, I say that I don't give a toss as to whether a company uses marketing information about me and sells that around (within reason).
That's fine. If you don't care about your privacy, that's all up to you.
>I care if you assert they sell it to the Government.
That's strange how you draw the line for yourself there, but okay. If you truly care, you should be enraged by now, but since you seem to be under the illusion that you are a free untracked anonymous person on the Interwebs, I'm afraid you don't realize how wrong you are yet. I say wrong, instead of ignorant or unknowing, because you actively make false claims instead of merely not knowing what's been going on the past decade.
>They might be compelled to get it, but they don't sell it. Yeah I'm uncomfortable about other information companies might have that could get dug up later in my life by individuals, but this law isn't about that so that's off-topic.
Wait- hold the fucking phone. What law? Is there a single law for Government Surveillance? Wow, I thought it was much more deeply rooted than that! Pfew, guess things aren't as bad after all.
Oh wait, that's wrong.
And, last, you are uncomfortable with information companies having details about you that could haunt you later (which, mind you, is part of what the NSA does), but you claim "this law", whatever law you mean by that, isn't about that? While the subject of this thread is mass government surveillance that does exactly what you're uncomfortable with? That genuinely confuses me. Did you try to say something else and did I just misinterpret some sloppy phrases, or do you really not know what you're saying? | Person above doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Been living under a rock for the past decade or something. |
watdoidohere1 | AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | ci068zh | My close friend, we'll call her Kelly.
Kelly and I met about 3 years ago when we worked at the same bar. We worked at 3 restaurant/bars in total for the last three years. I saw her every day, we lived 5 minutes away and I was in need of a close girlfriend that was nearby(my childhood friends were about 30 mins away). We spent a lot of time together and she started to bring me out on the town, which really pissed my SO of the time off.
Eventually him and I broke up, so most of my time was spent with Kelly since we still worked together and she lived right next to our workplace, she often invited me over after work and I would stay a lot of nights out of the week. I began to notice changes in myself and her, she became more in need of my attention since I had recently moved back to my home town now thirty minutes away and had no vehicle. I also noticed when I would stay there I would start to slack on basic life stuff, trying to get out of work so we can hang out, not going home for days and partying too much.
I ended up getting a new job that no longer took me to the area where she lived and I was/am just trying to get my life together as an unwilling participant of adulthood. Well, this really pissed Kelly off.
She was still at a bar job with odd hours and every time she wanted to hang out it had to be at her place and she would want me to spend the night. Well, I fucking work in the AM and I don't have time to drive for 40 minutes to work every damn week because I hate commuting. I try and tell her we can do other things but she gets SO mad when I don't want to stay with her. Finally one day she freaked the fuck out, I mean REALLY freaked out, started screaming at me about how she's lonely and now she's getting old and that I'm making her feel like an obligation. I sat there and let her scream, and I don't deal well with anger or confrontation so I always need to give myself time before I respond or else I, for lack of a better term, lose my damn mind. I told her that I thought I should go and I needed to think about what just happened and she just continued to scream "Why?! Why are you leaving?!" and I left.
I can't take it anymore I've been ignoring her calls and texts and don't care to salvage the relationship because she stresses me the fuck out. I have enough on my plate and I don't want to hurt her feelings but, I just want her to fuck off. | Fuck Kelly. |
flyingbatbeaver | AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | chywjzy | This was about a month or so ago, but every time I think about it my blood boils.
She is 31, I'm 27. She is one of those "high on life" type of people and has a million fb friends. We used to work together.
There was some chick on my fb that would do scene by scene commentary on shows she watched. Revenge, Dallas, homeland (?), and game of thrones. I watch none of those, other than GOT. But my feed would be clogged with "omg team Carrie" "I wish I could wear what she's wearing" and just stupid shit.
I could have easily unfriended her, but I would get simple enjoyment of making fun of her too.
Anyways, I finally got fed up with her and called her out when she was posting about GOT and the purple wedding. Blatantly giving away the episode as it's playing. Posting things that said "ding dong the _ is dead" (sung to the tube of ding dong the witch is dead). "The send their regards to the ___" basically one sentence away from saying "hey guys, this guy is dead!!!!!!"
I told her thanks for spoiling it for everyone. I knew what was going to happen in the first place, my husband read the books and he tells me what goes on. I don't mind because he's telling me and only me, not yelling it out on fb ruining it for everyone else.
She basically responds with " so just hide me". I tell her that it's unfair that if anyone who isn't watching the show as it airs will get the show ruined. She shoots back with " you obviously don't know me if you think I'm doing it on purpose. I love GOT and I get emotionally invested in it". I shoot back with " i never claimed you did it intentionally, I just think you aren't being considerate of other people who haven't watched the show yet. I love walking dead, I get invested in the characters as well. But never once have I ruined it for other people. If someone dies I always kept it ambiguous 'oh man, that was intense' not 'omg RIP _ "
I did a very immature thing and "released the kraken on her". I got my husband to comment on that thread with GOT book spoilers. I have no regrets. She immediately deleted his comments and unfriended him.
I forgot what else was said because it was late at night and I had to go to bed. In the morning, I checked the thread and it was gone. So was her fb, she deactivated it and made a new account. | chick on my fb that is passionate and emotionally invested in shows/movies/etc. spoils every show. I call her out because it got super annoying and that she was being a hypocrite. She wants the experience, but doesn't care that she is basically stealing that experience from other people. She goes "sorry, not sorry". My husband posts spoilers on her fb, she ends up deactivating her fb and makes a new one.
No regrets |
Stacks_of_Books | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci21fn2 | My step father raped me from the age of 12 to 16. It resulted in a pregnancy and subsequent abortion. My mother became aware at that time, although I suspect she was aware before. I testified. I talked. I gave dates that they could prove. I named times and places in which I was dragged to hotels. I also had witness to him beating me and my younger sisters.
I don't mean that we were smacked. I mean he hit us with a rake handle until the wood broke in half.
I stood in front of a judge and shakily told him what happened. My step father's attorney suggested that I was jealous of my mother and I had been seducing him for a while and while I wasn't at fault, I was complicit.
We were not rich. We were middle class. He received 4 months in jail. They decided he could only be charged with 4 accounts of statutory rape.
He wrote me from jail and said he found God and I should too.
It isn't about money. The system is broken when it comes to sex crimes. | Sex crimes are lightly punished, whether you have money or not. |
Eclipto14 | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci22c8i | No, a "false accusation" is when there is definitive evidence that—beyond a reasonable doubt—the accused did not commit a crime. This was not the case in the OP.
An example would be if you accused me of stealing your car and I provided undeniable evidence (e.g., a plane ticket, hotel receipt, credit card chargers, and surveillance footage) that proved that I was not in the city or country when your car was stolen. In this case, I am legally innocent and your accusation is proven false.
The other scenario is that you fail to provide sufficient evidence that proves within a reasonable doubt that I stole your car. In this case, I would be " not guilty " (which has a different legal definition than "innocent"). Your accusation wouldn't be counted as "false" because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that I did or did not steal your car. And please note that is a direct consequence of innocent until proven guilty . | Your testimony would only be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because I was able to prove my innocence. Your testimony would not be considered a "false accusation" if I was not convicted because you failed to prove I was guilty. In the latter, there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove your accusation which leaves its falsity unknown.
EDIT: spelling |
pamor | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci22ccp | Hey. Do you even read another article other than this one?
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses , so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the records .
>
> A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient .
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand. | The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault is one the most fucking sensitive thing to be released and to be played to an audience . The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify even without the counseling record, but then it then overturned to not allow the girl to testify if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator already admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up. |
pamor | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci22dov | I'll copy my comment :
This is the relevant bit (from [here](
>Prior to Friday's hearing, his defense had asked that the girl, now 17, be made to turn over records of her counseling sessions during the time of the alleged offenses , so that a judge could privately determine whether anything in those records might be helpful to the defense.
> The case bogged down in months of legal arguments over whether the girl would be allowed to testify against Johnson even if she refused to allow a judge to see the records .
>
> A Court of Appeals found that she could not, but last year, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, saying the trial judge's proposal — allow her testimony but then give the jury an instruction regarding her refusal to release records — was sufficient .
>
> But because the opinion seemed to be based on a combination of rationales, both sides asked the high court to reconsider. Johnson's attorneys argued it allowed the testimony without the records, and prosecutors argued it seemed to allow for a jury instruction about inferences in favor of the defendant.
>
> In its second ruling, in March, the court clarified that its earlier ruling was actually a deadlock, and therefore the Court of Appeals ruling that prohibited the girl's testimony unless she allowed review of her therapy records would stand. | The defense lawyers made a play on her counseling records, which for a victim of a sexual assault is one the most fucking sensitive thing to be released and to be played to an audience . The supreme court ruled that the victim could testify even without the counseling record, but then it then overturned to not allow the girl to testify if she does not release her counseling records..
...Even when the perpetrator already admitted that he did sexually assaulted his step-daughter.
SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY just because she didn't want to release her counseling records. That's fucked up. |
Stacks_of_Books | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci23w40 | I think in my case it was a bit harder to wiggle away from the truth. My step father had bragged to some co workers that he had taken my virginity, at least that is what I have heard. It was because he owed them money that they contacted the police and then backed up my statement. It then became possible to force my mother to admit that she had taken me to get an abortion and that she was aware of my assault.
I think if it was just me, standing alone, with no one to back up my story, the case would have been dropped. My advocate seemed to be surprised he even got 4 months. I think everyone was expecting him to get a warning.
What is really fucked up is that while waiting for the court case to make it's way through the system, I was in foster care. My sisters remained in the home with him. The courts ordered our entire family to attend therapy together.
Together is the important word here. Once a week, I was forced into a small room with him and my mother as they talked about how hard this was on them. The cost of attorneys and how much they had to sacrifices to make ends meet. At one point, I felt so guilty that my sisters didn't have any pocket money or new shoes for school or that they couldn't afford school supplies, that I told my advocate and foster parents that I no longer wanted to testify.
I just wanted to make it all stop. Thankfully my foster mom marched down to CPS and demanded they stop forcing me into therapy with my abuser and remove any means of communication between me and my parents.
That foster mom saved my life I think. | As the defendant you are always defending yourself and reliving the assult, not just in the court room, police station or hospitals. ALWAYS. |
pamor | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ci21qjy | There's a lot of powerful people, especially powerful men, who has sexually assaulted another human being. They "can have anything in the world", o.k, that's pretty right. They could buy mansions, luxury cars, have respect from other people for their status/works.. but it didn't stop many of them from raping another person. Why?
Because it didn't matter. Sexual assault is about power. One of the many reasons why so many people didn't believe Dylan Farrow (Woody Allen's stepdaughter) when she said that he sexually assaulted her when she was a child is because they do not believe how someone oh so powerful , so prolific, so great, so rich, so acclaimed and famous could so something that could destroy his whole career and life.
Some people were furious whenever someone from a low socio-economic class say that they've been sexually assaulted by someone rich and famous. They'll say, oh he have everything how could he did that? the accuser must be lying! she must've wanted the fame/his money so she made the case up! and other rationalizations even when the evidence overwhelmingly say the opposite.
The view that "the man can have anything in the god damn world" and still chose to do something heinous and illogical like molesting his stepdaughter is not an incongruous one.
edit : | whether or not the man is powerful/rich/famous doesn't matter one bit. |
saumanahaii | relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | ci23zh8 | Believe me, you are helping more than you know. Just being there for him means the world. Take that from someone who was in the same spot as him years ago. There's not much more than that you can do; the rest is up to him. There's a real risk when you're at your lowest that you take too much from those you love and you wind up damaging them, too. Don't let that happen. What's happening to him isn't your fault, its something that's part of him. That's where the solution lies, too. Be there for him, love him, and be willing to help him up from his lowest points. But don't blame yourself for what's happening to him. It's a sad confluence of situation and genes.
There is no easy solution to depression. I haven't been on drugs for years because the side effects are worse than the disease. Worse still, depression can make you manipulative as you look for something to make you hurt less. Don't let him take too much of yourself in his attempt to feel better, because the depressed are selfish in their desire to recover and they can easily ask too much. And in the end doing so will only hurt them further. Butthat doesn't mean you can't still be there for him. No matter what happens, the fact that his wellbeing matters to you matters to him. | Don't blame yourself, don't sacrifice too much to his sickness, and love him for who he is when he's not at his lowest. He'll love you for that more than he may let on. |
Willasaurus | news | t5_2qh3l | ci29kn5 | To add to that, the Olympics has become, essentially, a black hole. You pay for everything, you have to practically bribe the IOC to even look at your city, and then you get almost no money from it. Most cities who have held the Olympics go downhill afterwards, with very few exceptions. I believe it was the 2022 Olympics I read about, no one wants them because of the aforementioned issues, plus the host city has to build an Olympian village, as well as other places to house some events. | glad the Olympics didn't come to Chicago because they are a money sucking black hole. |
Slukaj | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ci35wcc | In my analogy I am treating it as a tool that specialized to a particular problem field that can be activated when a relevant problem arises to provide a solution.
Then I misunderstood, my apologies.
> String them together so that they know which other sub-systems they need to communicate with and adding on skill-sets like that you can achieve "equivalent" capability to any particular human via an entity built from a collection of weak AI's
That would be correct. You would then have to ask whether or not multiple networked machines counts as a Strong AI, or if it's still just a network of Weak AI's (or both).
My own opinion is that it would not. Imagine if we designed Weak AI machines to perform every menial task on planet Earth. Every custodial, maintenance, and menial job we can come up with. Does the ability to perform all of those tasks equate to the intelligence of a human? Do those machines that clean houses have the faculty to be truly self aware, able to learn, and be able to reason, imagine, and create the way a human does? No, of course not, ergo I would not necessarily call it a Smart AI as it does not meet or surpass the intellect of a human.
Now, to extrapolate... that's the direction our field is moving. I don't think the pursuit of a single device Strong AI is a worthwhile endeavor, largely because we don't need any single multi-purpose machine. What we need, like you mentioned, is a collection of highly specialized sub machines that can interact and communicate with each other, and are driven together by some master logic.
What I really don't think is going to happen is the construction of a machine with an intelligence on par with a human, especially to do something as menial as housework. We don't need a machine that has our brain capacity to do it, pure and simple.
> As for the definitions - weak AI is an extremely fuzzy definition.
Not in my opinion. Weak AI < human intelligence, Strong AI >= human intelligence. On the surface, that's pretty straightforward. The only problem is the definition of human intelligence.
> Strong AI is a theoretical definition as none have yet been produced. It's also relies on fuzzy definitions like "self-awareness", conscience, learning...
I can't disagree. Our own definition of human intelligence is so nebulous that we may create a Strong AI and not even know it. Does human intelligence include the ability to imagine? The ability to be creative? The ability to handle abstract thought?
In short, we don't have that definition written in a way that you or I (as computer scientists) are able to use as field goals.
EDIT: I suppose I should | that.
The question boils down to this: does the metric we use to determine if an AI is Weak or Strong hinge on computational power? Or does it hinge on ability? My personal opinion is ability, but I could see the other side holding true as well. |
flupo42 | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ci36z42 | Well in that case - strong AI by your definition is not needed.
That said a multi-purpose robot, that encapsulates a few hundred weak AIs with a set of modules and can switch between the higher-tier ones as it switches between high-level tasks like cleaning a room, folding laundry - would sell quite well. Sort of like what [Willow Garage]( are doing.
Overtime such robots might evolve in processing power and complexity of modules to become strong AIs by your definition, at least when it comes to fulfilling requirements.
Things like "learning" is in itself a set of systems of which many we have already reproduced in robots. Learning to move as we do as kids, or when we learn a particular sport - all factory robots now have smarter and smarter calibration algorithms.
Learning information and decision making - expert systems, such as medical diagnostics are all about that (and they learn pretty much the same way human doctors do).
Creativity - we already did music composition. Visual arts are held back by inability to explain what is desired. A machine that generates pictures similar to ones it has found and lets viewers grade beauty to measure it's success would be quite identical to almost all artists.
Self-awareness - that's pretty easy to give to a machine however one defines it. Let it identify itself a set of software that can hook up to the hardware that is it's body. That plus a set definition of purpose and constraints would total self awareness.
Imagination - we already have systems that are able to plan. Take the algorithms used to come up with any plan and start removing/adding/modifying constraints - already you will have a pretty good approximation of "imagination".
I am working with a SCADA control system - could give it limited imagination in the scope of its problem set with a liberal use of randomization functions and a few days of work. It could start "imagining" results of switching various breakers and cutting lines toward a whole bunch of different "goals" (some set of values of its diagnostic metrics) - and it wouldn't be all that different from a controller who stares at the wall half the day and sometimes imagines how make the city lights spell out words to planes passing by... I mean obviously our SCADA system doesn't have a concept of visual look of the city to the human eye... but hypothetically I could give it one if for example I told it to look up lyric's to a song on the web, and than pass images of how the city power map would look like in a given configuration of breakers. And pass those images through a captcha system until it starts getting better match results to the words of lyrics... | all the the properties we ascribe to strong AIs can be broken down to another set of weak AIs working together. |
hellomynameistimothy | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci30wjh | Nobody will ever see this and it is against the meta, since it is to love Phreak hard, but I do not like him casting.
LCS has become the real deal and a major face of electronic sports for the US and EU scene and it is becoming professional and that is part of what draws in the new crowd. When people come to watch a professional game and hear Phreak as their first caster they associate it with an unprofessional spirit or mannerism. This is also why I don't like him casting.
To his defense, I am almost sure I would love to hang out with him and I'd imagine I'd get along with him. His memory/ability to recollect prior games and plays is almost unparalleled (except for maybe Monte Christo), his game understanding is top notch, and his strategy awareness is obviously above that of many of the other casters or even guys on the analyst desk.
The point is, his bad puns do not belong on the main stage for a game that is trying to become the face of professional esports as his mannerisms just aren't professional. A good pun every now and then would be fine, but he shotguns them in there and tries to fit as many puns as he possibly can. Despite how intelligent the guy clearly is, it doesn't come across as intelligent or professional. | Phreak is an amazing analyst and an OK caster (IMO), but his overuse of puns and not using them tastefully is unprofessional and as a game trying to gain respect and as a sport it does LoL, LCS, and esports damage (again, in my opinion).
EDIT: Grammar |
Bronze4Life420 | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci2v6p5 | Because she is toxic to the game, she has a possible 1600 damage nuke on a 6 second cooldown, with a broken hitbox.
Also she has little weakness to compensate for this absurd damage, she is incredibly safe in the laning phase and throughout the game with her huge heals and her cougar "w".
Her slightly weak teamfighting can be compensated by having a disengage heavy team or seiging comp, she only has to land one or maybe two successful spears before you can engage and win a team fight because the carries are very low, or have to base to heal.
She is toxic to the game because you can miss most of your skill shots, but if one hits, you can win a team fight. | Stupid OP champ |
Haieshu | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci2v9df | Type: Targetted spell
Range: 550
Cooldown: 8s
Damage: 300 (+ 90% AP)
CC: Stun (1.5s)
Cost: 100 mana
vs
Type: Skillshot
Range: 1500
Cooldown: 6s
Damage: 230 (+ 65% AP) - 575 (+ 162.5% AP)
CC: -
Cost: 90 mana
Why bother taking a champ you have to get up close and personal with to mid/high damage early/midgame when you can pick the easier choice of safely spamming spears and traps from up to 1500 range, dealing up to twice the damage?
/ | OP wants to spam Nidalee a little longer.
edit: That wasn't all, but there are more reasons not to pick Sion even though he has a highdamage stun. |
ImostlyLurk | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ci4c0el | This is arrogance, small-mindedness, and ignorance, they're stealing from anyone they can, same as every other nation. Welcome to globalcapitalism101, is this your first day?
>The US is responsible for more biomedical research (45%of global spending) than almost the rest of the world combined
The US is also over diagnosing how many children with which disorders(?) to give them all sorts of psychotropic drugs? What? ADHD doesn't exist in Uganda? Yea, they're researching drugs to push them on the entire population, and they get paid to pacify us. Open your eyes.
>There has been a one-way extraction of ideas and techniques from the US for decades.
0_o Actually, The US has all sorts of restrictions on scientific research regarding stem cells, Europe is leading that charge. All sorts of advancements come from all over the world. I'm sure I could find other exceptions as well, either way remove the red white and blue dildo from your ass, think objectively.. we're sharing; and pretending that humanity's advancements belong to one group or another...
Oh and hold on; stop contradicting yourself too:
>Who the fuck is the US stealing from?
>Does international industrial espionage by the US occur? Yes.
Stealing is stealing, and humanity should be working together, not competing amongst ourselves, thus, the following comment hold absolutely no merit:
>But comparing US industrial espionage to foreign competitors is like comparing a slap from a baby to a punch from Mike Tyson.
It's by principle the same thing: stealing instead of sharing. Also fuck the dollar bill "worth" anyone is trying to assign to intellectual property, it's worth is exactly, "how can this benefit humanity".
Also, check out ARXIV.org, google scholar is just an engine, not the repository. They'd still be able to attain the information they needed without the search engine crawling those repositories, and they'd have to be dumbasses of the highest magnitude to not copy paste any reference material they needed for they own keeping. Keep in mind Arxiv is open source, peer reviewed, not the only one of it's kind. Science doesn't care about politics or the invisible borders that have been drawn about to keep people divided. People from all over the world are able to read, and build off those ideas. So the "ownership" comes down to patents? Maybe the US has the most lawyers trolling about trying to horde patents for MURICA!? Maybe this is why you FEEL the US is coming up with ev-er-ry-thing. | crypto dude has confirmation bias and sees the world through red-white-blue tinted glasses. Ideas and techniques are advanced all over the planet continuously. People think they "own" the advancements, so others steal them. Everyone steals. |
Torem_Kamina | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3v5s9 | Platinum Top Lane Nasus (kinda) main.
I never had any problems with any of those 4 champions, but judiging from how much I get supposedly counterpicked with these guys there seems to be some misconception.
First off: Anything that does entirely physical damage is generally a bad pick against Nasus unless he has sick armor shred/pen tools. Don't do it. Also, anything that has AoE and damages the wave in trades and pushes to Nasus' turret is also generally bad. If you combine both you get Riven and Renekton. Very popular picks that only work with a jungler ready to pick up your work and dive Nasus, which is the important part about shutting down Nasus.
Riven and Pantheon have no sustain and their entire damage is physical. Panth doesn't even have a combat ult. They will start losing at level 6 to all-ins (panth) or 7-9ish (riven) due to sustain issues.
Shyvana is a decent pick, she can punish and dive him quite effecitvely with a jungler and she has mixed damage.
The best champs to punish Nasus are Kayle, Teemo, Irelia, Urgot and Vladimir. Ryze also works, so does Shen with MPen marks, glyphs and quints. Some of those picks are manageable by maxing E but they don't fall off too hard and do a good job of keeping him down for a while.
They have mixed/true damage and can do a lot of damage without pushing too hard plus they are hard to kill even with wither. Most of them are easily camped though so keep warding up, Wither plus Jungle CC is very hard to escape.
so, | Option 1: Physical bully + repeated dives with jungle
Option 2: Mixed damage without minion damaging AoE, needs to outlast his sustain by either hitting too hard or being too spammable/not gated by ressource management (hi, oom pantheon) |
Urbanscuba | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3zb6w | Lee is an exceptionally excellent counter, although any champion with a strong lvl 1-5 duel potential will work. Burst is also rather good, as is cc.
Snare especially does wonders.
As a jungler valid counters are:
Lee
Khazix
Nocturne
Pantheon
Udyr
Vi
Wukong
>Your plan should be to take red level one and attempt to catch him at his second buff. Few champions are worse 1v1 at level two than Yi. Whether this is successful or not invest in a green ward or two and keep his jungle warded. One kill on him pays for 4 wards
Warwick gets a special mention, he can't really 1v1 yi but his ult can render a fed yi completely worthless.
As a top laner:
Ryze (Non-skillshot 1.5s snare on a low cooldown, build frozen heart)
Malphite (you destroy his AS and can counter his dives by ulting whoever he q's to)
Jax (you can 1v1 with counterstrike if you're even on items)
>As a top laner vs a jungle yi you should be able to safely exert a lot of pressure as long as you ward river. Depending on your communication and ELO you can organize counter ganks as well.
As mid just look for reliable burst and cc, things like:
Annie (if he doesn't dodge your AoE with q)
LeBlanc (double chains means you kite him hard)
Lux (if you can land snare he's dead)
As an adc you're at the whim of your team, but these champs could give you an edge:
Tristana (your ult can counter his initiate in teamfights and your w is a reliable escape as long as he's used his q)
Varus (the snare, if you can land it, can completely shut him down at any point on the game)
Vayne (if you have the mechanics to play her well just make sure you have ult before extending and fight him near a wall if you can. Counter his q with your condemn and kite him hard, 6 shots should kill nearly any yi)
Support (my domain of choice):
Thresh (If you can land a q onto yi he's done. Cast the q towards his target when he q's for a guaranteed hit. If he doesn't have his ult your kit also has two slows. Worst case scenario you gtfo and send your adc a lantern.)
Lulu (she's the counter-engage queen. You have whimsy to shutdown his damage and your ult and shield to mitigate it. Without his ult your q can render him immobile as well)
Braum (once you're 6 you have two reliable cc's for him to eat and a hard defense to put up for whoever his target is. Wait for him to q, while he's in midair jump to his target and spool up your ult so that it casts when he appears. While he's in the air either hit him with a q or an auto and your team should guarantee a stun. Without his ult you have hard peel with the slows+stun)
Leona (The other supports struggle with his ult negative their slows. Leona doesn't. When he uses his q just prime your zenith blade and jump onto him. Hit him with your q then immediately cast your ult on top of him, he won't be able to dodge it and your adc should be able to burst him with the help of your passive) | His main initiate (q, alpha strike) is highly predictably. Abuse that and lock him down when he comes out of it before he can even get going. If you have an unfavorable fight and somebody gets caught leave them, yi's resets can quickly turn 5 champs with some damage on them into a penta if they don't have cooldowns. |
nachokage | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3svkh | Not a Nasus main, but I think I can help a bit with it as I've got some friends that amined him a lot and played against the dog a lot of times.
I would personally recommend Urgot vs Nasus. You wreck him until levels 1-5, where you have to start playing a bit more careful (controlling minion positioning, timing his W and being aware of his ult and Q farm) and once he gets his ult he'll end up using it for trying to survive an EQQQ combo.
There are 2 ways that nasus will try to deal with you: 1) Still try to farm Q and max it, where it will probably become a free win for you or 2) he'll max E for pushing, getting some minions and farm Q in the jungle, where you will get free farm, and outscale him since he doesn't really have much to farm when the jungle is not his but still lets him become useful faster.
If you want more metalike solutions, I usually pick Lee Sin or Renekton for going all in early and snowballing for winning before Nasus becomes somehow strong. Other possibilities might be Vladimir (you're also weak early, but not like him and your range helps you to bully him since lvl1, even though you need a lot of warding to avoid early ganks) who scales pretty well into mid/late game (not as much as him, but you'll be stronger faster and bring up a lot of damage on teamfights while still being nearly as undying as him).
No matter what you do, don't push that fast his turret. Freeze the lane. Last hit and whenever he comes to take a single minion make sure he loses half his hp bar for it. Only push if you find out that your team needs you on teamfights, and still try to never let Nasus farm a single minion by going back to lane and freezing it when he's around. | Ranged champions to poke him whenever he is in range until he leaves or dies or Strong early game champions that are able to freeze the lane after lvl2 and deny him QFarm/Gold/exp because of the absurd early damage.
Hope it helps. |
belgabad | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3t7tx | Really, you need to keep him from all-in. If you can bait out his E before an engage, your jungler has a small window of opportunity to hank him very effectively and he also loses a good chunk of damage due to his passive.
You either farm to late game with an AD that out scales him or poke/out sustain him. | smart engages where he can't escape or out trade you and/or poke. |
keyer | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3to98 | You can counter Nami with Leona. You can e+q to her. She is quite squishy even with health runes so looses direct contact. It's good to do engage after her w (heal/atack) and even better after she uses her q (buble). Her abilities have quite a lot of CD at first. | Pick Leona. You will outdamage her and she can't stop You if you time your e+q well. |
PenneVodka | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3viiy | You want poke supports, but unless you're comfortable with Sona don't try her into this match up. Sona is a little UP still and to beat Morg you need to know your Q range like the back of your hand.
Instead I think the easiest match up is Karma for Morg. Karma beats Morg so hard, your poke is way too much. You can zyra too, but make sure you know how to position right, bc if she snares you in a bad spot you're dead. You can also play against her as Annie, and I personally find the match up easy , but you need to know how to bait her shield. | Karma. |
DyeMiX | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3vl5a | As Jungler: Counterjungle, shes pretty weak if she cant hit her charged q.
Lee Sin is a pretty good choice for that. He can counterjungle and kill her and if u get cought u can easily escape.
As Lane: Ward at the spots she can hit u with her q. When the enemy laner is able to kill u only with a Vi ult without her q then u should Ward a little more in the back that u can see her before she comes in range. | Vision and counterjungling are the keypoints against her to have a good early, in late u just need someone who peel for u |
DankeyKong | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3z2ls | As someone that mains yi i can say that the 2 most annoying things to get through are stun and blind. Both if those make me completely useless. As a Master Yi i ALWAYS wait until most if not all the cc is used on the other people on my team before i go in and start the killing spree. It might be a bit different in higher elo but that strategy got me from bronze 5 to my current silver 2. I find that everyone in these elo are too uncoordinated. | if you see him picked, try to get lots of stun and blind. Also fear might not work as well because if he ulted already he will just sprint in the opposite direction then sprint back. |
_Lemongrab | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci3zhc6 | I just I just recently started playing Lee Sin as a jungle main. I had to play against an Udyr who power farmed as usual and would come out for good ganks. It got to the point where he rushed Triforce and had Feral Flare already and he could just run out and chase everyone down. The only thing I can think of in this matchup is to try and gank hard while he farms and punish him for not helping as much. But if my ganks are unsuccessful then I'm stuck not scaling into late game while the enemy team kills my laners.
Any help here? | As Lee Sin vs. Udyr in the jungle |
Diaboliicol | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4036n | pick renekton, buy wards and go ham. Literally all you need to do lol. Jax is honestly my fav champ when i see him picked in ranked. I just pick renekton and i know for a fact he can't touch you in lane. Also bring ignite all in him lvl 3. Harass with powered q whenever he wants to farm and just stall it so it doesn't go near his turret. If he comes out you kill him. | don't fear jax when a gator roams the river. |
hail_swaglord | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci42gxn | DO NOT be afraid of his windwall if you are laning vs yasuo, it has a fairly long cooldown comparing to other abilities such as ziggs' or leblanc's q. Try baiting the windwall out and he is extremely vulnerable next trade. One more thing, if your jungler is ganking enemy yasuo, don't fool yourself of walking to close to him with squishy ap carries as vel'koz or above mentioned duo as he can/will try to attack and kill you due to his inability to escape the gank by just walking back to his turret. Keep track of his e stacks as it has a huge impact in early/mid trades.
I have the most problems against yasuo when I play Draven, as the axes don't bounce off the wall so beware of that in teamfights. As kiting yasuo, remember not to walk near your minions because he will use them to dash to you. Try taking advantage of yasuo's pushing/overextending and trying to all-in you all the time. | try staying out of his range while poking him, dont be afraid of windwall because the cd is massive, pressure him from distance |
JohnKarthus | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci42j3w | I think a lot of people aren't suggesting the best counter pick. Ryze is very good against renekton in lane because he can completely nullify all-ins by using his rune prison. Not only that but he can also consistently poke renekton down after getting tear. The only true threat a Renekton poses to a Ryze is the fact that he can set up really good ganks on Ryze since he has a gap closer and stun and Ryze can only use his rune prison on one person. Eventually as the game goes on, if you are playing Ryze and you manage to make it to late game, regardless of winning lane or not, you will be much more useful than him since you can wipe out his team and provide a good frontline while all he does is soak damage.
If you are not confident in being able to play the Ryze vs. Renekton matchup I would suggest picking people who can go relatively even in lane while still being able to have good impacts in the game. Champions such as Shyvana, Lee Sin, Munco and Trundle are usually able to lane vs a Renekton without giving up free kills or being massively outfarmed and pretty much all of them are more useful in the later parts of the game as well (Lee is more or less dependant on your mechanics with him).
I used to main renekton but I really think he just falls off too hard compared to the really good late game tanks and bruisers and this is what you usually want to use to your advantage. | Pick Ryze and if you aren't confident in that, choose a champion that can more or less go even with him and then be much more useful late game. Late game tops > The Gator. |
ArmySick | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci42oq8 | Hope you don't mind me disagreeing, but a under her tower leona is a lot more useful than a close tou your tower leona.
The stun lock all-in potential is awesome for a lane gank of the jungler, since leo can keep the opposing adc locked enough time for the vi/lee/elise/fiddle/xin to get there.
when she is close to your turret, UNLESS their far ahead enough for a SoloQ uncoordinated dive [in that case, your lane's lost anyway], she is useless since she can't use CC on you.
I like to freeze up the lane near my turret or at maximum in the middle of the lane, so my supp can:
1- Harass her
2- Be able to push out the other adc if she all-ins and making enemy adc have a hard time running away
3- help me run to my on turret and sustain back.
[depending on the support picked]. | freeze it up at middle of the lane/near your turret , and play accordingly with your support type.
edit: Also note that after leona uses up her r-e-w-q she's pretty much useless, so if their adc didnt follow up or you didnt get that much bursted [half hp ~~] you're good to go and ignore her and it's your turn to blow cds on the other adc] |
safetyseal | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci44m6u | He's really not all that hard.. he's got an extremely high skill-ceiling, but learning him isn't very hard. He's also one of the best jungle picks in the meta. After 5 or 6 games, you get the hang of him, just like any other champ.
If you do try to learn him, remember that you don't have to be flashy. You don't have to make big Insec plays, and you won't land every Q. He's an intimidating champion but don't let the fact that he can be very mechanically intensive scare you away from playing him. | just because you're playing Lee, doesn't mean you have to be Meteos. |
stanburger | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4ak3b | I don't really rate this idea as Rammus, he's not a bad jungler but i don't really see how he counters yi more than other options.
The rammus would have to out gank the yi for the most part because his clears so poor that yi would snowball ahead if his ganks aren't sucessful or rammus just afk farms. Also rammus can't invade yi very successfully. - this makes you better off with more agressive junglers who can both gank a lot early to snowball and invade yi. (lee singha and elise).
Also if yi gets ahead theres very little rammus can do to stop him, his taunt only does so much and rammus also needs the taunt for engage, which won't work on a yi with ghostblade, ruinking items. Yi is much more vulnerable to displacement, such as alistar and lee sin.
Then dueling potential when yi splitpushes, rammus can't deal with this either. Unless the rammus is fed as hell he wont duel the yi because he doesnt have the damage to capitalise on his cc. Jax and irelia do this nicely. | i personally think Ali, Lee Sin, Jax and irelia are overall better counters for yi. |
Treemo | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4b710 | Actually lucian has no chance to survive 1v1 against a decently farmed xin with youmuus if he manages to dash to you. You really need your support to peel for you while you kill him, or at least have flash to get away.
Your dash is so small that the slow from his E + the movement speed from youmuu's allows him to close the gap you create with your dash and then get off his third Q, at which point you are most likely dead. | If xin gets to that point, stay with your team or know where he is. You won't be able to 1v1 him unless you're very fed and have trinity. |
maxsynnott | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4cjs7 | Pantheon main here.
Pantheon in the early stages is extremely reliant on mana, you can take advantage of this buy buying early sustain such as, cloth 5 or crystalline flask, this will quickly run him out of mana. After this you want to build a armour item such as sun fire cape, after that you can build some damage or more tank depending on your champ and who's winning. When I play pantheon I find my hardest counters are Shen, Chogath, Malphite, Udyr. They absolutely crush me, the worst being Shen. | Play Shen. Cloth 5 pots. GG |
halonjuice | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4cycs | Leona has a few problems, her main problem being that Morgana and Thresh are super popular right now. Leona's other problem is that she is a super all-in champion: Once you go in, you are in and committed and you have no good inherent escape in case you get ganked or you made a mistake.
Morgana's spellshield makes Leona much more useless and (if somewhat good) forces Leona to be much more creative with her playing. All Morgana has to do is spellshield whoever Leona E's on and Leona can't do much to that person anymore.
Thresh, while not quite as big an annoyance as Morgana, can (depending on how good he is) flay Leona's e, effectively denying and stopping Leona's gapcloser and prevent Leona from getting close enough to do anything else. This of course gets a bit better at lvl 6 when Leona gets ult.
Zyra has been nerfed a good amount from before. She's still an amazing counter-engager with her ult but she is very squishy and dies if caught by pretty much anything. She does offer good poke though, still.
Annie support has been nerfed considerably since her glory days. Her passive stun now scales with levels (so it is weaker and stuns for much less at early levels) and the base damage of all her damage abilities have been lowered but she has better scaling (to weaken Annie support and strengthen Ap carry Annie). As a result, Annie is much less of a dominant early-mid game support.
I am not an AD main so the ADC stuff is just what I've observed/ believe
I actually see some Ezreals still and a few Graves every now and then. Ezreal's problem is that he needs to land his q to be effective (which has always been his problem) but Lucian and Twitch just seem to do so much more. I actually don't think Graves is that bad, he's kind of like a different Lucian. Graves is really more of an ad caster than an ADC with how his kit works, but he has to get pretty close and personal most of the time. With the safety/utility of Lucian and the pressure/assassination potential from Twitch, I assume Graves is just less useful.
Lucian is incredibly dominant early game and a great duelist/trader. A good Lucian can make a lot happen and he can still do damage from pretty far away with his ult. Lucian has an annoying amount of safety with his dash and the range of his ult. Twitch is pretty much an adc assassin that creates pressure when he can't be seen. He pops out of nowhere and bursts a squishy down with his ambush bonus, botrk, and ult. Most other ad carries lose pressure when they can't be seen on the map, but twitch actually gains pressure as long as he keeps making himself felt in the game.
As for Ryze, he is usually played top lane as a counter to most top laners because Ryze is really good at punshing and zoning most melee top laners (and guess what kind of top laners are popular right now). As a bonus he'll also usually end up scaling to lategame better than his top counterpart as well. | Morgana and Thresh beat Leona. Leona goes in, can't come out. Annie stun and base damage nerf, Zyra situational & squishy. Lucian and Twitch too good. Ryze> most top melee |
Riverain130 | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4gkay | I mained Miss Fortune in Season 2 but stopped playing her from Season 3 onwards, not just because there were better ADCs out there that could do what she could do, but also because her strengths just doesn't help to cover her weaknesses.
Her Q has decent damage but most Miss Fortune players will try to hit you with the second shot instead of the first, avoid this by constantly moving when you're behind minions, the second shot is less likely to hit you that way if the second shot can't "lock" onto you to hit you.
Her ult is powerful, but almost any support nowadays is able to stop it instantly - Leona stuns, Thresh flay/hook, Nami bubble, Braum shield. If you're against Miss Fortune, ask for a support (or even PLAY as a support) that has the CC capability to stop her ult.
Speaking of CC capability, Miss Fortune only has one soft CC - her E, the AoE slow. It's good for waveclear but doesn't offer her much escape potential. Usually Miss Fortunes will rather turn and kill you instead of trying to get out. As long as you keep attacking her to avoid her passive from coming up, and stop her ult damage, it's relatively easy to beat her. | Miss Fortune is strong, but lacks hard CC and escape. Use this to your advantage by ganking or locking her down. |
C3LM3R | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4o855 | Leona in lane hits 3 powerspikes at levels 2, 3, and 6.
For the first spike, what this means is you need to hard push your lane and hit level 2 earlier than leona does. If she zenith/stuns you while you're only level 1, it will at the very least, burn you through your pots, and then she's just going to all in you again once off cd.
If you hit level 2 first, try and all in her. If you at least burn leona or her ADC down to half health and keep them there, she definitely won't go in on you before she has shield, and even when she gets it, she'll still play passive until it's stronger when she hits levels 4-5.
If both lanes are relatively equal, you need to keep her bush warded starting the minion before she hits 3 so you can keep an eye on her. A full QWE combo out of the bush with an ADC that can proc all 3 passives could probably kill you, or send you out of lane and start it snowballing away from you.
Understand that leona is all-in with 0 sustain. That's it. Which means if she can't all in you because she's or her ADC are lower in health, abuse them and don't give them time to recover. In line with that, If leona does all in you, watch how many of her passives the opposing ADC procs. If they're synced enough that they pop all three, GTFO. If the ADC is late following up and only one gets popped, Switch the aggression around. Those passive procs account for a bit of leonas threat, and if the ADC misses 2/3 of them, thats 70-100 damage they missed out on. Now, if you and your supp go ham on the other adc since leona no longer has any peel or burst, you may actually come out ahead. Just remember, leona's combo is ~10s cd. If you're still skirmishing when that comes off, it will turn the fight back around.
Be aware, if you're in range to AA Leona (unless cait/kog/trist), she can probably get a zenith blade off onto you. Its best to harass her with skillshots if you can, and only with AA's with your supports skills off CD in case she all-ins you.
When Leona hits 6, she will go all in on you. Do not stay in lane without your support. Do not count on your tower saving you. Giving up some CS/XP/Tower to wait for jungle/support so you don't die is far better than giving up all 3 + a kill. The Range on her ult is approximately 3/4 of a screen away, so even if you think you're safe, you're probably not. At 6, If you can see her on your screen, she's a threat.
Ultimately though, Leona isn't countered by ADC's. The other support is what shuts down Leona. I climbed from low silver to Gold 1 (Plat soon, hopefully) on leona's back, and the only time I really had problems was seeing a Janna or Ali on the other team. A good Janna will ruin Leona's world, and I mean shit all over it like a puppy with diarrhea. Ali will make Leona second-guess every all in since she requires her adc to follow up. An Ali headbutting away the enemy adc when Leona goes in just leaves a stuck Leona getting beaten in the face.
After Lane phase is over, you need to make Banshee's Veil a priority. I will aim for you with R. If I hit it, the team is coming for you. Know that.
And this is just advice for all champs in general, but if leona is behind, she has a really hard time catching up. If she can't survive going all in, then most of her usefulness to the team if negated. | Hit 2 faster. Punish early. Make her afraid to all in. Expect the ham @ lvl 6. BV4Lyfe. Hope for Janna.
Edit: Forgot to add- If you know leona is in an unwarded bush, don't try to ward it right away. Just assume Leona is there prepping to kill you. Ward range = zenith blade and a combo followup. Or at the very least, AA-Q-AA your ward before it stealths negating the ward anyway. |
Albireofalakain | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci4ujc7 | Go hard before level 3. His level 1 is weak as all hell - either he takes flip and does virtually no damage beyond that, or takes Q and will struggle to so much as farm because he has no displacement to escape. At level 2, he takes the other, but still won't have the damage or speed to really do anything. This is the point where you should look to call for ganks and start shutting him out. By level 3, his second rank in Q may just be enough to start really chipping away at your health. A champion with quick dashes to recover from the flip's displacement may be helpful as well. Also, keep in mind that any champion with a skill that makes them targetable will still take ticks of poison in those frames if it's already been applied. It won't go through invulnerabilities, however. | Wreck him before level 3, or at least before ult, and try to bring mobility and counters to his displacement. |
debunking_bunk | politics | t5_2cneq | ci44d4w | Imagine the following scenario: Joe graduates from college with $40k is student loans and gets a $40k/year job. Now, both Obama's new rules (10%) and the old rules (15%) were a percentage of discretionary income (i.e. post housing, food, utilities, medicine). Assuming you get a raise of 5% per year and the poverty line increases at a rate of 3.3%, you will be start paying $281 per month, end paying $1181 per month (of course 20 years down the road) and have paid a total of $167K on a $40K loan in those 20 years, with about $80K forgiven (remember that the loan is growing faster than you are paying it off). Then assume that toward the latter end of those 20 years you get a big promotion and your income jumps 15% in one year. From that point until the 20 year mark, you will essentially be paying all of that added income toward the now larger-than-when-you-started-principal on the loan.
See this [loan calculator]( | It is not good to encourage people to pay as little as possible toward their loan obligations because it will likely bite them in the long run.
Edit: added loan calculator link |
Corran54 | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ci5jd8g | I mean, 1. ghost and heal are very good summoner spells in dominion as is upgrading boots considering that as a general rule, movement speed dominates dominion.
moving as a group is not as uncommon as normal's or ranked since there are no real "lanes" you win by taking and holding towers, so do whatever is working to win.
Can't explain them having the bear claw icon, except that on occasion I will see everyone (myself included) with that icon while loading for a game. Idk if It's a bug or what, but it happens.
Basically I'm playing Devils advocate here and saying that this is circumstantial, There is evidence that these could be bots, but there is reasonable doubt that they are not.
More of what I've seen from bots are a ton of losses, the same build every time, and most will follow a player. I don't see that from the lolking that you posted. | Could be Bots, could not be Bots. Evidence is not withstanding. |
sealifelover5 | AskWomen | t5_2rxrw | ci8rapb | A lot of people have mentioned not to stress about friends, but I'm going to add on to that.
I met 2 friends during orientation. I'm still friends with one, but the other stopped seeing both of us by November. I made one friend in February and four in March-May.
One of my friends has a ton of other friends. Another is friends with only me and her roommates-and we didn't become friends till third quarter. Don't stress about it. One close friend is a lot better than 5 friends who don't answer your texts when you need support.
The first year of college can be really, really difficult. ALL of my friends had a hard time, as did I. That's okay. That's normal. Colleges have mental health services. USE THEM. Four of my friends did, and had never received mental health care before, but needed it then. | Don't stress if you don't make friends right away. If you're feeling depressed, anxious, having trouble adjusting, just want someone to talk to, whatever, go see a therapist. It's accessible and affordable when you're in college and that's not always going to be true. |
403redditor | Fitness | t5_2qhx4 | ci9ewz7 | All right.
Wiki seems | though. |
benz650 | tifu | t5_2to41 | cia4q1r | I always keep my contacts in. I decided to get the night and day contacts at one point.....such a bad idea. I guess my eyes didn't like the night and day contact that much. My white antibodies tried to eat the contact, failed, so they decided to eat my cornea. I was almost blind. Its funny how the contact that you are "allowed" to keep in your eyes nearly made me blind when the regular contact cause me no problems...and no I didn't learn from my mistake I still sleep with them. | cornea for breakfast |
Fools1 | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cian1z9 | I think the biggest problem is that it is very difficult to prove non-physical abuse, regardless of the victim(or offender)'s sex. Unless the incident is recorded, it is just one person's word against another. So people in abusive relationships don't have a clear "out".
Also, abuse in general doesn't usually start at such an extreme level, or the victim wouldn't have stayed long enough for it to become such an issue. It is like a bad habit. Nobody is nice to everyone all the time, and the occasional heated disagreement is hardly a bad thing. It shows that the people involved actually care about the issue at hand and what the other person thinks about it. The problem is when things become more and more one-sided, or either party attempts to control the other.
Keep in mind that you can't force an ideology into someone's head, no matter how morally sound it is. If you want more guys to understand and empathize, you have to be able to connect with them. Communicate in a way they'll better understand, as they have no sense of obligation to listen to your stance. People tend to be somewhat attached to the way they think, and people who think differently are simply wrong. That isn't to say you can't change someone's attitude, it is just difficult.
Entertaining the idea that abuse doesn't require physical damage opens up another can of worms; "battered husbands". Being the victim of abuse -- hell, being a victim in general -- is pretty much the antithesis of modern concepts of masculinity. So there will be some resistance to the idea from a good chunk of men, along with the SJW "men can't be abused" crowd. | it is a complex problem and it will take a lot of time and effort to solve. |
SeattleTruth | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cic4kfm | Quinn is a stronger adc than nidalee, nidalee is a very weak adc lol.
Nid in human form doesn't have AD scalings. So she has her spear, AP scaling poke ability, W, AP scaling trap (multiple uses, not really useful to throwdown in the middle of fights though), and a decent heal/AS Buff, that scales with AP. So you have very minor damage through your damaging abilities (since you don't build AP to scale them), and a heal/AS buff, basically leaving your entire damage output to your AUTOATTACKS.
If you want to have a purely auto attacking champion, why not play Caitlyn, Jinx, Trist, etc?
Quinn scales with AD, has a strong AD scaling Aoe damaging blind (extremely useful when timed right), W granting vision of the fight, preventing further flanks/escapes, and her E, Great damage, especially when combined with her passive. Going bird form isn't really meant for 5v5 teamfights (it's more meant for escaping/chasing down other champions after skirmishes and to increase duel potential), so we'll leave that out of the discussion. | Quinn is a better ADC than Nid by FAR, in that particular game you played, your quinn sucked, and the nidalee was better. |
crabalab2002 | nfl | t5_2qmg3 | cicz2bw | Isn't a quarterback's job just to fully understand the offense and execute it? Obviously the physical tools of the trade include throw power and accuracy and ability to scramble. But most of effective QBing is understanding and executing the system. Peyton Manning is a great example: he has his own system and is effective running it. Would he really be effective though running another teams offense? That question is silly because when he has moved teams we see that he brought his system with him.
I've watched that game in particular a couple times and often the WR's struggled to get open and the running game did not get into rhythm early.
I'm rewatching the game now keeping an eye out for missed opportunities on Foles' part.
EDIT:
First Half: First drive didn't involve any impressive throws, but the rolling-right TD toss to Ertz was right on the money. A couple three and outs, in both cases the system elected mostly to run the ball ineffectively instead of letting Foles throw. Makes sense though, considering the amount of pressure Foles was consistently under. Made a lot of dump off passes to avoid/deter the rush. He found the open receivers when they were there, even if the throws admittedly weren't that pretty. The running game couldn't really get going but the Eagles benefited from a couple cardinal turnovers. Riley cooper made a great catch on a Foles overthrow. Also lost a chance at a TD when Chip Kelly (the system) chose to use a Brad Smith-led wildcat play on first down in the red zone. Two minute drill: Foles dropped a beautiful floater (hehe) into Desean Jackson for a big gain. Next throw is similar but falls incomplete. A little off target but a lot of WR-CB contact too. Nice little improvisation to turn a sack into 4 yards via Mccoy. Tosses a near interception into the end zone, Desean Jackson prevents the interception. Throws a good pass to Cooper in the end zone and draws a pass interference call (obviously you could bitch about the fairness of that call, but still a good Folescision.) Foles finds Celek for the TD. Good play, good execution, successful two minute drill.
Second Half:
More dump off passes/runs/screens. I don't think Chip liked our WR vs Cards secondary match-up for this game. Foles successfully runs an option for the first down. Michael Vick who? /s Bad throw incomplete behind Cooper, under moderate pressure. THAT WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. Good third down conversion 11 yards to cooper. Insert blown-up screen play gif here. Another good third down conversion 16 yards to Ertz. Incomplete pass hit as he throws. Bad backwards pass on a supposed-to-be screen. THAT WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY (probably). Beautiful 22 yard TD pass to ertz immediately following. Next possession: pass batted down by Calais Campbell. Sacked on third down. Can't tell if anyone was open, they didn't do a replay. Next possession: throws incomplete to Celek. Overthrows mccoy. THAT WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. Next possession: throws up a jump ball to Cooper. Questionable decision, but those jump balls to cooper work a lot of the time. Nice pump fake followed by short completion to Celek for first down. Another jump ball to Cooper, but this one was a good decision despite it falling incomplete. Evades some pressure gracefully but is eventually sacked. Sacked again, no time to throw. Next possession: Mostly runs, one bad throw, forced by considerable pressure. POSSIBLY BAD-ISH DECISION. Next possession: running the clock down. One of the announcers said "Play cock". Throws stupid interception under pressure that is called back thanks to defensive holding. DEFINITELY GOT SUPER LUCKY, TERRIBLE DECISION. 7 yard gain on a qb keeper option. Fails on another qb keeper option. HIS LEGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN MICHAEL VICK'S. Defense manages to hold thanks to a couple questionable non-call pass interferences. Looked like Fletcher was playing the ball and the WR hadn't even turned around yet, but still questionable. Some more questionable calls in the Eagles favor and the Eagles win. | IMO: Foles played really well first half, and did enough/got lucky enough in the second half to win. It wasn't his best game, but it was enough to win. He is without a doubt a better QB than Carson Palmer, and the Cards defense is pretty good. I don't know why /r/Eagles suggested this game in particular. I do not usually endorse the views of r/Eagles. |
kurnster | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cifnh8f | Can I reference this brilliant Youtube Video from Extra Credits in terms of how 129 champions is actually helping the balance of the game. It's really important as a Game Designer to understand this concept.
EDIT 1: Importantly, it labels how giving the players a wealth of options (129 champions) actually keeps the meta fresh and equips the player base to solve meta problems. | this isn't an 'issue' its a design choice |
vXvInfinityvXv | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cifpo0i | Damn, this reflects the situation perfectly! You need more upvotes. It seems like Riot is buffing champions that are easy to play and don't have big "Play-potential" to the point the user just needs to smash his head on the keyboard to win lane/game. I'm looking at champions like: Caitlyn, Nasus, Vel'Koz, Kayle, Lulu... Note that I'm not here to highlight the champs with the highest winratio but the champs that that have way too high effectiveness compared to the actual knowledge and skill you need to play it properly.
Additionally, there are many champs that are deemed skill instensive even tho they aren't. Zed being a perfect example. Having such a good waveclear and all that extra damage for nothing makes him a very easy champ. The difference between a good Zed and a horrible Zed is basicly, that the horrible Zed will MAYBE die after he assassinated the ADC, APC and the other has some more knowledge and even survive the 1v5 dive onto the ADC...
Riot keeps constantly nerfing play-making champs and to be honest it sucks. I would bet a 975 skin one of the next nerfs goes to Katarina. The worst part of it all is the community riding every bandwagon that they are presented. That's actually WHY the community is fucked up. I don't care about toxic kids and heck I'll use strong words when I'm settled up, if someone reports me, well fuck it I report back, cause everyone has a corpse in his cellar. Maybe they didn't flame me directly but I'm sure they did, it's fucking human to do so. | Start reading more. |
Igortheinvincible | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cifr8vh | He's not. What he's doing is asking them to redirect some of their current trying-to-make-the-game-better-efforts to balancing champions outside of the top tiers. | RIOT's already making improvements and "making the game better", he thinks there are better ways to do it. |
xNIBx | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cifrk4l | Noone considers lion a weak hero and he is certainly viable and pickable. Io was nerfed(but not overnerfed) and it never had 100% win ratio. So instead of pulling numbers out of our ass, let's talk with actual data from the international 4 qualifiers
244 games, 98 heroes picked out of 103(+4 who arent available for captain's mode because they are new). Io was picked in 31 games(it doesnt show bans though) and had 35.5% win ratio. 35.5% win ratio? My god, Io must suck, it definitely needs a buff /s
Lion was picked in 6 games and has 50% win ratio. Obviously io is more popular than lion but that doesnt mean that it is better. It is just a completely different support hero.
What is strongest, making your carry(and yourself) take 20% less dmg+attack speed, root enemies and being able to teleport yourself+carry anywhere on the map? Or having 2 insane cc(one of which is aoe line) and one nuke that literally 1shots heroes? Both heroes are extremely strong in their own way. | There isnt a shit tier hero in dota, just more niche heroes that are awesome under specific situations, lineups, strategies. Noone will tell you "omg noob, why did you pick lion, io is obviously better". |
smokemonmast3r | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cifz4ba | Just because a champ gets strong doesn't mean people are sheep. This game is complex and the meta shifts to favor certain play-styles.
Ex: TF has seen a large resurgence since some fairly minor buffs. Was he OP all along? No, the meta just shifted to favor laners who have strong waveclear and utility. Late season 3, the meta favored assassins in mid-lane such as Zed and Ahri who had very easy time against him in lane and in teamfights. | Just because a champ starts seeing popularity after no changes doesn't mean they were OP all along, this game has lots of moving parts. |
ThexAntipop | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cig2rg7 | YEAH RIOT WHY CAN'T YOU MAKE SURE ALL 120 CHAMPS ARE COMPLETELY BALANCED? Oh wait, because that's literally impossible. If we're talking about viability almost every single champion in this game is viable for solo queue which is primarily what the game is balanced around. What is viable in the pro scene is not at all indicative of what's viable in solo queue. Pros only play top tier champs because they are playing at the highest level and need every single advantage they can get. Those champs that are always picked in pro play also are the ones that fit the current meta/team comps people are running because the strategy in those games is completely different. Even if the pro players themselves that do these strategies in LCS tried to do it in soloqueue with all challenger team mates it many of the strats would fail almost every time due to a lack of coordination by the team. Last season I went from Bronze 1 to Gold V in little over a week with Wukong mid at a time when almost NO ONE was playing that. At the time Nightblue himself had said he felt Wu was a better mid than top but still no one played it because it wasn't FoTM and it wasn't getting play in LCS. | there will always be a bell curve for the strength of champions, that doesn't mean the ones on the strongest end of the curve or the ones that get played the most are the only viable ones, it just means it might take a little extra skill to make the other ones just as strong. |
RomeoVersace | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cigd0iq | This is the defining characteristic of Moba vs MMO games though. If you want to truly have no idea go play World of Warcraft, there's 11 classes. 11 options. That's as large of a pool as can be created where in a free for all melee things are level and there is no tier system it's just fire beats water, water beats leaf, leaf beats fire kind of shit.
If your dislike pokemon gameplay and WoW, then play League of Legends where shit's crazy as fuck, there is tiering, there is OP shit, there is underpowered shit, there is amazing plays, there is sweat under your arms after 40 minutes of turrent siege. If it's too much for you to handle, then go play the game where 0.2s actually doesn't matter because you can just polymorph someone for 8s, then silence them for another 4s, then cyclone them for another 8s, then root them for 3s, then re-polymorph them for 4s and so on and so forth. | Go fuck yourself and play WoW. |
abtei | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cifqv1d | In general, i would Agree with "this guy" on the issue that there are in fact, more than 20 champions in the game yet only those tier1s are seeing the most plays. BUT! i believe this problem to be somewhat limited to the LCS/Challenger (and their publicity) and somewhat Diamond and the Skilllevel that can be found up there, everything below this its more "monkey see monkey do" than anything and has nothing to do with "this champion beats that champion".
Let me Explain.
Champions are like tools/Equipment for those players, they use them in a way and max out their potential to the limits (and sometimes beyond, aka CDR/AP Tryn ololol). These people are so good in this game that in fact, it matters to them those little margins one champion beats another. They can use those advantages. Its like 2 F1 Racecars, one carbon, the other "less" carbon, or a brandname Drill (Bosch Blue f.e) vs. a Storebrand, or even
Now give those Tools to the gold/silver/bronze/whatever 24/7 casual dimwit, and the pro a potato, and he will most likely still wipe the floor with that dimwit up and down every lane on the rift. this holds true to lower elos as well imo.
If your skill increases, your champion pool will either increase, or at least specialize, you will rise, and meet better people and then, at some point that most of us here will never ever ever reach (numbers dont lie, theres like 1 or 2% of the total playerbase competing for chal/dia) it might matter that you pick that Tier1 Champion rather than that below tier1 champion, until then - doesn't matter had fun .
The entire argument that "champion X is better than Y" holds only true if you meet equally high skilled people where it acutally matters. Tier1 champs in lower elo dont contribute as much to the victory as most of us would believe.
Yes there is a lot more to the whole, but i believe it boils down to a few key things, on of which is: | monkey see monkey do dimwit monkey still fails |
noyoukeepthisshit | technology | t5_2qh16 | citph5n | Most datacenters don't use consumer SATA drives in their SAN arrays and a datacenter that does is just being cheap and sloppy with data. I certainly wouldn't buy service form them if I cared about my data. I want SAS, I want RAID arrays, I want tape backup, I want a real storage system. This isn't a cloud system though, so Aereo can build what they want.
no but when you are going for cheap and massive, raided sata drives work. In fact they work very well.
>I think it's prohibitively expensive.
you think, have you tried?
>If the micro-antennas really worked as Aereo described, then there absolutely MUST be commercial antennas I can buy at Amazon that are just as small and work on a regular HDTV system.
well thats a wonderfully incorrect idea, there are dozens of systems you cannot even get close to buying as a normal consumer. However in this case there are small form factor antennas available, some are about the 4 inches long.
>You might argue that it's a "trade secret", but there simply isn't that much to an antenna. You could easily reconstruct them from publicly available photos, but nobody seems to have done that. And RF engineers are saying they don't work.
Link me and RF engineer proving they don't work, and I will show you an RF engineer who is a moron.
>Can you explain this secret revolution in antenna technology Aereo has discovered but refused to patent, market, or license which would make them lots of money?
making a smaller antenna is not a patent-able invention, as its not novel.
>You can do this right now, It will just cost you more than $250 a month so it's not a serious competitor to cable tv.
Not necessarily, I pay 100/mo for 2u 3A co-lo here in Indianapolis. Assuming I could get an antenna in my case, and it had decent reception I would have a PVR downtown. This server has the umph to encode a few streams at the same time. dedicated hardware would do it better with less power.
Assuming dedicated hardware like h.264 encoders you could probably get enough hardware in a 2U rack to handle 6-10 people. that's being very conservative.
If you would like I could expand on a possible DIY solution for everything but antennas, along with a cost breakdown.
EDIT: for my amusement, I did some research and some math.
42U rack + 1000Mbps here in Indy costs 950/mo
assuming you built everything out of consumer parts a PVR with antenna would cost $120. It would consist of a raspberry pi, 64gb thumb stick, and a usb tv tuner. This is capable of handling 1080p h.264 at 5000kbs bitrate. You could fit ~20 of these in a 6u rack. [source]( assuming 2 for power and management thats 18 pvrs per 6u. outputting ~5Mbs out of each pvr.
7 6Us fit in that rack, thats 126 PVRs, at maximum outputting ~ 630 Mbs so we have easily enough bandwidth.
Oh and storage? easy. that 64gb thumb-stick is roughly ~30 hours of DVR longer than Aereos 20hrs.
assuming usb periphs and the pi use about 10W, which they likely dont we are using 1.26kW of our allotted 1.9kW. easy again.
now a full rack would cost ~15k in hardware and 950/mo. assuming full use, IE 126 customers, and a 1 year ROI ~$17.86 would be the monthly fee. Rounding for end users 20/mo would net me ~$2/mo per user. or about 3K that year. Next year, assuming users stay I would make just over 30K a year. | assuming your only non average consumer purchase is a 42U rack rental you are profitable. Actual custom built hardware would only increase this enormously. |
noyoukeepthisshit | technology | t5_2qh16 | cixz8cq | I don't think Aereo actually worked that way (I don't remember this bit), I think you could have as many recordings scheduled at the same time as you wanted.
>That means, for EACH USER, they needed 50 (or however many channels you could get in say, Atlanta) antennas and more importantly, 50 video capture cards. Again, EACH USER.
Huge misunderstanding you only got one tuner, unless you upgraded to teh 12/mo plan which got you two.
>Not dime size. As I said, this is an idea that would be worth VASTLY more than Aereo's DVR business. Why not sell the antennas?
not really, small antennas are nothing new and are useless outside of close proximity to broadcasters. You dont even need a fucking antenna to get some channels if you live in an area with good reception.
>Yup, exactly the scenario I was thinking of. If you add the hardware cost to that you might be able to get less than $250 a month, but you'd have a lot less content than cable. Still not really competitive.
I already pay under 200/mo for that. It could easily handle multiple tuners, likely 6-12.
>Only ONE USER per system, you don't get to legally share them.
not that it matters, as I clearly posted an edit with a system fully capable of parralel operation per user that would be cheaper.
However assuming you are using individual antennas, and do not rebroadcast using multiple people per system is legal.
EDIT: forgot your engineer, who clearly states he has no fucking clue how it worked as he has never seen it.
Primary issue with his rant, is his dismissal of the possiblity the antennas work. Which quite frankly disproves his expertise, or proves he is purposefully ignoring some facts. Anyone with any RF experience knows that everything conductive works as an antenna, for fucks sake a goddamn wire soldered to a raspberry pi board works. They have fucking chip antennas in your goddamn phone. It doesn't have a good signal to noise ratio, unless you are really close to the source, but it fucking works.
[Example]( do you see that copper coil? guess what that is numbnutz thats a 434 mhz receiver antenna.
He assumes you would need a large antenna, because he has always needed a large antenna. Because he was far away from the broadcasters.
He is however correct in one regard I was not aware of was the mux, or multiplex. they used individual tuners on the roof convert to mpeg with ip headers, and pass that through some ethernet connect, which they call a mux, to the pvrs stored in the datacenter. This is in fact likely a few shared 10gb links. Still each device is operating individually, and this is no different than them pushing it through a border router to the individual end user. He is really grasping with that one.
His quote:
>Note also, in the area between the MPEG-2 Mux and Demux, the words “Antenna Transport (N x 10GBase)”. Here is where Aereo’s entire argument falls apart: You can’t receive an MPEG2 stream with an antenna; only a modulated RF channel. Calling a 10 Gigabit Ethernet connection that streams MPEG2 digital video an “antenna transport” is disingenuous.
clearly misunderstand the patent. Aereo isnt claiming to received a muxed mpeg2 stream as an antenna, as that would be rebroadcasting, they are claiming to transport the antenna signal over n x 10Gbase links. Which is likely video over usb, usb through Ethernet. Which is exactly what its describing if you look at the actual [patent](
see those transcode 112-1, 112-2, 112-n? that's each individual transcoder, for spaces sake their respective antenna's, provided by the antenna control system(116), signal is transmitted though some connection type(lets say usb) over ethernet, why ethernet? its capacity and space density.
He is obviously not very aware technically of modern computer capabilities, and that is supported by his notion that tv tuner chips are expensive. That is laughably not true.
Also I would prefer it if you would comment on my adapted raspberry pi solution.
>42U rack + 1000Mbps here in Indy costs 950/mo
>assuming you built everything out of consumer parts a PVR with antenna would cost $120. It would consist of a raspberry pi, 64gb thumb stick, and a usb tv tuner. This is capable of handling 1080p h.264 at 5000kbs bitrate. You could fit ~20 of these in a 6u rack. source assuming 2 for power and management thats 18 pvrs per 6u. outputting ~5Mbs out of each pvr.
>7 6Us fit in that rack, thats 126 PVRs, at maximum outputting ~ 630 Mbs so we have easily enough bandwidth.
>Oh and storage? easy. that 64gb thumb-stick is roughly ~30 hours of DVR longer than Aereos 20hrs.
>assuming usb periphs and the pi use about 10W, which they likely dont we are using 1.26kW of our allotted 1.9kW. easy again.
>now a full rack would cost ~15k in hardware and 950/mo. assuming full use, IE 126 customers, and a 1 year ROI ~$17.86 would be the monthly fee. Rounding for end users 20/mo would net me ~$2/mo per user. or about 3K that year. Next year, assuming users stay I would make just over 30K a year.
> | assuming your only non average consumer purchase is a 42U rack rental you are profitable. Actual custom built hardware would only increase this enormously. |
ThatsSoWombat | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cijqgyb | My wife volunteers at an abortion clinic, so this decision has a direct impact her, and through her, on me. I am also a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose. Still, I support the Court's decision because I think that it was well-reasoned and intelligently thought through.
Before I get into why I think the decision makes sense, I'd like to explain the decision a little. For those of you who would rather read a somewhat longer plain-English summary of the Court's decision, SCOTUSBlog has a really good [article]( on it. And [here's]( the link to the decision itself.
First, I'd like to point out what the decision does not say. It does not say that protestors at abortion clinics can get up in the faces of people coming to get an abortion. In fact, the Court specifically pointed out that under existing Massachusetts law, the state may arrest and prosecute anyone who harasses people trying to get an abortion or blocks the entrance to the abortion clinic.
The abortion protestors in this particular case described themselves as wanting to provide quiet counseling to people entering the abortion clinic. The facts of the case state that the protestors who brought the case limited themselves to quietly passing out literature and saying things like, "Good morning, may I give you my literature? Is there anything I can do for you? I'm available if you have any questions." (This is a quote from the case itself.) In fact, the Court found it particularly troubling that the buffer zones essentially forced protestors to scream if they wanted to be heard, instead of quietly handing out literature and offering counseling, as these particular protestors wished to do.
The Court put particular emphasis on Massachusetts' other alternatives to the buffer zone---alternatives that would have protected the rights of the abortion clinic's patients while still allowing quiet street counseling. Part of the law that was not struck down prohibits getting in people's way as they are trying to enter the abortion clinic, or harassing them, or intimidating them. The Court did not strike down these parts of the law. People who violate this part of the law can be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed.
Because the law made it much harder than necessary for people to express their opinions to others, the Court struck it down. I think that this makes sense. People entering an abortion clinic may be in a particularly vulnerable place mentally, but the whole point of the First Amendment is to allow public discourse on issues, and to allow people to hear speech that they may not want to hear. That was, in fact, the Court's point: modern life is full of instances where we can just turn off speech that we don't like (change the channel, leave the website, etc.); the public streets are one of the only exceptions to this rule. The Court therefore acted to protect speech while still leaving open options for dealing with people who are abusive or threatening. | Because Massachusetts could use other parts of the law to protect people seeking abortions, and because public streets are one of the last places left where one can actually hear contrary opinions, the Supreme Court was right to strike down the buffer zones. |
Aegrit | summonerschool | t5_2t9x3 | cijc2a8 | I think it's very difficult to carry as a jungler if you're not playing a carry-type jungler, you will have to rely on your teamplay more than your individual play and that may mean giving kills to your lanes more if possible. The problem with beginning to give over kills to your lanes is that the opponents will escape with a sliver of health, which is frustrating, but you will improve and realize when you have to finish the kill yourself. I feel like giving the kill over to the lane is an exception and not the rule, especially below diamond or plat.
There are a lot of good times to give over a kill, when your laner is low is not a good time, they might get outplayed and you end up feeding the other guy. If it is a snowball lane either way, like a riven/jax top lane, its a good idea to give over the kill and snowball it in your team's favor. More importantly, what to do after a successful gank? When your laner is low after a gank and you are still healthy make sure to push the lane unless something emergent is happening elsewhere. Just push the minions into the tower, hit it if you can, destroy it if you can. You'll get decent farm and deny a minion wave to the enemy laner you just ganked, just look out for the enemy gank while you're doing it.
What to do to handle feeders? Example, enemy Riven dumps on my top lane Gangplank(sigh GP), I was playing Zac and getting ahead from successful ganks, so I built randuin's & haunting guise to fight Riven. I was actually the same level as Riven from pushing lanes after ganking. I told my GP to leave lane, go roam, jungle, w/e and I'll take over top, this was when he was at around 8 deaths and it was about 20 or 25 mins into game. Riven was seeing red from GP feeding, tower dove me and died easily. So, that story is that you can do your best to try and build to fight the fed enemy. What your laner needs to do is stay in the game, try to shore up his tower, and just keep feeding while your team gets strong enough and itemized enough to deal with the fed enemy. What I think your laner normally does is quit(sigh), leaving you few options.
When you're ahead try to buy a couple of wards also, if you're not already. Try to look at the movement patterns of your enemy, I've only played in Silver recently on my smurf and the way people move is VERY transparent. If you're really far ahead you can likely pick people off solo in the jungle. Apply map pressure, ward, and the enemy is almost guaranteed to waste time chasing you around. If you simply keep pressure on your enemy(maintain initiative, meaning they are responding to threats you are making that cannot be ignored) then they will make a mistake, you will have a high chance of your enemy responding incorrectly and you can punish them for it. | Especially try to give kills to snowball lanes, but other than that this is not number 1 priority in Silver. Push lanes after ganks, understand how important that minion wave is. When someone on your team is feeding it is their responsibility to keep feeding and try to shore up their towers, in the mean time your team needs to get ahead elsewhere, most likely YOU have to build something specifically to fight the fed opponent. Also, maintain initiative and pressure the map. When people are under pressure their mistakes will shine through. |
Oops_killsteal | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cijybj4 | We don't. | No. |
Bralnor | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cikmnwt | Apparently something that is not funny for you anymore is not funny for anyone at all. | You decide what's funny.
/s |
HellionDez | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | ciko9fc | i think gaming is still a little too young (at least in the west) to have much if any psychiatrists but maybe soon as the generation comming now is filled with gamers, i know some nurses and such that play league though, but for me personally i think its made me better, i used to be a person that thought i couldnt get anywhere in life because of other people/situations when i seriously started wanting to learn this game first thing i learned was the reason i cant win is because of myself. At first i only applied that to this game still hating my life and things that happened in it but once that concept really sunk in i realised it just didnt apply to this game but to basicly everything, nothing is completely out of your control (maybe only some genetic things.. maybe) and if theres something wrong with my life its cause im directly not actively trying to improve/change it so i feel league helped improved my mental state a great deal and my life has been going on a far better track then it had been before i played league | I personally feel this game can be good on mental health for people who really want to learn this game cause some of the lessons learned in this game can easily translate to irl |
returned_from_shadow | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | cimatjc | First your source is entirely unreliable as it amounts to heavily biased Cold War propaganda. It fails to cite specific sources for the numbers stated, and does not list specific engagements or reasons for those deaths. The figures and tables linked have no sources for them.
>Given the extent and detail of these books, the reader may be surprised that the primary purpose was not to describe democide itself, but to determine its nature and amount in order to test the theory that democracies are inherently nonviolent.
Here, the author displays his lack of any semblance of credibility because he does not include anything about the nearly ten million people killed by the US, [see here](
Considering that your source cannot be taken seriously at this time.
Additionally, the Soviet Union under Stalin is vastly different than the Russian Federation. You can't compare the two, or attribute those deaths to any modern policies.
Deaths in China from the Great Leap forward or governmental transition are entirely irrelevant. The link you gave me doesn't differentiate and is to a book which I can't read because the whole book is not on that website, so you need to cite specific instance where China has invaded other countries, and not instances where they defended themselves and aided popular reform movements.
You don't even need proper sources, just tell me specific instances from memory and I will look them up. | Your comment proves nothing as your source is incomplete and fucking sucks.
*I see you edited your post, I will look through what you have again.
**All your links are to the exact same content and source but just on different pages. |
MaltyBeverage | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | cimb22m | My source is after the coldwar and it is an edu source. You saying it doesnt count doesnt make it so. By all means you are free to disprove it using sources, but you saying, "Your source proves me wrong so it doesnt count because I said so," doesnt work friend.
Your source doesnt count because I said so. See how stupid that sounds?
Your source doesnt even support your claim.Your source is not saying the US is responsible for those deaths. It is saying the US supported those regimes. And in most of those cases the USSR, and sometimes CHina was just as involved. So what you are doing is misrepresenting your source to make a claim it never made, nor does it support. Furthermore you are ignoring the role Russia, and sometimes, played in all of these events in your source. So in addition to 100+ million they killed they are to blame with the US in all of those instances which further proves my point.
You can say that 100 million murders is irrelevant. 99% of the world will disagree with you but taht is your opinion. You need to learn history.
My academic source is also much stronger than your source, which btw doesnt even support your argument. You just misrepresented your source.
I didnt add your numbers up but ill take your argument of 10 million. Since Russia and China have equal responsibility we can those to their kill count. So here is where we stand.
Russia: 110 million
China: 110 MILLION (although 20-30 million could be deducted before Russia helped overthrow their government)
US: 10 million (in response to Russia and China)
I rest my case. | your comments prove nothing, your source doesnt support your argument, and your source works against you as Russia, and sometimes China, were involved in those deaths and problems of your source, along with the US, as well as the 100+ million they killed. You ignoring facts you dont like doesnt disprove them. Feel free to disprove my source until then my point is proven. |
Narayume | relationships | t5_2qjvn | cin43zm | I think others have already responded brilliantly to your other questions, so I just wanted to throw something in as a psychologist:
The sad truth is that racism has nothing to do with ethnicity. Some people just want to treat others terribly or be part of something better than the rest. Usually people just smirk quietly about their superiority or share it with their friends after a glass too many. However some people just can't contain themselves and are elated to be able to treat others like dirt or make a fuss when things don't go their way. Children do it all the time.
The trick is to find a justification delicate enough that no one will contradict them. Ideally something that might even trigger shame in most "good" people, making them easier to dominate and too guilty to go with the normal human response of "I won't be treated like that" followed by a swift exit.
Popular reasons for being better than others are things like religion, race, sexual orientation, area of birth, natural aptness and parental income group. You might note that none of these actually require any work by the supposedly superior individual. Superiority prefers being lazy in my experience. Now the subgroup of superior while abusing latent guilt is a more sophisticated one. It usually relies on constant reminders as to why others should feel guilty as well as regular claims that they are still being persecuted. Thankfully it is limited to certain groups, so must people can't use it, even if they would love to.
One from my personal experience are some Jewish people with Germans. The genocide is still deeply ingrained in the German psyche even though very few are left who were actually alive at the time. Parents of a friend of mine were delighted to invite me over only to bombard me with horror stories as soon as I arrived (I am German). When they found out that I was half Jewish they switched to claiming I was insulting the memories of those who died by not practicing. I didn't go back.
Now this had very little to do with them being Jewish. This was down to the aforementioned asshole-ness that sadly combined with a history/population group that could abuse it. The same thing is true for your black family. They are horrible people who happen to be lucky enough to be born in an ethnic group where the discrimination/latent guilt trick works and they are riding it for all it is worth. Even white Christians claim the same by treating Jews badly because they supposedly killed Christ around 2000 years ago. That is how stupid these things can get. Obviously most Christians would perish at the though, just how most black families would be mortified to hear about your in-laws, but for natural assholes it is the perfect excuse.
The saddest part is obviously that you made the same error so many make. You meet these people and ask "are all black families like that"? Because you are not part of the ethnicity you wonder if this is the secret world you are walking past every day. Thus your in laws and the Jewish family I mentioned are actually reinforcing the stereotype and spreading it to people that might not have had it. That way they can look around then and claim that they see discrimination every day - even though before they had been assholes there was no discrimination. I doubt that these people ever actually encounter real discrimination or realise how much harder they are making it for their kin in less fortunate situations. Even if, I would be surprised if they cared. Assholes will be assholes independent of whatever trimmings they are born with. | A certain percentage of people are born as assholes and look for a way to get away with said assholeness in life. Race, religion, income group - to name just a few - are popular choices. However some assholes got lucky and got a race/religion/something that has a history of horrors that can be used to guilt or shame others. This is what you have here. This has nothing to do with them being black. They are just assholes. |
altaccountthree | sex | t5_2qh3p | cimmiyn | You aren't disclosing your age, but I'm guessing you're close to her age.
I would guess that your jealousy stems from your maturity/experience level. I do not mean that in a negative way, it's just a thing you have to gain over time. Simply having sex or being in a relationship doesn't make you mature about all things. I'm 36 and I'm REALLY immature about some aspects of my life. It just is what it is.
Now, that said, this is something you'll either come to terms with over time, or something you'll always feel pangs of jealousy over. There's no wrong answer here.
Do you want to rush your acceptance that she'd like to try making out with a girl? Absolutely not. If you allowed her to do this with her friend now, all that would result is feelings of jealousy/inadequacy, whatever. And that's something that should come with time and personal confidence rather than having to go through the awkwardness of a relationship going on the rocks where the maturity and experience comes by pain and suffering.
Now... 5-10-15 years from now... Your current GF or wife or whomever you find yourself with at that point in your life, you may be totally okay with that and may even encourage that for a potential threesome or something. Who knows?
As for right now... | don't worry about it because these feelings of jealousy can take time to work through. |
Stormfrosty | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cio3weg | It seems for you that you are doing bad, because subconsciously you have a high standard for yourself. So even if you are doing good, you can still think you are doing bad. It's like people who think that everyone hates them, even though no one even cares. | It's all your brain, not you. |
ahnold11 | Games | t5_2qhwp | ciok5lu | Sadly it's human nature.
There is surprisingly very little separating a well behaved public from one full of assholes. Since things like mob/herd mentality, dangerous of crowds etc. Also the idea that if all the laws were taking away, how many people would quickly revert to criminal behavior. We are social animals largely, and society conditions/dictates our behaviour to a large extent.
The internet is just another example of that. When you aren't infront of someone in person, can't see them face to face, its' much easier to be a jerk. You never see them cry, never see the sad looks on their faces, never get to experience empathy. (It's actually quite difficult/challenging for a properly socialized person to be an asshole and make someone else cry, without feeling pretty crappy yourself).
People often cite anonymity and a lack of consequence. But you even see this shit on facebook, with real names and real consequences (all your friends can see it) yet it still goes on.
Basically we all think plenty of dumb shit. But we mostly don't say that stuff in a crowd for fear of being embarassed and/or called out on it. We don't want to look dumb, to look stupid. Have other people stare at us and make those faces. Outside of the occasional outliers, most people have an immediate aversion to that sort of thing.
But once you are on line, people lose their filters. Because you never have to get embarrassed, you never have to have that (apparently) key face to face interaction, if you say something stupid you can always just shut off the computer and walk away. Even if that isn't true (eg. twitter death threats or whatever, that can get the police involved and have serious consequence) it's how we innately seem to view human-computer-human interaction. It doesn't feel "real" to us (in a subconscious way?) and so all the usual social norms for expected behaviour go out the window.
That's my pet theory anyhow. | the lack of face to face interaction, means we lose important social cues that prevent us from saying all the horrible/mean/dumb/stupid crap that we would otherwise filter out. |
Winterscope | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cip130v | You looked fantastic in all the photos on that post!
It's so silly and pathetic that you can express anger and distaste from adopting a fictional and loved character into the real world, just because of skin colour.
If you couldn't wear a costume from a character (in a series/comic/manga/film) that you love because of what race or tone you are, then that should be the same for everyone. Don't get me started on if mixed raced people had to cosplay accordingly!
For example, Sailor Moon would have to be exclusively cosplayed by a Japanese Girl with the same complexion; Or Captain America has to be cosplayed by an American Caucasian Boy. | hypocrites are everywhere. if everyone had to cosplay by race, there would be a sea of Japanese and/or White American people. |
CamilliaAirheart | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cip77qk | Black female geek weighing in: Growing up in my geeky circles I would always hear my fellow geeks look down on the "jocks" and "popular" kids for being so exclusive or intolerant of kids that weren't "cool" like them. There was this attitude that we were somehow better than them because we didn't exclude others due to their looks, athletic ability, knowledge of sports, hobbies.
As I got older, I realized that that is largely bullshit. The things that you are into, the hobbies you enjoy and the type of media you consume do NOT dictate your morals, kindness, inclusiveness, tolerance, etc.
I can't tell you how many geek men I've encountered who have decided that they need to quiz me after hearing that I love manga and videogames.
Being a geek doesn't make you immune to be a bigot, racist, sexist, closed-minded, or cowardly; the replies on your tumblr post are proof of that.
All in all, I was really touched by your story. Keep doing what you love! Maybe one of these days I'll finally cosplay as Cammy! | Geeks can be jerks too, unfortunately. |
I_like_sluts | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | cip8uzn | I usually stick to commenting on the parody "jerk" subs for stupid fun but this has turned into such a reddit circle jerk I have to chime in.
I think a lot of people have missed the point and are over reacting. I didn't grow up in the U.S. (or western Europe) so race was never an issue. If you were describing a black person you didn't stumble around it, you called him black. If you were describing an Asian you called him short and thin eyed. That's how they look. It was very hard for me to get used to these sensitivities when I came to the U.S. The U.S. pretends not to notice race to avoid uncomfortable feelings since there are still plenty of people alive who remember segregation in the country (I surmise). But that's ludicrous. Of course you notice what color somebody is! To pretend not to is to pretend to be an idiot.
When someone says, "For a black cosplayer (not to be racist) she did an amazing job!" What they mean is, "Her costume looks amazing, would look just like the character except for the fact that the complete opposite color of skin makes it look nothing like her." Only in the U.S. (and western Europe) would you even add "not to be racist." Of course you're not being racist. You're stating a fact that the skin color throws off the look of an otherwise perfectly executed costume.
I'm sure there are some people who use things like that to be racist. But I'm willing to bet many are just trying to tip toe around the elephant in the room (that someone of a completely different race dressing up as a character of another DOESN'T look like the character even if the costume is perfect). Back home if a black guy dressed up as Superman no one would say, "You look just like superman!" No, we would say, "Great costume, you know except for the fact you're black and look nothing like him," and have a laugh. The same way if a fat white guy dressed up in a trench coat, sunglasses, and a katana no one would say, "You look just like Blade!" We'd say, "Oh look, it's butterknife, Blade's fat, white sidekick," with a laugh. | As a native South American only in America are people so racially sensitive that you have to pretend to ignore the obvious or be labeled a racist. Racial tensions in the U.S. won't go away when we all pretend skin color differences aren't noticeable. They'll go away when we can all acknowledge different skin colors and no one cares. |
ArticulateRhinoceros | TwoXChromosomes | t5_2r2jt | ciq3vx3 | No? I'm not even sure what this comment means.
I'll change the analogy.
You joined a co-ed basketball recreational league. You are the first girl to officially join, even though the league has been technically coed for years. You end up being the best player on the team. Is it a complement when your teammates say "You're pretty good, for a woman"?
I think not. Professional, non professional, paid, unpaid, whatever. Cosplay is a hobby, it shouldn't be graded or critiqued or held to a weird standard. She did a great job FOR ANYONE, there is no reason to bring race into it. Besides, when white girls cosplay as Sailor Moon characters, no one says "She did a great job for a white girl" (Since Sailor Moon is an ASIAN show full of ASIAN characters). I mean the whole thing, and the way you're coming off trying to explain it, basically says "White is the normal anything other than white is different and therefore I should point that out to make sure eveyrone knows how abnormal and unusual it is." That is shitty. White isn't the "norm" by which all things should be judged. If the person had said "For a nonJapanese woman she did an awesome job" that would be an important distinction. There she is pointing out that the cosplayer is different from the race of the character, instead of pointing out that being black pretending to be a Japanese character is weird compared to a white person pretending to be a Japanese character.
Whenever you says "For a ___" you are automatically starting off by saying the person in question is at a disadvantage, in this case, because she's black. Saying her natural skin color is a disadvantage is insulting.
And really, beyond that, people not of color really, really, REALLY don't get to tell minorities what they should or should not find offensive. She found it offensive, there for it was.
Edit:
And if you're one of those people who thinks that Japanese Manga characters "look white" then I have a youtube video on that I can dig up for you. | You only think they look white because you're white, and you're seeing it through you own cultural filter. |
HaveSomeChicken | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | cipwqca | They were not the main reason Nazi Germany lost. The Eastern Front was already taking them down. The US did help, but it just accelerated the German defeat, possibly saving more lives. But by no means did they turn the tide of the war.
I recall hearing a story somewhere that some documents were found regarding the Normandy invasion, and that the reason for the storm was different, that Western allies were concerned about the progress of the Soviet Union. Apparently they did not want USSR to completely reach the coast of France, so the US, Canada, and other smaller nations set out to this epic invasion to make sure the Soviets cannot take Europe whole. They had that motive but wore the "making Germany fight a war on two (technically three if you count Africa) fronts" mask. | The US didn't give two fucks about the millions of lives at War, and only joined the European theatre for economic and influential reasons. |
Wumaduce | relationships | t5_2qjvn | ciqoj8g | Let's face it, guys will look if you're dressed in anything but a burka. Even then, they'll look. The nipple thing I agree with. If my girlfriend wasn't wearing a bra, I'd ask her to either wear a top that you can't see them through or a way to cover them. That's a matter of decency to me.
As far as the sheer tops where your bra might be visible, for the majority of occasions it's not a big deal. It's the way women's clothes are for a lot of things. Almost everything my girlfriend owns is at least somewhat see-through and/or off the shoulder. If it's a family event or something important to your boyfriend, I could understand him asking you to wear an undershirt or something. For going out or spending the day doing whatever, wear what you want.
As far as the shorts under a skirt/dress, if it's short enough your ass is all "Hi world!" I can understand the unease he's feeling. However, I doubt you're wearing anything that short.
Personally - the only time I mention anything to my girlfriend is if I can make out what her underwear is under what she's wearing, and I only do that because she's asked me about it in the past. Or if there's tags sticking out, because tags annoy me (personal pet peeve) | wear what you want, when you want. There's occasions where he could possibly be justified in his feelings (family or formal events), but other than that he's trying to control you and it's not right. |
Valde314 | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cirerj9 | You're starting to get it!
Get what? you cut out a huge portion of the sentence and the following sentence which made the clear point that different champions are stronger/weaker in the meta. In certain other games, the characters/champions are more balanced so every pick serves a specific purpose. League of Legends is not like that. Compare Lux to Ziggs. Ziggs is safer, has more damage over time, has more burst damage, deals more damage to structures, can global clear, can permawaveclear. What does Lux do significantly better than Ziggs? Almost nothing. Which is why Ziggs is played over her.
>Or they're scared to try things that haven't proved to work. Either way, its NOT similar to soloq, at all.
A pro team, in its combined players, probably has over 10,000 games played. Do you think they haven't tried almost everything at least once? Do you think that their coaching staff and analysts have no idea what they're doing? In a competitive meta with competent junglers, higher degree of vision control, and greater team coordination certain picks will be stronger there than in soloque. However, it's still the same game. If Kassadin is super strong in competitive games it's likely that he's strong in soloq games as well. At Gold and below, hell even plat, any pick is viable. But once you get high enough up the ladder, one is only handicapping themselves by playing champions that are significantly weaker than meta champions. If one is extremely good on a champion or it's a hidden OP then yeah it's a great idea to play it. But most players, who don't have a main champion, will perform best using the meta champions.
>No, it couldn't
As I mentioned, and you cut out of your quotation, winrate does not always equal champion popularity. For example, pre-rework Xerath. However, if a champion is majorly terrible, like post-rework Skarner, it will lose popularity because players don't usually like playing champions that don't win games when played well. It's not a perfect correlation between popularity and winrate but the champions with much higher winrates get played more than champions with very low winrates.
>Yes, they are. You WILL NEVER play against someone of exactly equal skill, ever. The pros are so close to each other in terms of mechanical skill and game sense, so they might have a problem playing Ashe or Quinn. You will never have that problem. If you have more games on Ashe/Quinn than Draven/Jinx, THEN THEY'RE THE BETTER/STRONGER PICKS, every single time.
Once again, a logical fallacy. Sure, if you have played twice as many games on a champion you are more comfortable there and will perform better than a champion you are uncomfortable with. However, one cannot ignore the fact that, if they played a stronger pick just as much, they could've been performing EVEN BETTER than on their comfort champion. Pros do have more equal skill levels than the average soloq game, but if a champion is completely broken then the average player can abuse it just as much as a pro player.
Tell me, why do I have 3x as many games played on Zed, TF, and Nidalee but all of them have 30% less winrate than my Kassadin? Because Kassadin is a patently stronger pick, not because I play it better. I know far more/am more comfortable playing Zed/TF/Nidalee than Kassadin, yet my Kassadin winrate is super high. Clearly there are different tiers of champions, however, I'm not advocating to only play those champions.
If one enjoys playing the champion, then go ahead and play it. In soloq, there's a bonus edge that a player has by playing an uncommon champion. Like how everyone assumes Poppy is terrible then get bursted down going "where the fuck did that come from?" But that champion might not be as powerful as a meta champion. For example, compare Gangplank and Lulu top. Is there anything Gangplank does significantly better than Lulu? Except for providing global ult support, there's nothing. Lulu has more damage, utility, range, safety, and can better utilize teleport. If one wants to win, one should always pick Lulu over Gangplank unless you have never played Lulu before and Gangplank you have 100x as much experience. | Different picks are probably stronger than other picks. That is a a fact. Riot wouldn't need to balance their game otherwise and different champions wouldn't have different winrates in soloque if that was the case. |
Raakuth | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cirf6zw | Reddit a few weeks ago: Lucian is OP he dominates all the scene for AD Carries and he excels at literally everything
Riot: How about we nerf him then and make his range lower, that seems reasonable enough and to compensate we can make him even more ability based with lower cooldowns, more chase potential and lower mana costs
Reddit: OMG RITO RIP LUCIAN
Get a grip guys. You aint playing in the LCS, you can play any adc. If you truly enjoy the champion dont go being pissy because they got nerfed and just play your champion anyways. If there's people still playing Jayce, Zac, Cho etc. You can still play an ADC who's tentative nerfs could be way worse. This new cooldown and cooldown reduction for Lucian's dash might even make him actually have powerspikes rather than be good all the time, as he could end up having much more interesting combo's in lane that are much better early game. Sure, range nerfs are HUGE but they've given him decent stuff to compensate, from a trading standpoint he isnt that worse off and mid-late game he has the ability to reposition more frequently each fight making him hard to dive on as a bruiser. I understand Seraph's POV on this, but only as he plays at high elo. 90% of you guys are Bronze or Silver just like me, That's just common knowledge, and if you truly enjoy Lucian and main him like you say just fucking play him. The advantages at low elo from straight outplay far outweigh those from champion strength and none of you have even tried Lucian after these nerfs, why jump to conclusions? | These nerfs wont be too devastating and its what you guys asked for anyways. If you enjoy Lucian, enjoy the fact that he'll still be completely viable in everything besides competitive play (and may even still be seen in competitve for all we know), like every other champion. |
Valde314 | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cisye51 | No it isn't dude. Play more games and it'll move to 50%. Also are you climbing consistently? Or are you playing people at your skill level? Last season, i had 666 AP nidalee games, 51.8% winrate. 95 games on OLD yasuo 51.6% winrate. YOU WILL get about 50% winnrate always, when playing at your skill level (And more than 10 goddamn games).
At the time I had a 47% winrate, I was not climbing the ladder. When I get to around 30 games on a champion it's usually a 60% winrate. The point is, stronger champions tend to have higher winrate.
>No, they never do that.
Here is Phreak using winrate as an indicator of power level. By saying "winrate doesn't mean everything," he's clearly indicating it means something. Otherwise he would've said "winrate means nothing."
Here is Meddler talking about differing champion power levels, clearly indicating that they exist and can affect regular players. | Riot says power levels exist
-Riot uses winrate as a sign of power level strength |
bushypeepee | worldnews | t5_2qh13 | ciu2ud7 | Agreed, and since it's going to take place whether or not we like it, or whether or not it makes sense, let's make lemonade out of these lemons!
We have all heard of book burning, but I can say that the majority of us have never actually seen it happening. Why not publicize the date, time and location, and make it a full-fledged community event! I've still got that white t-shirt that I bought specially for that weekend in June =). Families and friends can all turn up together and we can even let the children toss in a few of the banned books themselves, because this whole event is to protect them, right?
I would totally turn up and I'll cheer the loudest, because I'm ssoo excited! I've only come across the idea of book burning at Bebelplatz in Germany, and in the book Fahrenheit 451. Oh my that gives me an idea! We can even check if the autoignition point of books is really 233 Celsius (451 Fahrenheit)!!
Oh my goodness look at all my lemonade!!! | Make it a public event & let children toss in the books |
nkryik | politics | t5_2cneq | civw6ni | That's some first rate delusion.
Actually, most of those are provable, and most are true. Let's go by claim, shall we? I'll avoid using a third-party fact-checker such as Snopes or Politifact, and just go by freely available numbers.
Deficit
This one's relatively easy - comparing the most recent budget deficit (2013) to the one that was current when Pres. Obama took office (2009). I'm using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data that's publically available [here]( I'll also throw in the 2014 projected surplus/deficit figures, just to be thorough.
2009 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$1,412,688 million.
2013 Total Surplus/Deficit: -$679,502 million.
2014 Total Surplus/Deficit (projected): -$648,805 million.
Going by the 2013 numbers, the deficit has been reduced by $733,186 million, or 51.90% - more than half of the 2009 deficit.
Correct
Taxation
I'm only going to compare federal taxation rates - quite obviously, the federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction over state rates, and thus can only affect the total taxation rate to a certain extent. To avoid complication, I'm also only going to focus on individual tax rates - feel free to compare the rest on your own time. From the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, I found [this summary]( that compares tax rates for a family of 4 from 1955 to 2011. Using the "Median Income" column:
1955 (earliest known): Income=$4,919; Tax rate=5.64%
1981 (highest rate): Income=$26,274; Tax rate=11.79%
2011 (latest known): Income=$74,964; Tax rate=5.32%.
This data includes, where applicable, the EITC and other benefits. And again, a tax rate of 5.32% is lower than any time in the past 56 years - not quite 60 years, but close.
Correct
Smallest Government
There really isn't any definitive and widely accepted way to measure this data, but one possible method is by using total budgeted federal spending as a percentage of GDP. I'm starting to get bored, so that's what I'll use. Going back to the OMB data I used for the "Deficit" analysis, table 1.2 conveniently gives receipts, outlays and surplus/deficit as a percentage of GDP. Eisenhower's tenure was from 1953 to 1960. Obama's, as I'm sure you know, was from 2009 to present. I'll compare all these points:
1953 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 19.3%
1960 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 15.2%
2009 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (highest since 1946): 20.8%
2013 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP: 17.0%
2014 Budgeted Outlays as a % of GDP (projected): 17.0%
Turns out, this measurement of government size shows that the size of the government under Obama was higher than Eisenhower's for most comparisons. However, as an interesting fact, the size of government decreased more under Obama to date than it did under Eisenhower for the first 6 years of his term.
Incorrect
Executive Orders
This is actually the easiest to go over, and it's been done [several]( [times]( [already]( Still, let's rehash it one more time. There have been 17 presidents in office in the past 100 years. I'll list them all, for completeness - sources are the National Archives [Executive Order Disposition Tables]( and the [American Presidency Project]( at UC Santa Barbara.
Wilson (1913-1920): 1,803 (1544-3347); 225.38/year
Harding (1921-1923): 522 (3348-3870); 216.27/year
Coolidge (1923-1928): 1203 (3871-5074); 215.14/year
Hoover (1929-1932): 968 (5075-6070); 242.00/year
Roosevelt (1933-1945): 3522 (6071-9537); 290.71/year
Truman (1945-1952): 907 (9538-10431); 116.57/year
Eisenhower (1953-1960): 484 (10432-10913); 60.50/year
Kennedy (1961-1963): 214 (10914-11127); 75.40/year
Johnson (1963-1968): 325 (11128-11451); 62.30/year
Nixon (1969-1974): 346 (11452-11797); 62.30/year
Ford (1974-1976): 169 (11798-11966); 68.92/year
Carter (1977-1980): 320 (11967-12286); 80.00/year
Reagan (1981-1988): 381 (12287-12667); 47.63/year
Bush I (1989-1992): 166 (12668-12833); 41.50/year
Clinton (1993-2000): 364 (12834-13197); 45.50/year
Bush II (2001-2008): 291 (13198-13488); 36.38/year
Obama (2009-present): 182 (13489-13670); 33.58/year
Ok, now that wall of text is over, it's fairly plain to see that Obama's signed, to date, the third-fewest number of executive orders in the past 100 years. The only ones who signed fewer are Ford (2-year tenure) and Bush 1 (4-year tenure). However, if you look at the rate that Obama's signed EOs per year, you have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland's first term to find someone with a lower rate of EO signing. That's 1885-1888, if you were wondering, or 126 years ago.
Partially true | 2 true claims, one false claim, and one partially true claim are very far from "first rate delusion" |
commandar | politics | t5_2cneq | ciz0q0o | who listens to NPR?
On average, well-educated, relatively affluent people that are only a few percentage points more liberal as a whole than the average media viewer.
Same poll also suggests the overwhelming majority of NPR listeners do not want a media source that simply conforms to their views. Compare that to the numbers for Fox and its hosts or MSNBC and Maddow. | I think you're engaging in some serious false equivalency here. |
PantWraith | politics | t5_2cneq | ciz66mk | I fully agree to just about everything you've said, I think.
But I'm not sure of its relevance to my point. From what I've read and heard, there are really only 2 points being argued over that politicians must pick a side and make a decision based upon. Those being 1, is there such a thing as human-induced / man-made climate change happening, and 2, should we take any action on it. No one said anything about full blown "let's ruin our way of life and standard of living action", but simply some form of action that at least start to reduce said human impact on global climate changes.
For the first argument, we're simply arguing a fact. One that does not immediately affect how people live nor their standard of living; it simply affects the way they think. In this regard, how anyone can even begin to listen to non-scientists on the issue and still believe they are correct is beyond me. The answer should be plain and simple, there is in fact a human factor to global climate changes and there have been for quite some time.
Now the second argument is much more relevant everyone whose lives will be affected by this man's decision. This is where the issue gets a little more complex. For this particular politician, we're talking about a state governor. Any decision on action to take he chooses will directly affect the lives of any and all Floridans. However, indirectly, he is also simultaneously affecting on a much smaller scale the rest of the globe as well as future generations.
First and foremost his directly affected population should be taken into consideration. He should make a choice based upon the wants and needs of Floridans so as to keep them happy. But he should also realize the larger picture and see if he can't find some sort of even ground to keep Floridans' standard of living unaffected while trying to make some change towards the greater good of the rest of the earth.
Again, as you said, no one is advocating ridiculous change to eliminate all man made climate changes, but some sort of action needs to be taken. Even if just baby steps in the right direction. Change is always easiest when done in small doses.
This man however chooses to forego all of that thinking and simply take the wrong decision at argument 1, effectively ruining any sort of opportunity to find a compromise for competing sectors. That's what makes this guy a bad politician. | I agree, a compromise needs to be made and a politician with no experience will have to make that decision. However when that politician simply ignores one of the competing sectors and makes a decision based on his gut instinct, s/he is a bad politician. |
WashILLiams | politics | t5_2cneq | cizab4y | Lol guys I'm religious and being persecuted since this guy is saying peoples faith lets them justify not having to take responsibility for what they do in the world. I am going to attack religion here and say your are way to quick to jump the gun on being persecuted and even quicker on the persecuting.
Maybe not all religions of course since it's not entirely true as you said but the Christian majority and the vocal minority everyone hears from that comes with that makes it seem like you're just a bunch of babies who have to get your way. That's just how religious people come off to me in America at least.
Maybe you believe in something different and have a good set of beliefs, I sure hope so you seem like a good person but this whole "attacking religion" thing needs to stop. I've never seen a majority act like they get the shit end of the stick so much then turn that around and act like they can control what another person does with their life, it's fucked up yo. | Their quick to be attacked but when a religious person tries to shit on someone else rights their still the ones being attacked. Not everything is a jab at your religion. Learn there's a difference between getting persecuted and someone complaining about how a persons "faith" allows them to refrain them from taking responsibility in this world for what they do. |
pwners5000 | politics | t5_2cneq | cizdamt | Yes and no. Human beings are susceptible to coercion. It's the decades-long campaign by moneyed interests to paint climate change as a fantasy (and successfully tying that into a left vs right debate) that has made many people vote the way they do. In other words, I would consider it less about the electorate (because, sadly, we vote for the person with the most exposure), and more about convincing Rick Scott "acting on climate change benefits him personally." But I don't see that happening unless a lobbyist on the other side of the debate (do they even exist?) can match the campaign donations he gets from fossil fuel industries. And honestly, since I'm sure changing sides would guarantee a shitload of attack ads against him by those industries, he still wouldn't consider it. | the electorate is the solution only if they can be persuaded to view climate change as real and man-made, and I don't see that happening unless moneyed interests inexplicably stop pouring their vast resources into misinformation campaigns. |
Narayume | sex | t5_2qh3p | cj1tx4m | Just want to say - you are not alone. My boyfriend identified as asexual with an aesthetic preference for men...until an alcohol fuelled make out session with me (I'm female) left him utterly confused. He still isn't attracted to girls in general other than his girlfriend, who he is hoping to marry. In the LGBT scene I found may be 1/50 saying the same thing. A girl in friends with says she is straight - she just really lives her girlfriend of five years. Another always identified as very gay indeed and had been with her ex girlfriend for many years before they sadly broke up. To everyone's shock she emerged from the resulting crisis two years later with a boyfriend. Now that boyfriend is a husband, and they say "ogling sexy females is a hobby they share".
Anyway, what I am trying to say is you are not alone with being attracted to one member of you generally not preferred gender. No clue why it happens, but it does. I mean I am happy, because I got an awesome boyfriend out of it. :P | You are not alone. If you have been around the LGBT block a few times you find this story over and over again. It is rare, but by no means unique. So don't stress yourself on that score. |
Whoreglore | sex | t5_2qh3p | cj24f95 | Your man/men need to feel like youre loving every minute of having them in your mouth. You have to enjoy doing it to do it right, regardless of weak jaw, or small mouth.
I use my hand like an extention of my mouth. As my head goes down, my hand goes down. To your man, it feels like youre deepthoating, without having to actually choke. Keep your hand wet, or youll pull or pinch the skin. I like to use a little lube if my mouth is dry, or try not to swallow my own spit to stop it drying too fast on the upstroke.
Give him a cheeky smile, make pleasured sounds, take your time. Its not a race. A leisurely blow job feels better than a quick gobbie, and your partner will feel better if youre enjoying yourself.
If my mouth is getting tired, I pull back and just run the head of his cock over my wet lips while stroking the shaft. To him it feels like when hes rubbing his cock on the opening of your vagina, but hes also being pleasured with your hand on his shaft. But remember, keep it wet.
As hes getting closer, youll find his balls feel tighter, and come up snuggly to rest under his shaft. If you have quite warm hands, just gently cup them. The heat from your palm will stimulate him a little more. But be careful. A lot of guys have had traumatic experiences with rough ladies and their balls. Test the waters. | keep it wet, illusions of deeper throats, dont startle the balls |
Kman3107 | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cj2gxu8 | Wow this coomunity is stupid as hell. Ofcourse if you invent something you want the recognition for it. Even if he/she don't deserve to get money, or the champion taken out of the game, he/she still deserves to be recognised as the inventor or whatever you call it.
I get mad reading these stupid comments about OP stealing the idea from dota, or that even if he/she came up with the idea there is no point of mentioning it. I've thought of things hundreds of times that I thought was original only to find that people have thought of it before me, it was still an original idea for me, even though someone got to it before me. If I was a part of making a movie I would be in the credits no matter how small the my part was, same with making games. | Stop being dum community, 2 people can have the same original idea. Give credit where credit is due. (not saying OP should be payed anything) |
doughboy011 | relationships | t5_2qjvn | cj5pt4j | I am similar to you, stay in my room and play games, and my parents did not freak out when I moved for college. I only called 1 time a week at most. | Your mom is overly possessive, set some boundaries. |
Valkorio | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cj8cvyi | You are so right and after the game complaining on social media...it's like Brasil complaining that Germany scored them 7 goals of course a team won't hesistate to destroy you if you let them the chance...there aren't only ponies and candies out there. The real world is harsh. | Report Germany 7-1 Brasil |
totesathrowaway123 | changemyview | t5_2w2s8 | cj9b560 | Just to be completely open before I start, I'm using a throwaway account. I'm normally pretty shameless on Reddit, but I prefer anonymity when discussing this aspect of my past.
When I was between 12 and 16, I was what you would classify as "otherkin." I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believed that I was part werewolf. I can assure you that it is indeed very possible to believe that you are some sort of mythical creature. I can't tell you why everyone does, but I can tell you some of the factors that led to my adoption of the idea.
When I was younger, I wouldn't exactly call myself very popular-- at least, not how the term is popularly connoted. Most everyone else knew me in the same way that you would "know" that one chair that squeaks a bit when you lean back. I was nothing more or less than a quirk in the background noise of reality. I was only approached when people wanted something. That pattern continued until I met my first true friend. We'll call him S.
To say that S was imaginative is an understatement. He was able to immediately concoct elaborate storylines with a variety of challenges for us to overcome. It was normal enough at first. After all, children regularly role-play as part of their socialization. It's not uncommon for them to play as implausible heroes in impossible situations. It's also not uncommon for particular characters to reoccur often. But after a while, our adventures started taking a turn towards what was retrospectively bizarre but what was, at the time, fantastic: We started to believe that we somehow embodied these characters in a more literal sense. The more we played, the more these personalities solidified in our minds and they eventually emerged as aspects of our actual selves.
I've read through most of the comments in this CMV, so I'm going to address the elephant in the room: "How could anyone believe that they were actually the people they played?" Honestly, I couldn't give you a complete answer. What I will do is give you my best theory.
Around this time, S and I started to seriously hit puberty. Our bodies were literally changing at incredible rates. We found ourselves measurably stronger and more adept at certain tasks in a few months time-- a rate that we naively thought was superhuman. We were seemingly converging on the characters that we assumed during play. I can't be entirely sure, but I would bet that our thought process was this:
1) We pretend to be these characters. This means that they exist somewhere in our minds.
2) We were seemingly growing to a strength that these characters possessed.
Conclusion: The reason we were thinking about them and the reason we were growing to be like them is because we really were them. The purpose of our games were congruent to the purpose of young tigers play-fighting: To prepare ourselves for what we would actually become.
I have to stress that this is retrospective because if I didn't it might appear that this conclusion dawned on us like an epiphany. It didn't. It was slowly adopted by our minds. Which is much more dangerous. Time gives the opportunity for falsehoods to solidify through the mounting of improbable "evidence."
The strength and confidence of being a werewolf is utterly addicting. Remember those moments of awkwardness and uncertainty that came with being a preteen/young teenager? Well that must have been a problem for you, mere mortal, because I had the blood of a fucking monster and monsters don't have to worry about your banal trivialities. I understand how implausible and absurd this line of thought seems, but could you imagine how unbelievably liberating it can be? It gave me a way to cope with a reality that I was just struggling to understand. A reality that I was feeling more and more isolated from as every day passed. It was a vicious cycle: The more people rejected me for my other idiosyncrasies (I was a very nerdy kid and my choice of sports was never exactly popular) the more I withdrew into my being a werewolf. The more I withdrew into being a werewolf, the more confident I was in my current idiosyncrasies and the more others started to sneak in. Soon, a small group of people recognized pattern and knew the mechanism, knew that I was a beast. They knew from experience.
This is where I met some of the greatest friends I've ever had in my life. It turns out that others were just like me. They had "others" either inside them or embodied by their minds and souls. They were open with me, included me, and we all felt a sense of kinship. We were a family of outcasts and misfits. You'd be amazed at how many people latched on to this idea or actively enabled it. I met three of my girlfriends through connections in the group and two of them were active participants. And I can assure you that every single person in that was in this group was just as sincere in their beliefs as I was in mine.
At one point in the comments, I saw the OP and a few others express doubt at the sincerity of some believers due to the fact that they don't embody all the behaviors that their "trapped" personalities would ostensibly entail. (I think the example used is that kids aren't flinging themselves into the streets like hedgehogs so they have to at least be aware that they aren't entirely hedgehogs). From my experience, the exact opposite is true. I was so sure that I was a werewolf, so committed to the belief, that I did my damnedest to ensure that no one outside the group would find out. I recognized that we were in a human world and if we wanted to survive without being ostracized, we had to act as normally as possible. That meant subduing the more visible aspects of yourself so that you could have as normal a life as possible. Imagine being a transgender individual in a time before it was more socially acceptable. You felt like an outsider unfairly born into a world that would reject your actual self. Many simply repressed themselves to get along as well as they could, but some people were more vocal about it. As such, they were rejected, shunned, and faced threats of violence. Those "attention seeking kids" on Tumblr aren't much different. They're bullheaded-- the world ought to accept them for who they are! And then they're subsequently shunned, rejected, and (at least in high school) recipients of very real threats of violence. Some of the more "visible" members got picked on relentlessly. They'd get targeted for coordinated harassment campaigns by certain cliques that only thought of them as "that fuckin' weird kid in my gym class." I know people who got the shit beaten out of them because someone would get carried away. In the face of this very real adversity, do you think that most of us would be stupid enough to chase traffic? I would say that we just wanted to be normal, but that's not entirely accurate. The reason that I was first attracted to the seemingly innocent practice to begin with was because I was normal. I was just a quirk in the background noise, remember? I think I subliminally recognized that everyone else was too. If normal involved loneliness and uncertainty then I wanted out. I wanted to be the kind of normal that I observed in some adults and pop-culture heroes. I wanted to be confident and unwavering. Everyone in the group was in the pursuit of this idealized normalcy. It would be many years before I realized that there is no such thing as unwavering confidence. That even heroes face hardship and doubt.
(Again, when I say "I thought" and "I wanted" it has to be clear that these weren't my contemporaneous conscious thoughts. These phrases are the product of a retrospective analysis. I can be sure of those things now. At the time, I was only sure of what I thought I was and what I actually wasn't: A werewolf trapped in a human world).
I eventually left the idea, but it wasn't exactly easy. I spent a good portion of my developmentally crucial years convincing myself of a fantastical falsehood. It took a lot of time to rewrite myself. To find other means to embody the confidence and assurance that I now realize was the driving force behind my behavior. But not everybody leaves. And of those that do, not everyone manages to return in one piece.
I'm sure you can sit here and diagnose some sort of psychological condition. In fact, I'd be stupid to think that you already haven't. But I can offer nothing more than the most sincere assurance that I was sane. I understood the reality that most people experience and I "understood" levels that I thought simply existed beyond it. And please do not use my usage of the term "beyond it" as an excuse to debase religiosity. The wiring is similar but not identical. I knew people who were hardcore Christians that justified there existence through convoluted interpretations of scripture. I knew others that were atheists and just thought that we were special via other rationalizations. (In fact, I can remember a couple of instances where Christian proponents debated Atheist ones. It's interesting to watch a Vampire debate a Monster on the virtues of faith). I can't speak for everyone, but I know that my evolution was probably a product of some twisted form of rationalization (see the part about 1. 2. and Conclusion above). I don't think I was deranged. Stupid? Absolutely. Embarrassingly accepting of the supernatural? You bet. But if you allow for people to believe in the existence of something, anything, that could exist beyond our mortal ken and they are in desperate need of some sort of strength to understand an uncertain world, I would say that it isn't insane, irrational, or some sophomoric attempt to get attention. Sadly, it can make all the sense in the world. | Coming from someone who would've previously identified as "otherkin," be careful about labeling these beliefs as insincere or insane. Everyone is fighting a battle that you know nothing about. They may not even know much about it themselves. |
pandroidgaxie | tifu | t5_2to41 | cjgywqf | pretty much not your business unless you find mom crying a lot or dad being an unusually real shit to her. Two signs of cheating are lots of work "overtime" and meetings, taking phone to another room to talk ... not many signs that a non-spouse would see.
.
I do wonder how he would get private time for cybersex unless you and mom have very consistent bedtimes, lol. Or maybe he is just cruising websites with no real intention of following through - it's an ego boost when someone compliments you, even if you never write back.
. | try to pretend it never happened |
greywolfau | gaming | t5_2qh03 | cjikblv | So here is the weirdest fix I think I've ever seen.
I had my PS4 controller in the bedroom. I had been using it the last few days with Marvel Lego on the PC instead of the Xbox 360 controller because. I have a program that emulates the PS4 controller into a 360 controller. I finally get off my arse, and walk into the bedroom and get the controller after 2 hours of trying.
Plug it, fire up the program and start Dead Rising 2 again. Hip hip hooray, it works ! I can use the menu in the PC settings menu to switch from disabled to enabled.
Here is where it gets weird. It wasn't the PS4 controller that I was now able to use, it was the wireless Xbox 360 controller ?????? | Emulate Xbox 360 controller with PS4 controller so my Xbox 360 controller will work with Dead Rising 2. |
BabalonRising | relationship_advice | t5_2r0cn | cjkmi19 | And a " | summary. |
Rosetti | changemyview | t5_2w2s8 | cjmyy80 | For me, it's not that I don't think it's a legitimate way to become a known performer - it's that the shows aren't really about uncovering talent.
These shows go under the guise that they're about finding talented performers and musicians, but their selection process is not designed for it. They don't evaluate a persons musical ability, their song writing abilities, or anything that would determine them to be a gifted musician/performer.
What these shows are doing is finding a 'product'. They are basically scouting for new pop prospects that they can sell. The whole show is about building people's media presence up. The record companies love this model - they don't have to individually scout talent - they can have it all come to them. They don't have to promote them - the TV show does that. They don't even have to pay for it - they actually make the audience pay for it with their viewing and with their votes.
You can often see this is the case by their comments when reviewing people. I recall one audition where a girl came in and sang a blues/jazz tune. Her voice was pretty good, but Simon Cowell criticised her for not being 'current'. That to me was these talent shows in a nutshell. He was not looking at her talent, her musical ability - he was looking purely at her commercial value. She wasn't hugely attractive, she wasn't singing popular songs, and so she had little value to the show. It's also the reason they spend so long on their sob stories - they want to build followings for these people so when they finally make their records, they have a big market to sell them too.
You can also see this in their high label turnover following their initial signing. Most of them get signed to Simon Cowell's label - Syco Records (at least here in the UK they do, there may be a different label in the US). If you look at their former artists, you can see how quickly they were dropped after their initial appeal wore off. If they truly believed that this person was one of the most talented people in the country - they'd put a hell of a lot more effort into developing them into a serious artist. | These talent shows are basically a pump and dump scheme for record companies. |
APocketTurtle | leagueoflegends | t5_2rfxx | cjmmflu | Thats true, but in my experience there are always people who can speak English with varying degrees of fluency in games on euw, even the people who dont speak English are able to say something along the lines of 'sry I not speak English' whereas eune, the best you'll get is 'lucker dog' and the occasional 'I fuck your mother'. | most people on euw can speak english, not the case on eune.
Except the french, even if they can speak english they'll refuse to |
RedditAntiHero | wow | t5_2qio8 | cjnhbn5 | I think that that your (or your friend's) math does not accurately express how much monetary loss people have from downtime** (see bottom)
Guessing you came up with the math like:
24h x 30d = 720 hours in a month
$15 / 720 hours = .02 per hour
This would assert that if the servers were down 8 hours a week (assuming 3am PST to 11am PST on Tuesdays), players would only be losing** $0.16 a week to downtime.
When I play (on break but back soon) I play about 15 hours a week so 60 hours a month for my $15.
This would mean that I am paying 0.25 for each of my hours played rather than $0.02.
Playing on US servers and living in Germany now means that if servers come up 11am PST that is 8pm CET which means I sometimes have to wait to play after work.
Not that this matters at all as I anticipate the maintenance and already make plans for that time so I am not twiddling my thumbs continuing to click the log in button to see if servers are up.
** No one is actually losing any money as no one should be surprised by the maintenance (other than maybe the first one or two times maybe for new players.) That subscription fee is not for 24 hour play. It is for play while the servers are up and running. | The cost of the subscription accounts for maintenance and downtime. |