Datasets:

webis

/

tldr-17

like 36

AddictedtoCatFace

Really though does majority matter in this case... I'm a little annoyed since pointlessarguingacct made a valid point. You exaggerated to make a point and he retorted with facts. "There's a reason people on Reddit assume the comment they're replying to comes from a guy unless told otherwise." Assumption makes an ass of you and me. The fact that 59% is male, 49% are women make up the reddit population does not hold much water in the way you are using it to support your assumption. If I saw that percentage then I would more so assume that 4 our of every 10 responses are female. Now when you think more about how reddit works this ratio doesn't really apply to well, due to the idea of subreddits uniting people interested in that particular subject. Since this has become a default you get more outliers but I honestly would expect to hear more responses back from female redditors more than 4/10th of the time. Just like if I made a post in /r/girlgamers but more importantly I would most likely here close to 100% from people interested in gaming... I'm not trying to attack you and I hope you don't take it as that, it's just that no one benefits when people use flawed logic to prove a point and it is usually counter productive. You made a weak point based on unimportant statistics that really doesn't even apply to this sub and are defending it erratically. It takes more courage to admit when you are wrong than to defend your statement. TL;DR Please check your facts next time and don't generalize things due to convenience sake if you don't want backlash. Also I am a racially diverse vegan male living in the midwest and sometimes this sub annoys me as pointlessarguingacct points out, you have a sub, I don't and bonus it's a default. Sometimes I think it would be better to be/feel "oppressed" than be treated like an outcast the majority of your life. Consider me one of the outlier's in this sub that I mentioned above.

Really though does majority matter in this case... I'm a little annoyed since pointlessarguingacct made a valid point. You exaggerated to make a point and he retorted with facts. "There's a reason people on Reddit assume the comment they're replying to comes from a guy unless told otherwise." Assumption makes an ass of you and me. The fact that 59% is male, 49% are women make up the reddit population does not hold much water in the way you are using it to support your assumption. If I saw that percentage then I would more so assume that 4 our of every 10 responses are female. Now when you think more about how reddit works this ratio doesn't really apply to well, due to the idea of subreddits uniting people interested in that particular subject. Since this has become a default you get more outliers but I honestly would expect to hear more responses back from female redditors more than 4/10th of the time. Just like if I made a post in /r/girlgamers but more importantly I would most likely here close to 100% from people interested in gaming... I'm not trying to attack you and I hope you don't take it as that, it's just that no one benefits when people use flawed logic to prove a point and it is usually counter productive. You made a weak point based on unimportant statistics that really doesn't even apply to this sub and are defending it erratically. It takes more courage to admit when you are wrong than to defend your statement. TL;DR Please check your facts next time and don't generalize things due to convenience sake if you don't want backlash. Also I am a racially diverse vegan male living in the midwest and sometimes this sub annoys me as pointlessarguingacct points out, you have a sub, I don't and bonus it's a default. Sometimes I think it would be better to be/feel "oppressed" than be treated like an outcast the majority of your life. Consider me one of the outlier's in this sub that I mentioned above.

TwoXChromosomes

t5_2r2jt

chuc7ey

Really though does majority matter in this case... I'm a little annoyed since pointlessarguingacct made a valid point. You exaggerated to make a point and he retorted with facts. "There's a reason people on Reddit assume the comment they're replying to comes from a guy unless told otherwise." Assumption makes an ass of you and me. The fact that 59% is male, 49% are women make up the reddit population does not hold much water in the way you are using it to support your assumption. If I saw that percentage then I would more so assume that 4 our of every 10 responses are female. Now when you think more about how reddit works this ratio doesn't really apply to well, due to the idea of subreddits uniting people interested in that particular subject. Since this has become a default you get more outliers but I honestly would expect to hear more responses back from female redditors more than 4/10th of the time. Just like if I made a post in /r/girlgamers but more importantly I would most likely here close to 100% from people interested in gaming... I'm not trying to attack you and I hope you don't take it as that, it's just that no one benefits when people use flawed logic to prove a point and it is usually counter productive. You made a weak point based on unimportant statistics that really doesn't even apply to this sub and are defending it erratically. It takes more courage to admit when you are wrong than to defend your statement.

Please check your facts next time and don't generalize things due to convenience sake if you don't want backlash. Also I am a racially diverse vegan male living in the midwest and sometimes this sub annoys me as pointlessarguingacct points out, you have a sub, I don't and bonus it's a default. Sometimes I think it would be better to be/feel "oppressed" than be treated like an outcast the majority of your life. Consider me one of the outlier's in this sub that I mentioned above.

KleptomaniKat

I agree 100%, no one should ever have to be a victim of discrimination at any time in their lives, unfortunately everyone will experience it more than once in their lives. Another unfortunate realisation is that as long as there is free will and free thought, there will always be at least one person who was taught wrong and had been around the wrong people, flailing their words around, hurting others without realising it. In this situation, the best we can do is correct them and move on, but someone who harasses another willingly and on purpose, has no place within our society, and deserves repercussions. TLDR - People are dicks.

I agree 100%, no one should ever have to be a victim of discrimination at any time in their lives, unfortunately everyone will experience it more than once in their lives. Another unfortunate realisation is that as long as there is free will and free thought, there will always be at least one person who was taught wrong and had been around the wrong people, flailing their words around, hurting others without realising it. In this situation, the best we can do is correct them and move on, but someone who harasses another willingly and on purpose, has no place within our society, and deserves repercussions. TLDR - People are dicks.

TwoXChromosomes

t5_2r2jt

chuldv4

I agree 100%, no one should ever have to be a victim of discrimination at any time in their lives, unfortunately everyone will experience it more than once in their lives. Another unfortunate realisation is that as long as there is free will and free thought, there will always be at least one person who was taught wrong and had been around the wrong people, flailing their words around, hurting others without realising it. In this situation, the best we can do is correct them and move on, but someone who harasses another willingly and on purpose, has no place within our society, and deserves repercussions.

People are dicks.

TheOmgmissile

One of the reasons I don't like Nintendo because I bought a 3ds from them. 2 years ago I got a 3ds for 160 euros and OoT for 30 euros. That's the game I've played since then on that system. Nintendo seems to think that the way out of their financial struggles is to fuck over the people who are stuck with their consoles. My 3ds wouldn't be a full time dust collector if Nintendo didn't have a problem with selling affordable games for it. For some reason they think their first party Mario rehashes are worth their weight in gold even years after their release. Sure, I could go and get 3d ports of android games from the eshop for 4x the price, but I would rather have the machine collect dust than play Swords and soldiers on worse hardware than my phone. I also hate the fact that they region lock their consoles. I would have been OK with spending 20 dollars to have a reason to pick the damn thing up and buy SMT Devil Survivor Overclocked from the eshop, but since they have separate eshop deals for Europe and NA I couldn't buy that game. Instead they were offering me "Sweet Dreams Blackjack". I've also been waiting to buy Fire Emblem Awakening for 20 euros or less. I haven't even seen it used for under 30 since the game (at the moment of writing this) costs the equivalent of 61,2 dollars when bought new. TLDR: Nintendo would rather have you not play their games than have you buy their games for cheap. [Apparently it hurts the value of their franchises.](

One of the reasons I don't like Nintendo because I bought a 3ds from them. 2 years ago I got a 3ds for 160 euros and OoT for 30 euros. That's the game I've played since then on that system. Nintendo seems to think that the way out of their financial struggles is to fuck over the people who are stuck with their consoles. My 3ds wouldn't be a full time dust collector if Nintendo didn't have a problem with selling affordable games for it. For some reason they think their first party Mario rehashes are worth their weight in gold even years after their release. Sure, I could go and get 3d ports of android games from the eshop for 4x the price, but I would rather have the machine collect dust than play Swords and soldiers on worse hardware than my phone. I also hate the fact that they region lock their consoles. I would have been OK with spending 20 dollars to have a reason to pick the damn thing up and buy SMT Devil Survivor Overclocked from the eshop, but since they have separate eshop deals for Europe and NA I couldn't buy that game. Instead they were offering me "Sweet Dreams Blackjack". I've also been waiting to buy Fire Emblem Awakening for 20 euros or less. I haven't even seen it used for under 30 since the game (at the moment of writing this) costs the equivalent of 61,2 dollars when bought new. TLDR: Nintendo would rather have you not play their games than have you buy their games for cheap. [Apparently it hurts the value of their franchises.](

pcmasterrace

t5_2sgp1

chudj75

One of the reasons I don't like Nintendo because I bought a 3ds from them. 2 years ago I got a 3ds for 160 euros and OoT for 30 euros. That's the game I've played since then on that system. Nintendo seems to think that the way out of their financial struggles is to fuck over the people who are stuck with their consoles. My 3ds wouldn't be a full time dust collector if Nintendo didn't have a problem with selling affordable games for it. For some reason they think their first party Mario rehashes are worth their weight in gold even years after their release. Sure, I could go and get 3d ports of android games from the eshop for 4x the price, but I would rather have the machine collect dust than play Swords and soldiers on worse hardware than my phone. I also hate the fact that they region lock their consoles. I would have been OK with spending 20 dollars to have a reason to pick the damn thing up and buy SMT Devil Survivor Overclocked from the eshop, but since they have separate eshop deals for Europe and NA I couldn't buy that game. Instead they were offering me "Sweet Dreams Blackjack". I've also been waiting to buy Fire Emblem Awakening for 20 euros or less. I haven't even seen it used for under 30 since the game (at the moment of writing this) costs the equivalent of 61,2 dollars when bought new.

Nintendo would rather have you not play their games than have you buy their games for cheap. [Apparently it hurts the value of their franchises.](

Luckyfncharms

Simply put... By braking, you are ridding your vehicle of the kinetic energy it has and turning it into heat energy in the brake pads. Accelerating is regaining that kinetic energy by changing potential energy (petrol) into kinetic energy (velocity/speed). If you maintain your kinetic energy (velocity/speed) at a constant, you are not wasting kinetic energy and are in turn using all of your potential energy by turning it into kinetic energy. TLDR: Braking wastes energy through unusable heat. Maintaining speed minimizes energy loss and increases efficiency of vehicle.

Simply put... By braking, you are ridding your vehicle of the kinetic energy it has and turning it into heat energy in the brake pads. Accelerating is regaining that kinetic energy by changing potential energy (petrol) into kinetic energy (velocity/speed). If you maintain your kinetic energy (velocity/speed) at a constant, you are not wasting kinetic energy and are in turn using all of your potential energy by turning it into kinetic energy. TLDR: Braking wastes energy through unusable heat. Maintaining speed minimizes energy loss and increases efficiency of vehicle.

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

chu1xt4

Simply put... By braking, you are ridding your vehicle of the kinetic energy it has and turning it into heat energy in the brake pads. Accelerating is regaining that kinetic energy by changing potential energy (petrol) into kinetic energy (velocity/speed). If you maintain your kinetic energy (velocity/speed) at a constant, you are not wasting kinetic energy and are in turn using all of your potential energy by turning it into kinetic energy.

Braking wastes energy through unusable heat. Maintaining speed minimizes energy loss and increases efficiency of vehicle.

rayned0wn

Update: Since posting this, I actually sent somewhat of a "pep talk" email to said person that probably should have been a TL;DR. However, she gave a fairly positive response to it, and thanked me.

Update: Since posting this, I actually sent somewhat of a "pep talk" email to said person that probably should have been a TL;DR. However, she gave a fairly positive response to it, and thanked me.

OkCupid

t5_2rct2

chuwqnh

Update: Since posting this, I actually sent somewhat of a "pep talk" email to said person that probably should have been a

However, she gave a fairly positive response to it, and thanked me.

Dunder_Chief1

That is a terrible first attempt. I better help you by eating all of the evidence of this blunder. TL/DR: Looks good, now I'm hungry.

That is a terrible first attempt. I better help you by eating all of the evidence of this blunder. TL/DR: Looks good, now I'm hungry.

food

t5_2qh55

chuycfp

That is a terrible first attempt. I better help you by eating all of the evidence of this blunder.

Looks good, now I'm hungry.

Bitcoin-CEO

You can find out where he lives by his posting history/other social engineering, monitor his house, then just go in and steal things of value when he's at work. Or even simply wait for him to return then use the good old pipe to the shins method to get to his bitcoins. If bitcoins go through the roof, you can bet your ass there will be people looking for us as they'll know early adopters have a hefty sum. tl:dr, op should remove this pic.

You can find out where he lives by his posting history/other social engineering, monitor his house, then just go in and steal things of value when he's at work. Or even simply wait for him to return then use the good old pipe to the shins method to get to his bitcoins. If bitcoins go through the roof, you can bet your ass there will be people looking for us as they'll know early adopters have a hefty sum. tl:dr, op should remove this pic.

Bitcoin

t5_2s3qj

chuy2kk

You can find out where he lives by his posting history/other social engineering, monitor his house, then just go in and steal things of value when he's at work. Or even simply wait for him to return then use the good old pipe to the shins method to get to his bitcoins. If bitcoins go through the roof, you can bet your ass there will be people looking for us as they'll know early adopters have a hefty sum.

op should remove this pic.

Definitely-a-bot

There **has** to be a serious consequence for this. If you let it go, or just tell him off, it will just result in him continuing and/or hiding it better. I don't think you should automatically jump to divorce, especially since you have a child together, but I think you *should*: * 1) Set up an appointment asap with a martial/relationship counselor AND a financial counselor. His attending both sessions is a non-negotiable. * 2) Ask him to stay at a relative's or friend's home until you have the first session with the marriage counselor. **This shows how seriously you are treating him breach of trust, and doesn't allow him to gloss over it like it's no big deal**. For the Tl;Dr: >if I do nothing/ just call him out on it, what is to stop him from doing it again? Nothing, and he'll keep lying. That's why you have to make the consequences for his lie *very* real, so the seriousness of the issue will get through to him.

There has to be a serious consequence for this. If you let it go, or just tell him off, it will just result in him continuing and/or hiding it better. I don't think you should automatically jump to divorce, especially since you have a child together, but I think you should : 1) Set up an appointment asap with a martial/relationship counselor AND a financial counselor. His attending both sessions is a non-negotiable. 2) Ask him to stay at a relative's or friend's home until you have the first session with the marriage counselor. This shows how seriously you are treating him breach of trust, and doesn't allow him to gloss over it like it's no big deal . For the Tl;Dr: >if I do nothing/ just call him out on it, what is to stop him from doing it again? Nothing, and he'll keep lying. That's why you have to make the consequences for his lie very real, so the seriousness of the issue will get through to him.

relationships

t5_2qjvn

chuzn88

There has to be a serious consequence for this. If you let it go, or just tell him off, it will just result in him continuing and/or hiding it better. I don't think you should automatically jump to divorce, especially since you have a child together, but I think you should : 1) Set up an appointment asap with a martial/relationship counselor AND a financial counselor. His attending both sessions is a non-negotiable. 2) Ask him to stay at a relative's or friend's home until you have the first session with the marriage counselor. This shows how seriously you are treating him breach of trust, and doesn't allow him to gloss over it like it's no big deal . For the

if I do nothing/ just call him out on it, what is to stop him from doing it again? Nothing, and he'll keep lying. That's why you have to make the consequences for his lie very real, so the seriousness of the issue will get through to him.

Ingens_Testibus

Did he never study congressional districts in the south when Democrats were in firm control of those various state legislatures? Trust me, we're playing catch-up when it comes to carving out favorable Congressional districts -- they are old pros! Republicans do this. Democrats do this. One side's egregious attempt to carve out favorable districts is no less and no more unfair than when the other side does it. TL/DR: Yawn

Did he never study congressional districts in the south when Democrats were in firm control of those various state legislatures? Trust me, we're playing catch-up when it comes to carving out favorable Congressional districts -- they are old pros! Republicans do this. Democrats do this. One side's egregious attempt to carve out favorable districts is no less and no more unfair than when the other side does it. TL/DR: Yawn

politics

t5_2cneq

chv7m4x

Did he never study congressional districts in the south when Democrats were in firm control of those various state legislatures? Trust me, we're playing catch-up when it comes to carving out favorable Congressional districts -- they are old pros! Republicans do this. Democrats do this. One side's egregious attempt to carve out favorable districts is no less and no more unfair than when the other side does it.

Yawn

perfecttttt

Okay, so I went out and bought some Mothers polish and also Mothers cutting compound. I spent about an hour on the hood working the compound and polish (with new microfiber after washing the car). I actually cheated and just took the top layer of oxidation off of the sides and roof, just to make it look good for now. The whole other side of the car still needs to be done... If its really pink I would suggest carefully using an orbital buffer. I am going to get a buffer, just because I still have another 4 hours left if I do it by hand. TL;DR: Wash car -> cutting compound -> polish

Okay, so I went out and bought some Mothers polish and also Mothers cutting compound. I spent about an hour on the hood working the compound and polish (with new microfiber after washing the car). I actually cheated and just took the top layer of oxidation off of the sides and roof, just to make it look good for now. The whole other side of the car still needs to be done... If its really pink I would suggest carefully using an orbital buffer. I am going to get a buffer, just because I still have another 4 hours left if I do it by hand. TL;DR: Wash car -> cutting compound -> polish

BMW

t5_2qn3a

chw3woj

Okay, so I went out and bought some Mothers polish and also Mothers cutting compound. I spent about an hour on the hood working the compound and polish (with new microfiber after washing the car). I actually cheated and just took the top layer of oxidation off of the sides and roof, just to make it look good for now. The whole other side of the car still needs to be done... If its really pink I would suggest carefully using an orbital buffer. I am going to get a buffer, just because I still have another 4 hours left if I do it by hand.

Wash car -> cutting compound -> polish

aquardic

As a guy with a girlfriend, here's my opinion. Not disagreeing with you, but there are plenty of girls at Tech that I've seen that are attention whores and that hang out with tons of guys and play their hearts for personal pleasure. Is this all girls at GT? No but you can't deny this does happen at Tech. It also doesn't help when girls think they're entitled to things just because they're a girl (again this isn't most girls at tech) The same thing happens at other schools, but it is definitely more prevalent at tech because of the ratio. Do guys blame TBS more often then they should? Yes but that doesn't mean TBS doesn't exist. Tl;dr: Girls: tbs exists. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist Guys: stop bitching and blaming tbs for everything.

As a guy with a girlfriend, here's my opinion. Not disagreeing with you, but there are plenty of girls at Tech that I've seen that are attention whores and that hang out with tons of guys and play their hearts for personal pleasure. Is this all girls at GT? No but you can't deny this does happen at Tech. It also doesn't help when girls think they're entitled to things just because they're a girl (again this isn't most girls at tech) The same thing happens at other schools, but it is definitely more prevalent at tech because of the ratio. Do guys blame TBS more often then they should? Yes but that doesn't mean TBS doesn't exist. Tl;dr: Girls: tbs exists. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist Guys: stop bitching and blaming tbs for everything.

gatech

t5_2r8t2

chvoqz3

As a guy with a girlfriend, here's my opinion. Not disagreeing with you, but there are plenty of girls at Tech that I've seen that are attention whores and that hang out with tons of guys and play their hearts for personal pleasure. Is this all girls at GT? No but you can't deny this does happen at Tech. It also doesn't help when girls think they're entitled to things just because they're a girl (again this isn't most girls at tech) The same thing happens at other schools, but it is definitely more prevalent at tech because of the ratio. Do guys blame TBS more often then they should? Yes but that doesn't mean TBS doesn't exist.

Girls: tbs exists. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist Guys: stop bitching and blaming tbs for everything.

TheCapriciousLeper

Sorry, champ - science says that I am in fact, correct. Your conspiracy theory regarding the "anti-contraception groups" did give me a giggle though. I suppose that the Jews were responsible for 11-9 as well? Here is a quote from one of the studies - done by *scientists* mind you: "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66%" A handful of sources for you, if you could be bothered letting the facts get in the way of an acute case of ignorance: - - - - - - TL;DR - You appear to think that the earth is flat and orbited by the sun. Educate yourself before falling back on conspiracy theories. Edit - formatting.

Sorry, champ - science says that I am in fact, correct. Your conspiracy theory regarding the "anti-contraception groups" did give me a giggle though. I suppose that the Jews were responsible for 11-9 as well? Here is a quote from one of the studies - done by scientists mind you: "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66%" A handful of sources for you, if you could be bothered letting the facts get in the way of an acute case of ignorance: - - - TL;DR - You appear to think that the earth is flat and orbited by the sun. Educate yourself before falling back on conspiracy theories. Edit - formatting.

australia

t5_2qh8e

chw2mqq

Sorry, champ - science says that I am in fact, correct. Your conspiracy theory regarding the "anti-contraception groups" did give me a giggle though. I suppose that the Jews were responsible for 11-9 as well? Here is a quote from one of the studies - done by scientists mind you: "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66%" A handful of sources for you, if you could be bothered letting the facts get in the way of an acute case of ignorance: - - -

You appear to think that the earth is flat and orbited by the sun. Educate yourself before falling back on conspiracy theories. Edit - formatting.

tears_must_flow

>People who compare male circumcision to FGM are poorly informed dickheads Oh_wow.jpg [OptimalCynic already beat me to the point anyway]( but tl;dr you're insane.

>People who compare male circumcision to FGM are poorly informed dickheads Oh_wow.jpg [OptimalCynic already beat me to the point anyway]( but tl;dr you're insane.

australia

t5_2qh8e

chvrpq7

People who compare male circumcision to FGM are poorly informed dickheads Oh_wow.jpg [OptimalCynic already beat me to the point anyway]( but

you're insane.

rumblestiltsken

So, you have no idea what you are talking about. The first couple of examples are condition where the *treatment* is removing the foreskin, if you don't have them you don't have them. You don't prophylactically remove the foreskin to prevent them. The last ones (infections, cancer and HIV) are not issues at all. The effect is tiny if present (the studies were horribly done by anti-contraception groups) and vastly outweighed by using condoms. Penile cancer is so rare that even a doubling of risk is completely unimportant. Tl:Dr you are wrong. Stop it.

So, you have no idea what you are talking about. The first couple of examples are condition where the treatment is removing the foreskin, if you don't have them you don't have them. You don't prophylactically remove the foreskin to prevent them. The last ones (infections, cancer and HIV) are not issues at all. The effect is tiny if present (the studies were horribly done by anti-contraception groups) and vastly outweighed by using condoms. Penile cancer is so rare that even a doubling of risk is completely unimportant. Tl:Dr you are wrong. Stop it.

australia

t5_2qh8e

chw1c6a

So, you have no idea what you are talking about. The first couple of examples are condition where the treatment is removing the foreskin, if you don't have them you don't have them. You don't prophylactically remove the foreskin to prevent them. The last ones (infections, cancer and HIV) are not issues at all. The effect is tiny if present (the studies were horribly done by anti-contraception groups) and vastly outweighed by using condoms. Penile cancer is so rare that even a doubling of risk is completely unimportant.

you are wrong. Stop it.

rumblestiltsken

It is pretty audacious to call your position the mainstream, when it is in fact the opposite that is true. *My* position is the mainstream paediatric and public health opinion around the world. **Your mistakes:** 1)Cherry picking the US college of paediatrics, when the [rest of the world disagrees]( 2) Misapplying data. The only studies, which are flawed or incomplete anyway ( from Africa assess *high-risk* groups, places with HIV rates up to 80% or even more. They have absolutely zero validity in populations which are low risk. Like the entire developed world. Which we are talking about. 3) Misunderstanding statistics. Low risks can double or triple and still be functionally irrelevant. See risk of penile cancer for a great example, or UTI prevention in males. If these were the only concerns, the harm from circumcision vastly outweighs the benefits. As the above points demonstrate, the other concerns are overblown or not relevant to the populations in question. So there is no medical case for prophylactic circumcision. **TL:DR -** You are truly, *truly* wrong here. You either don't understand the research, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. Feel free to read a bit more and work it out though.

It is pretty audacious to call your position the mainstream, when it is in fact the opposite that is true. My position is the mainstream paediatric and public health opinion around the world. Your mistakes: 1)Cherry picking the US college of paediatrics, when the [rest of the world disagrees]( 2) Misapplying data. The only studies, which are flawed or incomplete anyway ( from Africa assess high-risk groups, places with HIV rates up to 80% or even more. They have absolutely zero validity in populations which are low risk. Like the entire developed world. Which we are talking about. 3) Misunderstanding statistics. Low risks can double or triple and still be functionally irrelevant. See risk of penile cancer for a great example, or UTI prevention in males. If these were the only concerns, the harm from circumcision vastly outweighs the benefits. As the above points demonstrate, the other concerns are overblown or not relevant to the populations in question. So there is no medical case for prophylactic circumcision. TL:DR - You are truly, truly wrong here. You either don't understand the research, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. Feel free to read a bit more and work it out though.

australia

t5_2qh8e

chw4wpt

It is pretty audacious to call your position the mainstream, when it is in fact the opposite that is true. My position is the mainstream paediatric and public health opinion around the world. Your mistakes: 1)Cherry picking the US college of paediatrics, when the [rest of the world disagrees]( 2) Misapplying data. The only studies, which are flawed or incomplete anyway ( from Africa assess high-risk groups, places with HIV rates up to 80% or even more. They have absolutely zero validity in populations which are low risk. Like the entire developed world. Which we are talking about. 3) Misunderstanding statistics. Low risks can double or triple and still be functionally irrelevant. See risk of penile cancer for a great example, or UTI prevention in males. If these were the only concerns, the harm from circumcision vastly outweighs the benefits. As the above points demonstrate, the other concerns are overblown or not relevant to the populations in question. So there is no medical case for prophylactic circumcision.

You are truly, truly wrong here. You either don't understand the research, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. Feel free to read a bit more and work it out though.

TheCapriciousLeper

You would do well to re-read what I have written, friend. I did not suggest that my position was "mainstream", though you are welcome to cherry-pick our own studies to represent yours as being so. **Your mistakes:** * Not reading my posts properly (or choosing to selectively read them) * Making the assumption that I am pro male circumcision because I argued that there was only one legitimate reason for clitoridectomy and multiple legitimate reasons for the removal of the foreskin. I'll try not to make assumptions about your reasons for being so blindly devoted to your love of the foreskin that you are unable to see what I was trying to achieve with my posts - which was that comparing the removal of the clitoris and or labia minora to the removal of the foreskin is disingenuous and probably hurtful to both those who have experienced FGM and the discourse about the matter. Instead, I will provide you with some personal anecdotal evidence as to why, for me, the removal of my foreskin could be considered in no way to be mutilation. When I hit puberty, I developed phimosis as my glans outgrew my foreskin. This became, over time, paraphimosis. It is my fault that I allowed it to get to that stage as, despite the pain of the initial phimosis, in my pubescent mind, I believed that I had somehow "broken" my penis as the result of excessive masturbation and was incredibly embarrassed at the thought of having to explain the condition to my parents and to a doctor. It got to the point whereby it became almost too painful to walk, let alone run, yet I dealt with it because I was so terrified about getting into trouble. One weekend, whilst playing football (soccer) I collapsed on the pitch whilst running for the ball and must have looked just like Fabio Grosso, as there was nobody anywhere near me. I was carried off the pitch and taken to hospital. After a number of different treatments over a few days, it was decided that the only safe option that would prevent further issues was circumcision. The pain following the circumcision was, for a number of weeks, probably more painful than the initial condition, but since then, I have never had any problems. That was over 20 years ago. Perhaps it is as a result of what I experienced that I am able to see male circumcision as being a legitimate medical procedure, though maybe it is that others are so blinkered that they are unable to see alternate viewpoints to theirs as having any form of validity. **TL;DR** - You really need to grow up a little, son. Your position isn't the only valid one in this world. Being circumcised as a teenager was definitely a legitimate medical procedure for me.

You would do well to re-read what I have written, friend. I did not suggest that my position was "mainstream", though you are welcome to cherry-pick our own studies to represent yours as being so. Your mistakes: Not reading my posts properly (or choosing to selectively read them) Making the assumption that I am pro male circumcision because I argued that there was only one legitimate reason for clitoridectomy and multiple legitimate reasons for the removal of the foreskin. I'll try not to make assumptions about your reasons for being so blindly devoted to your love of the foreskin that you are unable to see what I was trying to achieve with my posts - which was that comparing the removal of the clitoris and or labia minora to the removal of the foreskin is disingenuous and probably hurtful to both those who have experienced FGM and the discourse about the matter. Instead, I will provide you with some personal anecdotal evidence as to why, for me, the removal of my foreskin could be considered in no way to be mutilation. When I hit puberty, I developed phimosis as my glans outgrew my foreskin. This became, over time, paraphimosis. It is my fault that I allowed it to get to that stage as, despite the pain of the initial phimosis, in my pubescent mind, I believed that I had somehow "broken" my penis as the result of excessive masturbation and was incredibly embarrassed at the thought of having to explain the condition to my parents and to a doctor. It got to the point whereby it became almost too painful to walk, let alone run, yet I dealt with it because I was so terrified about getting into trouble. One weekend, whilst playing football (soccer) I collapsed on the pitch whilst running for the ball and must have looked just like Fabio Grosso, as there was nobody anywhere near me. I was carried off the pitch and taken to hospital. After a number of different treatments over a few days, it was decided that the only safe option that would prevent further issues was circumcision. The pain following the circumcision was, for a number of weeks, probably more painful than the initial condition, but since then, I have never had any problems. That was over 20 years ago. Perhaps it is as a result of what I experienced that I am able to see male circumcision as being a legitimate medical procedure, though maybe it is that others are so blinkered that they are unable to see alternate viewpoints to theirs as having any form of validity. TL;DR - You really need to grow up a little, son. Your position isn't the only valid one in this world. Being circumcised as a teenager was definitely a legitimate medical procedure for me.

australia

t5_2qh8e

chw8sb9

You would do well to re-read what I have written, friend. I did not suggest that my position was "mainstream", though you are welcome to cherry-pick our own studies to represent yours as being so. Your mistakes: Not reading my posts properly (or choosing to selectively read them) Making the assumption that I am pro male circumcision because I argued that there was only one legitimate reason for clitoridectomy and multiple legitimate reasons for the removal of the foreskin. I'll try not to make assumptions about your reasons for being so blindly devoted to your love of the foreskin that you are unable to see what I was trying to achieve with my posts - which was that comparing the removal of the clitoris and or labia minora to the removal of the foreskin is disingenuous and probably hurtful to both those who have experienced FGM and the discourse about the matter. Instead, I will provide you with some personal anecdotal evidence as to why, for me, the removal of my foreskin could be considered in no way to be mutilation. When I hit puberty, I developed phimosis as my glans outgrew my foreskin. This became, over time, paraphimosis. It is my fault that I allowed it to get to that stage as, despite the pain of the initial phimosis, in my pubescent mind, I believed that I had somehow "broken" my penis as the result of excessive masturbation and was incredibly embarrassed at the thought of having to explain the condition to my parents and to a doctor. It got to the point whereby it became almost too painful to walk, let alone run, yet I dealt with it because I was so terrified about getting into trouble. One weekend, whilst playing football (soccer) I collapsed on the pitch whilst running for the ball and must have looked just like Fabio Grosso, as there was nobody anywhere near me. I was carried off the pitch and taken to hospital. After a number of different treatments over a few days, it was decided that the only safe option that would prevent further issues was circumcision. The pain following the circumcision was, for a number of weeks, probably more painful than the initial condition, but since then, I have never had any problems. That was over 20 years ago. Perhaps it is as a result of what I experienced that I am able to see male circumcision as being a legitimate medical procedure, though maybe it is that others are so blinkered that they are unable to see alternate viewpoints to theirs as having any form of validity.

You really need to grow up a little, son. Your position isn't the only valid one in this world. Being circumcised as a teenager was definitely a legitimate medical procedure for me.

JonnyBravoII

Did George Will write this? I'm a reasonably educated individual but this article seems to be littered with big words just for the sake of using big words. Can someone please TLDR it?

Did George Will write this? I'm a reasonably educated individual but this article seems to be littered with big words just for the sake of using big words. Can someone please TLDR it?

altnewz

t5_2y9zm

chvpc5v

Did George Will write this? I'm a reasonably educated individual but this article seems to be littered with big words just for the sake of using big words. Can someone please

it?

emperorlarsob

You can't "ensure they're not funding the wrong people." As long as drugs are prohibited legally, their production, distribution, and sale will be mostly be in the hands of people that most citizens would find to be undesirable/unethical. You're being really idealistic. I'd like to see it too, but there's not going to be "fair trade" LSD and MDMA anytime soon. Vice has been controlled by force for centuries and that isn't going to change any time soon. Hell, even in Colorado, vendors moving around legal weed transactions hire private security firms to protect themselves. These mofos wear kevlar, boots, and camo cargo pants and carry assault rifles. tl;dr Your idealism is nice, and I agree with it, but it's not practical or even possible.

You can't "ensure they're not funding the wrong people." As long as drugs are prohibited legally, their production, distribution, and sale will be mostly be in the hands of people that most citizens would find to be undesirable/unethical. You're being really idealistic. I'd like to see it too, but there's not going to be "fair trade" LSD and MDMA anytime soon. Vice has been controlled by force for centuries and that isn't going to change any time soon. Hell, even in Colorado, vendors moving around legal weed transactions hire private security firms to protect themselves. These mofos wear kevlar, boots, and camo cargo pants and carry assault rifles. tl;dr Your idealism is nice, and I agree with it, but it's not practical or even possible.

Drugs

t5_2qh7l

chvzo09

You can't "ensure they're not funding the wrong people." As long as drugs are prohibited legally, their production, distribution, and sale will be mostly be in the hands of people that most citizens would find to be undesirable/unethical. You're being really idealistic. I'd like to see it too, but there's not going to be "fair trade" LSD and MDMA anytime soon. Vice has been controlled by force for centuries and that isn't going to change any time soon. Hell, even in Colorado, vendors moving around legal weed transactions hire private security firms to protect themselves. These mofos wear kevlar, boots, and camo cargo pants and carry assault rifles.

Your idealism is nice, and I agree with it, but it's not practical or even possible.

accidentalhippie

Stoooory tiiiime: I moved to Europe the summer after 9th grade. The following summer my parents offered to pay for me to fly back to the US and go to EFY with my boyfriend. Yes... we were not 16 yet, but my parents were converts and his parents were cool with it. So I flew all the way from Germany to go to Europe, went to EFY with this guy (who I'd spent my entire allowance calling with phone cards all year). Some how we end up in the same group, despite being different years. The one mixed age group, go figure. Then he spends the whole time avoiding me, and I'm all "this is weird, but it's okay, I know you have friends here". Then the first dance comes around, we're dancing and he says "I don't think I like you any more." Because saying that before a flew across the ocean would've been too hard. Then he spent the entire time with the girl he'd met at the previous year's EFY, that he'd apparently been dating while I was away. To say I was heart broken is an understatement. So I spent the entire time bawling my eyes out and wishing I'd never gone. To round it out, for the curious, I didn't date again until I got to college, only RMs, and when that failed me (because none of them were interesting or kind people), I applied to move to BYU, got accepted, went home to the northeast part of the country to pack my stuff and move to Utah... then I got engaged to my best friend from high school, we got married, left the church, and I've never been happier. Celebrating five years this summer and I can't help but think that being brokenhearted helped me to build a better relationship with my current husband, instead of dating around in HS. So there. My entire dating history for your reading pleasure. Tl;dr: EFY sucked.

Stoooory tiiiime: I moved to Europe the summer after 9th grade. The following summer my parents offered to pay for me to fly back to the US and go to EFY with my boyfriend. Yes... we were not 16 yet, but my parents were converts and his parents were cool with it. So I flew all the way from Germany to go to Europe, went to EFY with this guy (who I'd spent my entire allowance calling with phone cards all year). Some how we end up in the same group, despite being different years. The one mixed age group, go figure. Then he spends the whole time avoiding me, and I'm all "this is weird, but it's okay, I know you have friends here". Then the first dance comes around, we're dancing and he says "I don't think I like you any more." Because saying that before a flew across the ocean would've been too hard. Then he spent the entire time with the girl he'd met at the previous year's EFY, that he'd apparently been dating while I was away. To say I was heart broken is an understatement. So I spent the entire time bawling my eyes out and wishing I'd never gone. To round it out, for the curious, I didn't date again until I got to college, only RMs, and when that failed me (because none of them were interesting or kind people), I applied to move to BYU, got accepted, went home to the northeast part of the country to pack my stuff and move to Utah... then I got engaged to my best friend from high school, we got married, left the church, and I've never been happier. Celebrating five years this summer and I can't help but think that being brokenhearted helped me to build a better relationship with my current husband, instead of dating around in HS. So there. My entire dating history for your reading pleasure. Tl;dr: EFY sucked.

exmormon

t5_2r0gj

chw5snz

Stoooory tiiiime: I moved to Europe the summer after 9th grade. The following summer my parents offered to pay for me to fly back to the US and go to EFY with my boyfriend. Yes... we were not 16 yet, but my parents were converts and his parents were cool with it. So I flew all the way from Germany to go to Europe, went to EFY with this guy (who I'd spent my entire allowance calling with phone cards all year). Some how we end up in the same group, despite being different years. The one mixed age group, go figure. Then he spends the whole time avoiding me, and I'm all "this is weird, but it's okay, I know you have friends here". Then the first dance comes around, we're dancing and he says "I don't think I like you any more." Because saying that before a flew across the ocean would've been too hard. Then he spent the entire time with the girl he'd met at the previous year's EFY, that he'd apparently been dating while I was away. To say I was heart broken is an understatement. So I spent the entire time bawling my eyes out and wishing I'd never gone. To round it out, for the curious, I didn't date again until I got to college, only RMs, and when that failed me (because none of them were interesting or kind people), I applied to move to BYU, got accepted, went home to the northeast part of the country to pack my stuff and move to Utah... then I got engaged to my best friend from high school, we got married, left the church, and I've never been happier. Celebrating five years this summer and I can't help but think that being brokenhearted helped me to build a better relationship with my current husband, instead of dating around in HS. So there. My entire dating history for your reading pleasure.

EFY sucked.

SirLemongrab

Thresh as a damage carry. Good God his auto-attacks hurt when you farm up souls, and the nice thing about him is that you can build pretty much any AD-based item and it will work with him. A few examples include Spirit of the Elder Lizard (Attack damage and CDR helps you, of course, and the True damage DoT both accentuates your already powerful auto-attacks and helps them retain power at low soul counts), Black Cleaver (shreds through armor like butter, alongside giving Thresh some survivability and good damage), Sword of the Divine (gives Thresh some burst, something he lacks without the use of The Box), and Runaan's Hurricane (fun fact, the passive bonus damage from his E, Flay, will proc every target hit by Runaan's Hurricane). To continue this, let's discuss the bonus damage from Flay. First and foremost, the ability scales off the number of souls you have from Damnation. Then it scales from attack damage, up to 200% at max rank. Since you'll be auto-attacking a lot, this makes armor penetration valuable. Since the bonus damage is magic, it also benefits from magic penetration, too. Once you get enough souls to warrant continuous auto-attacks, attack speed then becomes viable on Thresh. But wait, what about critical strikes? Build enough attack damage, and critical chance items work on Thresh, too. Note that the magic damage from his autos will not crit, however, just the basic physical portion of the attack. Let's review. Just his auto-attacks scale off: * Souls * Attack Damage * Armor Penetration * Magic Penetration * Attack Speed * Critical Strike Chance But that's not all. If you happen to be building straight ability power (or have about 200 souls) Thresh gets a fun new tool - Nashor's Tooth. It gives you ridiculous attack speed, 20% CDR and even *more* magic damage on hit. Another, defensive alternative to that is, of course, Wit's End. tl;dr build Thresh offensively.

Thresh as a damage carry. Good God his auto-attacks hurt when you farm up souls, and the nice thing about him is that you can build pretty much any AD-based item and it will work with him. A few examples include Spirit of the Elder Lizard (Attack damage and CDR helps you, of course, and the True damage DoT both accentuates your already powerful auto-attacks and helps them retain power at low soul counts), Black Cleaver (shreds through armor like butter, alongside giving Thresh some survivability and good damage), Sword of the Divine (gives Thresh some burst, something he lacks without the use of The Box), and Runaan's Hurricane (fun fact, the passive bonus damage from his E, Flay, will proc every target hit by Runaan's Hurricane). To continue this, let's discuss the bonus damage from Flay. First and foremost, the ability scales off the number of souls you have from Damnation. Then it scales from attack damage, up to 200% at max rank. Since you'll be auto-attacking a lot, this makes armor penetration valuable. Since the bonus damage is magic, it also benefits from magic penetration, too. Once you get enough souls to warrant continuous auto-attacks, attack speed then becomes viable on Thresh. But wait, what about critical strikes? Build enough attack damage, and critical chance items work on Thresh, too. Note that the magic damage from his autos will not crit, however, just the basic physical portion of the attack. Let's review. Just his auto-attacks scale off: Souls Attack Damage Armor Penetration Magic Penetration Attack Speed Critical Strike Chance But that's not all. If you happen to be building straight ability power (or have about 200 souls) Thresh gets a fun new tool - Nashor's Tooth. It gives you ridiculous attack speed, 20% CDR and even more magic damage on hit. Another, defensive alternative to that is, of course, Wit's End. tl;dr build Thresh offensively.

summonerschool

t5_2t9x3

chwa4yd

Thresh as a damage carry. Good God his auto-attacks hurt when you farm up souls, and the nice thing about him is that you can build pretty much any AD-based item and it will work with him. A few examples include Spirit of the Elder Lizard (Attack damage and CDR helps you, of course, and the True damage DoT both accentuates your already powerful auto-attacks and helps them retain power at low soul counts), Black Cleaver (shreds through armor like butter, alongside giving Thresh some survivability and good damage), Sword of the Divine (gives Thresh some burst, something he lacks without the use of The Box), and Runaan's Hurricane (fun fact, the passive bonus damage from his E, Flay, will proc every target hit by Runaan's Hurricane). To continue this, let's discuss the bonus damage from Flay. First and foremost, the ability scales off the number of souls you have from Damnation. Then it scales from attack damage, up to 200% at max rank. Since you'll be auto-attacking a lot, this makes armor penetration valuable. Since the bonus damage is magic, it also benefits from magic penetration, too. Once you get enough souls to warrant continuous auto-attacks, attack speed then becomes viable on Thresh. But wait, what about critical strikes? Build enough attack damage, and critical chance items work on Thresh, too. Note that the magic damage from his autos will not crit, however, just the basic physical portion of the attack. Let's review. Just his auto-attacks scale off: Souls Attack Damage Armor Penetration Magic Penetration Attack Speed Critical Strike Chance But that's not all. If you happen to be building straight ability power (or have about 200 souls) Thresh gets a fun new tool - Nashor's Tooth. It gives you ridiculous attack speed, 20% CDR and even more magic damage on hit. Another, defensive alternative to that is, of course, Wit's End.

build Thresh offensively.

IModOblivion

well, look at alligators Their antibodies are strong enough to kill HIV. There was a thing in Florida where a mineral deficiency was causing them to act like zombies where they would flail around on their backs until drowning. At first they thought that the fungus/parasite that inspired the last of us was behind it . So they put a sample in a healthy alligator and it did nothing. Then they got creative with what they put in alligator blood samples. HIV, full blown Anthrax, any disease they could think of to figure out what was killing off the lake's alligator population. Eventually they figured it out by lesions left in the brain tissue from dying neurons due to the deficiency. Back to vampires: Their entire diet is around blood, I would think that their immune systems would be as hyper active as alligators and crocodiles to protect themselves from STD and blood borne infections. But generally speaking it depends on what vampire mythos you are following, true blood, super natural, buffy ext... TL;dR: crocodiles and alligators are immune to any disease because they live and eat filthy things that would kill anything else. Vampires drink blood so they would be immune to blood born diseases.

well, look at alligators Their antibodies are strong enough to kill HIV. There was a thing in Florida where a mineral deficiency was causing them to act like zombies where they would flail around on their backs until drowning. At first they thought that the fungus/parasite that inspired the last of us was behind it . So they put a sample in a healthy alligator and it did nothing. Then they got creative with what they put in alligator blood samples. HIV, full blown Anthrax, any disease they could think of to figure out what was killing off the lake's alligator population. Eventually they figured it out by lesions left in the brain tissue from dying neurons due to the deficiency. Back to vampires: Their entire diet is around blood, I would think that their immune systems would be as hyper active as alligators and crocodiles to protect themselves from STD and blood borne infections. But generally speaking it depends on what vampire mythos you are following, true blood, super natural, buffy ext... TL;dR: crocodiles and alligators are immune to any disease because they live and eat filthy things that would kill anything else. Vampires drink blood so they would be immune to blood born diseases.

Showerthoughts

t5_2szyo

chyl444

well, look at alligators Their antibodies are strong enough to kill HIV. There was a thing in Florida where a mineral deficiency was causing them to act like zombies where they would flail around on their backs until drowning. At first they thought that the fungus/parasite that inspired the last of us was behind it . So they put a sample in a healthy alligator and it did nothing. Then they got creative with what they put in alligator blood samples. HIV, full blown Anthrax, any disease they could think of to figure out what was killing off the lake's alligator population. Eventually they figured it out by lesions left in the brain tissue from dying neurons due to the deficiency. Back to vampires: Their entire diet is around blood, I would think that their immune systems would be as hyper active as alligators and crocodiles to protect themselves from STD and blood borne infections. But generally speaking it depends on what vampire mythos you are following, true blood, super natural, buffy ext...

crocodiles and alligators are immune to any disease because they live and eat filthy things that would kill anything else. Vampires drink blood so they would be immune to blood born diseases.

cimomario

Pa evo da izdvojim ako nije bilo jasno: > U slučaju izmjena cijena i odredbi ugovora koji su za pretplatnike nepovoljniji u odnosu na ugovorene, pretplatnik ima pravo na raskid pretplatničkog ugovora bez naplate naknade zbog prijevremenog raskida istog, u roku od 30 dana od dana objave izmjena, osim u slučaju kada je izmjena cijena posljedica regulatornih obveza koja proizlaze iz ZEK-a, izmjena poreza na dodanu vrijednost ili veleprodajnih cijena na koje operatori nemaju utjecaja. TL;DR "Cijena rastu, mušterija plaća!" Prijevremeno raskidanje ugovora zbog ovog dizanja cijena izgleda ne spada u "bez naknade" jer eto postoji ova kvaka.

Pa evo da izdvojim ako nije bilo jasno: > U slučaju izmjena cijena i odredbi ugovora koji su za pretplatnike nepovoljniji u odnosu na ugovorene, pretplatnik ima pravo na raskid pretplatničkog ugovora bez naplate naknade zbog prijevremenog raskida istog, u roku od 30 dana od dana objave izmjena, osim u slučaju kada je izmjena cijena posljedica regulatornih obveza koja proizlaze iz ZEK-a, izmjena poreza na dodanu vrijednost ili veleprodajnih cijena na koje operatori nemaju utjecaja. TL;DR "Cijena rastu, mušterija plaća!" Prijevremeno raskidanje ugovora zbog ovog dizanja cijena izgleda ne spada u "bez naknade" jer eto postoji ova kvaka.

croatia

t5_2qyps

chxdqhb

Pa evo da izdvojim ako nije bilo jasno: > U slučaju izmjena cijena i odredbi ugovora koji su za pretplatnike nepovoljniji u odnosu na ugovorene, pretplatnik ima pravo na raskid pretplatničkog ugovora bez naplate naknade zbog prijevremenog raskida istog, u roku od 30 dana od dana objave izmjena, osim u slučaju kada je izmjena cijena posljedica regulatornih obveza koja proizlaze iz ZEK-a, izmjena poreza na dodanu vrijednost ili veleprodajnih cijena na koje operatori nemaju utjecaja.

Cijena rastu, mušterija plaća!" Prijevremeno raskidanje ugovora zbog ovog dizanja cijena izgleda ne spada u "bez naknade" jer eto postoji ova kvaka.

lic05

I'm gonna shut my hole about HHH "burying" people, one would think they would want a win back after the last PPV and yet they are putting over The Shield *again,* he's really thinking into the future and WWE is in very good hands with him at charge... John Cena on the other hand, I don't believe he doesn't have some degree of control on the way he's booked; he could have done the right thing and give a popular up and coming talent a big, clean victory that would boost his credibility greatly... but he's just another Hulk Hogan, doing everything he can to protect *his* position, I don't give a fuck about the "it's the booking team the one that doesn't let him lose" argument... tl;dr 7.5/10 The Shield are fucking awesome.

I'm gonna shut my hole about HHH "burying" people, one would think they would want a win back after the last PPV and yet they are putting over The Shield again, he's really thinking into the future and WWE is in very good hands with him at charge... John Cena on the other hand, I don't believe he doesn't have some degree of control on the way he's booked; he could have done the right thing and give a popular up and coming talent a big, clean victory that would boost his credibility greatly... but he's just another Hulk Hogan, doing everything he can to protect his position, I don't give a fuck about the "it's the booking team the one that doesn't let him lose" argument... tl;dr 7.5/10 The Shield are fucking awesome.

SquaredCircle

t5_2sljg

chwx8iz

I'm gonna shut my hole about HHH "burying" people, one would think they would want a win back after the last PPV and yet they are putting over The Shield again, he's really thinking into the future and WWE is in very good hands with him at charge... John Cena on the other hand, I don't believe he doesn't have some degree of control on the way he's booked; he could have done the right thing and give a popular up and coming talent a big, clean victory that would boost his credibility greatly... but he's just another Hulk Hogan, doing everything he can to protect his position, I don't give a fuck about the "it's the booking team the one that doesn't let him lose" argument...

7.5/10 The Shield are fucking awesome.

chickenboneneck

They're not here 24/7. They might, you know, have lives and not be around to notice that rules aren't being enforced. Overall, I think they do a good job. If I post something stupid that breaks the rules, it generally gets deleted and I don't do it again. They've helped me when I had some psychopath stalking my Reddit-wide, working with Reddit admin to get the guy a sitewide-ban. They often disagree with me when I report posts, but they are always fair and always get back to me in a reasonable amount of time, given that they are volunteers, most of whom probably have busy lives. tl;dr - It ain't that serious. You're a good poster, keep doing what you're doing and don't get so worked up about dumb shit.

They're not here 24/7. They might, you know, have lives and not be around to notice that rules aren't being enforced. Overall, I think they do a good job. If I post something stupid that breaks the rules, it generally gets deleted and I don't do it again. They've helped me when I had some psychopath stalking my Reddit-wide, working with Reddit admin to get the guy a sitewide-ban. They often disagree with me when I report posts, but they are always fair and always get back to me in a reasonable amount of time, given that they are volunteers, most of whom probably have busy lives. tl;dr - It ain't that serious. You're a good poster, keep doing what you're doing and don't get so worked up about dumb shit.

SquaredCircle

t5_2sljg

chwq36g

They're not here 24/7. They might, you know, have lives and not be around to notice that rules aren't being enforced. Overall, I think they do a good job. If I post something stupid that breaks the rules, it generally gets deleted and I don't do it again. They've helped me when I had some psychopath stalking my Reddit-wide, working with Reddit admin to get the guy a sitewide-ban. They often disagree with me when I report posts, but they are always fair and always get back to me in a reasonable amount of time, given that they are volunteers, most of whom probably have busy lives.

It ain't that serious. You're a good poster, keep doing what you're doing and don't get so worked up about dumb shit.

ChestBras

You feel too constrained because it's **telling** you what you should do, so instead, you want to **force** people into a unique tech tree? That's so ass-backwards it doesn't make sense. > The problem with Agrarian Skies is that every time you play through it is going to be the same. How does your way of doing things even address that problem, it makes it even worst. In AgSkies, once the base is done, I can do all the bees, or all the magic, or whatever I want in whatever order I want. Your way of doing it would force me into mods I have no intentions of touching. Also you call people "lazy illiterate imbeciles" from the get go? Good PR more there cotton, let's see if it'll play out. There are also way too many inconsistency in your suggestion. So, how do you solve all that? If you truly believe in your idea, JUST MAKE THE PACK ALREADY. You'll see if people will play them or not, and can gather feedback from there. MagicFarm wasn't built in a day, and ArgSkies works so well because it builds on that base which had already been through some calibration before. TL;DR: Just build the things if you want to build the things, get feedback on the thing you built instead of fishing for interest first. Do YOU even want to do this pack in the first place? EDIT: Let me get this straight, it would force me into Gregtech? [I'm out then](

You feel too constrained because it's telling you what you should do, so instead, you want to force people into a unique tech tree? That's so ass-backwards it doesn't make sense. > The problem with Agrarian Skies is that every time you play through it is going to be the same. How does your way of doing things even address that problem, it makes it even worst. In AgSkies, once the base is done, I can do all the bees, or all the magic, or whatever I want in whatever order I want. Your way of doing it would force me into mods I have no intentions of touching. Also you call people "lazy illiterate imbeciles" from the get go? Good PR more there cotton, let's see if it'll play out. There are also way too many inconsistency in your suggestion. So, how do you solve all that? If you truly believe in your idea, JUST MAKE THE PACK ALREADY. You'll see if people will play them or not, and can gather feedback from there. MagicFarm wasn't built in a day, and ArgSkies works so well because it builds on that base which had already been through some calibration before. TL;DR: Just build the things if you want to build the things, get feedback on the thing you built instead of fishing for interest first. Do YOU even want to do this pack in the first place? EDIT: Let me get this straight, it would force me into Gregtech? [I'm out then](

feedthebeast

t5_2v620

chwvn2p

You feel too constrained because it's telling you what you should do, so instead, you want to force people into a unique tech tree? That's so ass-backwards it doesn't make sense. > The problem with Agrarian Skies is that every time you play through it is going to be the same. How does your way of doing things even address that problem, it makes it even worst. In AgSkies, once the base is done, I can do all the bees, or all the magic, or whatever I want in whatever order I want. Your way of doing it would force me into mods I have no intentions of touching. Also you call people "lazy illiterate imbeciles" from the get go? Good PR more there cotton, let's see if it'll play out. There are also way too many inconsistency in your suggestion. So, how do you solve all that? If you truly believe in your idea, JUST MAKE THE PACK ALREADY. You'll see if people will play them or not, and can gather feedback from there. MagicFarm wasn't built in a day, and ArgSkies works so well because it builds on that base which had already been through some calibration before.

Just build the things if you want to build the things, get feedback on the thing you built instead of fishing for interest first. Do YOU even want to do this pack in the first place? EDIT: Let me get this straight, it would force me into Gregtech? [I'm out then](

mrust

Communication is such a vague term that it needs to be broken down into more specialized concepts. A man who focuses on communication will just miss all the subtleties. If you focus on polarity, the right type of communication will naturally emerge. When most people think of communication they think of expressing your thoughts, desires, and feelings verbally. That is just surface-level communication. Next, you can change the meaning of a statement through inflection, gesture, eye-roll. Think of something like sarcasm where you say one thing but mean the opposite. BTW, use sarcasm sparingly, it's not quite deep enough. Subcommunication is the next deeper level. This is where the woman realizes you wouldn't have said something unless you were a certain type of man. Keep in mind the words can be simple, it's the meaning conveyed that matters. You need to be covert when you do this. Search for Powertalk and you will see some examples of covert communication. And deeper still we have the concept of frame. The frame is the context of the communication. Holding frame is one of the most important concepts in TRP. It means you act consistently and can't be swayed by tears or emotion. You have a certain way of looking at the world and maintaining that truth is paramount. There is more to frame that can be applied to almost any interaction but that should be your default frame in a relationship. The deeper you go, the more subtle the differences. If you can reframe something the girl said through some off-hand statement so that she can see the world the way you want, then you will have no trouble keeping a LTR. **TL;DR:** Communication is a poor word for how you want to put yourself across. Maintain frame and subcommunicate the type of man you are.

Communication is such a vague term that it needs to be broken down into more specialized concepts. A man who focuses on communication will just miss all the subtleties. If you focus on polarity, the right type of communication will naturally emerge. When most people think of communication they think of expressing your thoughts, desires, and feelings verbally. That is just surface-level communication. Next, you can change the meaning of a statement through inflection, gesture, eye-roll. Think of something like sarcasm where you say one thing but mean the opposite. BTW, use sarcasm sparingly, it's not quite deep enough. Subcommunication is the next deeper level. This is where the woman realizes you wouldn't have said something unless you were a certain type of man. Keep in mind the words can be simple, it's the meaning conveyed that matters. You need to be covert when you do this. Search for Powertalk and you will see some examples of covert communication. And deeper still we have the concept of frame. The frame is the context of the communication. Holding frame is one of the most important concepts in TRP. It means you act consistently and can't be swayed by tears or emotion. You have a certain way of looking at the world and maintaining that truth is paramount. There is more to frame that can be applied to almost any interaction but that should be your default frame in a relationship. The deeper you go, the more subtle the differences. If you can reframe something the girl said through some off-hand statement so that she can see the world the way you want, then you will have no trouble keeping a LTR. TL;DR: Communication is a poor word for how you want to put yourself across. Maintain frame and subcommunicate the type of man you are.

asktrp

t5_2y2sm

chxz1sw

Communication is such a vague term that it needs to be broken down into more specialized concepts. A man who focuses on communication will just miss all the subtleties. If you focus on polarity, the right type of communication will naturally emerge. When most people think of communication they think of expressing your thoughts, desires, and feelings verbally. That is just surface-level communication. Next, you can change the meaning of a statement through inflection, gesture, eye-roll. Think of something like sarcasm where you say one thing but mean the opposite. BTW, use sarcasm sparingly, it's not quite deep enough. Subcommunication is the next deeper level. This is where the woman realizes you wouldn't have said something unless you were a certain type of man. Keep in mind the words can be simple, it's the meaning conveyed that matters. You need to be covert when you do this. Search for Powertalk and you will see some examples of covert communication. And deeper still we have the concept of frame. The frame is the context of the communication. Holding frame is one of the most important concepts in TRP. It means you act consistently and can't be swayed by tears or emotion. You have a certain way of looking at the world and maintaining that truth is paramount. There is more to frame that can be applied to almost any interaction but that should be your default frame in a relationship. The deeper you go, the more subtle the differences. If you can reframe something the girl said through some off-hand statement so that she can see the world the way you want, then you will have no trouble keeping a LTR.

Communication is a poor word for how you want to put yourself across. Maintain frame and subcommunicate the type of man you are.

Jobya

That was confusing. I'm not sure I understood any of that. Tl;dr plz

That was confusing. I'm not sure I understood any of that. Tl;dr plz

Aftermath1231

t5_31a32

chxe1lp

That was confusing. I'm not sure I understood any of that.

plz

joeygoebbels

Here's a relevant quote from Reza Aslan's *Zealot*: >As with Luke’s account of Quirinius’s census, Matthew’s account of Herod’s massacre was not intended to be read as what we would now consider history, certainly not by his own community, who would surely have remembered an event as unforgettable as the massacre of its own sons. Matthew needs Jesus to come out of Egypt for the same reason he needs him to be born in Bethlehem: to fulfill the scattered prophecies left behind by his ancestors for him and his fellow Jews to decipher, to place Jesus in the footsteps of the kings and prophets who came before him, and, most of all, to answer the challenge made by Jesus’s detractors that this simple peasant who died without fulfilling the single most important of the messianic prophecies— the restoration of Israel— was in fact the “anointed one.” And another: >What is important to understand about Luke’s infancy narrative is that his readers, still living under Roman dominion, would have known that Luke’s account of Quirinius’s census was factually inaccurate. Luke himself, writing a little more than a generation after the events he describes, knew that what he was writing was technically false. This is an extremely difficult matter for modern readers of the gospels to grasp, but Luke never meant for his story about Jesus’s birth at Bethlehem to be understood as historical fact. Luke would have had no idea what we in the modern world even mean when we say the word “history.” The notion of history as a critical analysis of observable and verifiable events in the past is a product of the modern age; it would have been an altogether foreign concept to the gospel writers for whom history was not a matter of uncovering facts, but of revealing truths. The TL;DR is that yes, the Bible was what we today would call "historical fiction"-- though the category didn't exist at the time, and contemporaneous works of "history" generally fell along the same lines (the "Father of History," Herodotus, also wrote about magic, etc.-- and was most definitely not a Christian). So we might label the Bible "historical fiction," but that fact is not necessarily a product of, nor does it necessarily undermine, the text's religious nature. For fundamentalists, the above would likely be anathema in its most literal sense. However, I think there's also quite a few Christian religious bodies who recognize the Bible as a literary text and a product of its own time, and have no qualms with those who attempt to historicize it/ claim it's not literal. This is anecdotal, though, based off my own experiences in a Catholic school.

Here's a relevant quote from Reza Aslan's Zealot : >As with Luke’s account of Quirinius’s census, Matthew’s account of Herod’s massacre was not intended to be read as what we would now consider history, certainly not by his own community, who would surely have remembered an event as unforgettable as the massacre of its own sons. Matthew needs Jesus to come out of Egypt for the same reason he needs him to be born in Bethlehem: to fulfill the scattered prophecies left behind by his ancestors for him and his fellow Jews to decipher, to place Jesus in the footsteps of the kings and prophets who came before him, and, most of all, to answer the challenge made by Jesus’s detractors that this simple peasant who died without fulfilling the single most important of the messianic prophecies— the restoration of Israel— was in fact the “anointed one.” And another: >What is important to understand about Luke’s infancy narrative is that his readers, still living under Roman dominion, would have known that Luke’s account of Quirinius’s census was factually inaccurate. Luke himself, writing a little more than a generation after the events he describes, knew that what he was writing was technically false. This is an extremely difficult matter for modern readers of the gospels to grasp, but Luke never meant for his story about Jesus’s birth at Bethlehem to be understood as historical fact. Luke would have had no idea what we in the modern world even mean when we say the word “history.” The notion of history as a critical analysis of observable and verifiable events in the past is a product of the modern age; it would have been an altogether foreign concept to the gospel writers for whom history was not a matter of uncovering facts, but of revealing truths. The TL;DR is that yes, the Bible was what we today would call "historical fiction"-- though the category didn't exist at the time, and contemporaneous works of "history" generally fell along the same lines (the "Father of History," Herodotus, also wrote about magic, etc.-- and was most definitely not a Christian). So we might label the Bible "historical fiction," but that fact is not necessarily a product of, nor does it necessarily undermine, the text's religious nature. For fundamentalists, the above would likely be anathema in its most literal sense. However, I think there's also quite a few Christian religious bodies who recognize the Bible as a literary text and a product of its own time, and have no qualms with those who attempt to historicize it/ claim it's not literal. This is anecdotal, though, based off my own experiences in a Catholic school.

DebateReligion

t5_2snuc

chx3zpf

Here's a relevant quote from Reza Aslan's Zealot : >As with Luke’s account of Quirinius’s census, Matthew’s account of Herod’s massacre was not intended to be read as what we would now consider history, certainly not by his own community, who would surely have remembered an event as unforgettable as the massacre of its own sons. Matthew needs Jesus to come out of Egypt for the same reason he needs him to be born in Bethlehem: to fulfill the scattered prophecies left behind by his ancestors for him and his fellow Jews to decipher, to place Jesus in the footsteps of the kings and prophets who came before him, and, most of all, to answer the challenge made by Jesus’s detractors that this simple peasant who died without fulfilling the single most important of the messianic prophecies— the restoration of Israel— was in fact the “anointed one.” And another: >What is important to understand about Luke’s infancy narrative is that his readers, still living under Roman dominion, would have known that Luke’s account of Quirinius’s census was factually inaccurate. Luke himself, writing a little more than a generation after the events he describes, knew that what he was writing was technically false. This is an extremely difficult matter for modern readers of the gospels to grasp, but Luke never meant for his story about Jesus’s birth at Bethlehem to be understood as historical fact. Luke would have had no idea what we in the modern world even mean when we say the word “history.” The notion of history as a critical analysis of observable and verifiable events in the past is a product of the modern age; it would have been an altogether foreign concept to the gospel writers for whom history was not a matter of uncovering facts, but of revealing truths. The

is that yes, the Bible was what we today would call "historical fiction"-- though the category didn't exist at the time, and contemporaneous works of "history" generally fell along the same lines (the "Father of History," Herodotus, also wrote about magic, etc.-- and was most definitely not a Christian). So we might label the Bible "historical fiction," but that fact is not necessarily a product of, nor does it necessarily undermine, the text's religious nature. For fundamentalists, the above would likely be anathema in its most literal sense. However, I think there's also quite a few Christian religious bodies who recognize the Bible as a literary text and a product of its own time, and have no qualms with those who attempt to historicize it/ claim it's not literal. This is anecdotal, though, based off my own experiences in a Catholic school.

Kai_Daigoji

Applying modern concepts of genre to historical writings is difficult at the best of times. In this situation it's untenable. Let's look at just one genre from the Bible (which isn't a book, but a compilation of books) - the Gospels. To a modern view, they contain supernatural events, yet are situated within a historical framework. That seems obviously historical fiction, as you mentioned. But it's vastly more complicated than that. First of all, calling something fiction is more than just saying it is untrue. If that were the case, libraries would have to constantly be updating their collections, shifting books back and forth as different theories rise and fall. Instead, the label fiction is tells us *how the book is intended to be received.* So for example, the ancient aliens books, though full of all the tropes of science fiction, are **non-fiction** works. Their authors intended for the ideas inside to be taken seriously, rather than as a story meant to entertain. So was this the intention of the writers of the Gospels? Absolutely not. They were not writing fiction; they were writing a true version of history, in their minds. However this is also problematic, because history means something different to us than it did in the ancient world. Today, to say something is historical means to say that it is a reasonably objective account of events. Napolean was defeated at Waterloo on this date, etc. In the ancient world, however, the account of events view of history was also inextricably tied to national myths, to the current political situation, etc. History was part of the narrative ancients told about themselves, about their nations, about their kings. These works were **never** disinterested, and the author's viewpoint and goals are inextricable from the narrative. You can see this in the Gospels - the Slaughter of the Infants is an attempt to show a parallel between Moses and Jesus, for example. The census is a trope that was used to have Jesus be born in Bethlehem, where the Messiah was supposed to come from (rather than from Nazareth, where he pretty clearly was from.) This is no different than the roles supernatural myths played in other histories and biographies. Accounts of the life of Alexander the Great have his birth prophesied by the Oracle at Delphi, for example. He is declared a God and taken into heaven much like Hercules. This always leads to the question, how can the Gospels be used as historical sources. And it is a large problem, one well recognized by historians. Every source we have is unreliable in any sort of modern sense. That said, since these problems are so endemic of ancient writing in general, we don't have to reinvent the wheel - the Gospels can be analyzed using the same techniques that Classicists use to analyze Greek and Roman texts. When we look at the histories of Herodotus, for example, he clearly passed on any interesting story he came across, especially supernatural stories. This doesn't make Herodotus useless - he's still the best source we have for some things in ancient history. We just have to be careful how we use him. **TL;DR** The Bible is history in the same way other ancient writings were - not at all by our modern understanding, but also definitely not fiction.

Applying modern concepts of genre to historical writings is difficult at the best of times. In this situation it's untenable. Let's look at just one genre from the Bible (which isn't a book, but a compilation of books) - the Gospels. To a modern view, they contain supernatural events, yet are situated within a historical framework. That seems obviously historical fiction, as you mentioned. But it's vastly more complicated than that. First of all, calling something fiction is more than just saying it is untrue. If that were the case, libraries would have to constantly be updating their collections, shifting books back and forth as different theories rise and fall. Instead, the label fiction is tells us how the book is intended to be received. So for example, the ancient aliens books, though full of all the tropes of science fiction, are non-fiction works. Their authors intended for the ideas inside to be taken seriously, rather than as a story meant to entertain. So was this the intention of the writers of the Gospels? Absolutely not. They were not writing fiction; they were writing a true version of history, in their minds. However this is also problematic, because history means something different to us than it did in the ancient world. Today, to say something is historical means to say that it is a reasonably objective account of events. Napolean was defeated at Waterloo on this date, etc. In the ancient world, however, the account of events view of history was also inextricably tied to national myths, to the current political situation, etc. History was part of the narrative ancients told about themselves, about their nations, about their kings. These works were never disinterested, and the author's viewpoint and goals are inextricable from the narrative. You can see this in the Gospels - the Slaughter of the Infants is an attempt to show a parallel between Moses and Jesus, for example. The census is a trope that was used to have Jesus be born in Bethlehem, where the Messiah was supposed to come from (rather than from Nazareth, where he pretty clearly was from.) This is no different than the roles supernatural myths played in other histories and biographies. Accounts of the life of Alexander the Great have his birth prophesied by the Oracle at Delphi, for example. He is declared a God and taken into heaven much like Hercules. This always leads to the question, how can the Gospels be used as historical sources. And it is a large problem, one well recognized by historians. Every source we have is unreliable in any sort of modern sense. That said, since these problems are so endemic of ancient writing in general, we don't have to reinvent the wheel - the Gospels can be analyzed using the same techniques that Classicists use to analyze Greek and Roman texts. When we look at the histories of Herodotus, for example, he clearly passed on any interesting story he came across, especially supernatural stories. This doesn't make Herodotus useless - he's still the best source we have for some things in ancient history. We just have to be careful how we use him. TL;DR The Bible is history in the same way other ancient writings were - not at all by our modern understanding, but also definitely not fiction.

DebateReligion

t5_2snuc

chxbst1

Applying modern concepts of genre to historical writings is difficult at the best of times. In this situation it's untenable. Let's look at just one genre from the Bible (which isn't a book, but a compilation of books) - the Gospels. To a modern view, they contain supernatural events, yet are situated within a historical framework. That seems obviously historical fiction, as you mentioned. But it's vastly more complicated than that. First of all, calling something fiction is more than just saying it is untrue. If that were the case, libraries would have to constantly be updating their collections, shifting books back and forth as different theories rise and fall. Instead, the label fiction is tells us how the book is intended to be received. So for example, the ancient aliens books, though full of all the tropes of science fiction, are non-fiction works. Their authors intended for the ideas inside to be taken seriously, rather than as a story meant to entertain. So was this the intention of the writers of the Gospels? Absolutely not. They were not writing fiction; they were writing a true version of history, in their minds. However this is also problematic, because history means something different to us than it did in the ancient world. Today, to say something is historical means to say that it is a reasonably objective account of events. Napolean was defeated at Waterloo on this date, etc. In the ancient world, however, the account of events view of history was also inextricably tied to national myths, to the current political situation, etc. History was part of the narrative ancients told about themselves, about their nations, about their kings. These works were never disinterested, and the author's viewpoint and goals are inextricable from the narrative. You can see this in the Gospels - the Slaughter of the Infants is an attempt to show a parallel between Moses and Jesus, for example. The census is a trope that was used to have Jesus be born in Bethlehem, where the Messiah was supposed to come from (rather than from Nazareth, where he pretty clearly was from.) This is no different than the roles supernatural myths played in other histories and biographies. Accounts of the life of Alexander the Great have his birth prophesied by the Oracle at Delphi, for example. He is declared a God and taken into heaven much like Hercules. This always leads to the question, how can the Gospels be used as historical sources. And it is a large problem, one well recognized by historians. Every source we have is unreliable in any sort of modern sense. That said, since these problems are so endemic of ancient writing in general, we don't have to reinvent the wheel - the Gospels can be analyzed using the same techniques that Classicists use to analyze Greek and Roman texts. When we look at the histories of Herodotus, for example, he clearly passed on any interesting story he came across, especially supernatural stories. This doesn't make Herodotus useless - he's still the best source we have for some things in ancient history. We just have to be careful how we use him.

The Bible is history in the same way other ancient writings were - not at all by our modern understanding, but also definitely not fiction.

picchu55

Be respectful, don't be afraid to throw in appropriate (based on the guests) humor, and keep it short. My story below if you want to read. When I gave the best man speech at my brother's wedding, I was planning on doing something short and sweet, and basically make the audience say "awww". As we were driving from the church to the reception, I had a stroke of genius. My brother is quite the avid hunter, so I thought of a way to incorporate that into my speech. I started off with something I've heard before, reminding my brother to never forget an anniversary or a birthday, standard stuff really. But then I turned to his new wife and started rattling off various dates that she needs to remember, and asking if she knows what any of them are. I didn't figure she'd know, so I was going to explain them and close with something about how marriage is a partnership and so on. Of course, my brother was whispering in her ear each time, so she answered every single one immediately. And now I'm screwed, because she ruined where I was going. As I paused for a second to figure out how to close things down, our dad popped up and yelled out "that's my daughter-in-law!" Perfect. The place was roaring with laughter. All I had to say after was "bro, you've done well." 2 minutes, maybe 3. tl;dr: made up a speech on the spot, bro and new sis tried to throw me off, dad saved the day, I look like a genius

Be respectful, don't be afraid to throw in appropriate (based on the guests) humor, and keep it short. My story below if you want to read. When I gave the best man speech at my brother's wedding, I was planning on doing something short and sweet, and basically make the audience say "awww". As we were driving from the church to the reception, I had a stroke of genius. My brother is quite the avid hunter, so I thought of a way to incorporate that into my speech. I started off with something I've heard before, reminding my brother to never forget an anniversary or a birthday, standard stuff really. But then I turned to his new wife and started rattling off various dates that she needs to remember, and asking if she knows what any of them are. I didn't figure she'd know, so I was going to explain them and close with something about how marriage is a partnership and so on. Of course, my brother was whispering in her ear each time, so she answered every single one immediately. And now I'm screwed, because she ruined where I was going. As I paused for a second to figure out how to close things down, our dad popped up and yelled out "that's my daughter-in-law!" Perfect. The place was roaring with laughter. All I had to say after was "bro, you've done well." 2 minutes, maybe 3. tl;dr: made up a speech on the spot, bro and new sis tried to throw me off, dad saved the day, I look like a genius

everymanshouldknow

t5_2u82c

ci0o4ci

Be respectful, don't be afraid to throw in appropriate (based on the guests) humor, and keep it short. My story below if you want to read. When I gave the best man speech at my brother's wedding, I was planning on doing something short and sweet, and basically make the audience say "awww". As we were driving from the church to the reception, I had a stroke of genius. My brother is quite the avid hunter, so I thought of a way to incorporate that into my speech. I started off with something I've heard before, reminding my brother to never forget an anniversary or a birthday, standard stuff really. But then I turned to his new wife and started rattling off various dates that she needs to remember, and asking if she knows what any of them are. I didn't figure she'd know, so I was going to explain them and close with something about how marriage is a partnership and so on. Of course, my brother was whispering in her ear each time, so she answered every single one immediately. And now I'm screwed, because she ruined where I was going. As I paused for a second to figure out how to close things down, our dad popped up and yelled out "that's my daughter-in-law!" Perfect. The place was roaring with laughter. All I had to say after was "bro, you've done well." 2 minutes, maybe 3.

made up a speech on the spot, bro and new sis tried to throw me off, dad saved the day, I look like a genius

qpid

I occasionally play 1 Mc but more and more i do not, and I don't believe Amaz plays it and a lot of priest players model they're deck after his. tl;dr no

I occasionally play 1 Mc but more and more i do not, and I don't believe Amaz plays it and a lot of priest players model they're deck after his. tl;dr no

hearthstone

t5_2w31t

chxbwj3

I occasionally play 1 Mc but more and more i do not, and I don't believe Amaz plays it and a lot of priest players model they're deck after his.

no

HenryAudubon

The meta oscillates back and forth on this one... mind control is at it's best when other priests aren't playing it because then nobody plays around it. That is the situation now (Amaz isn't running it, etc.), but unfortunately there's so much aggro and miracle on the ladder that mind control is too slow. Once the ladder calms down I'd expect mind control to shift back into favor. TL;DR don't play around it RIGHT NOW, but play around it in the near future :)

The meta oscillates back and forth on this one... mind control is at it's best when other priests aren't playing it because then nobody plays around it. That is the situation now (Amaz isn't running it, etc.), but unfortunately there's so much aggro and miracle on the ladder that mind control is too slow. Once the ladder calms down I'd expect mind control to shift back into favor. TL;DR don't play around it RIGHT NOW, but play around it in the near future :)

hearthstone

t5_2w31t

chxch1t

The meta oscillates back and forth on this one... mind control is at it's best when other priests aren't playing it because then nobody plays around it. That is the situation now (Amaz isn't running it, etc.), but unfortunately there's so much aggro and miracle on the ladder that mind control is too slow. Once the ladder calms down I'd expect mind control to shift back into favor.

don't play around it RIGHT NOW, but play around it in the near future :)

parlor_tricks

~~Your~~ the reasoning/logic is wrong. If you were that frustrated, you'd get a prostitute, or learn to find a girl. Firstly, to test any theory scientifically, it must be falsifiable. Yours is - if there is a case where a frustrated man doesn't indulge in rape the relation doesn't hold universally. The test for the hard case fails. This moves us to the soft case - perhaps for a certain section of men, rape is a result of sexual frustration or lack of availability of achievable sexual congress. Now we can test this further, real world data shows that there is an active prostitution and sex trade industry in our country, so these men must further be people who don't use this? Now this is also testable - men who go to prostitutes and also rape women will mean that sexual frustration isn't the case? Given that most raped are committed by people who know each other, that married men have committed rape, this is also on weak ground (it is possible that some people are just sexual predators and get off of rape). Still, further - given the size of the rural population, self reported incidence of sexual activity in the villages is also high (iirc there's even an old AMA here on the topic). So it's not like people need porn. This is by no means a *real* rebuttal. Just of the top of my head easy points to argue over. The fact is that most rapes occur between people who know each other and have more to do with whether the rapist believes other people have autonomy over their bodies, or deserve respect for it. Now if I wanted to defend your argument, I could argue that since men don't get sex and don't interact enough with women, they could misread a signal. But in general, misreading a refusal is the rarer case. It's a small subset of the whole problem. No one stuck a rod up someone over mixed signals, or killed someone else over mixed signals. Tldr: random rebuttals made, final few points matter more.

Your the reasoning/logic is wrong. If you were that frustrated, you'd get a prostitute, or learn to find a girl. Firstly, to test any theory scientifically, it must be falsifiable. Yours is - if there is a case where a frustrated man doesn't indulge in rape the relation doesn't hold universally. The test for the hard case fails. This moves us to the soft case - perhaps for a certain section of men, rape is a result of sexual frustration or lack of availability of achievable sexual congress. Now we can test this further, real world data shows that there is an active prostitution and sex trade industry in our country, so these men must further be people who don't use this? Now this is also testable - men who go to prostitutes and also rape women will mean that sexual frustration isn't the case? Given that most raped are committed by people who know each other, that married men have committed rape, this is also on weak ground (it is possible that some people are just sexual predators and get off of rape). Still, further - given the size of the rural population, self reported incidence of sexual activity in the villages is also high (iirc there's even an old AMA here on the topic). So it's not like people need porn. This is by no means a real rebuttal. Just of the top of my head easy points to argue over. The fact is that most rapes occur between people who know each other and have more to do with whether the rapist believes other people have autonomy over their bodies, or deserve respect for it. Now if I wanted to defend your argument, I could argue that since men don't get sex and don't interact enough with women, they could misread a signal. But in general, misreading a refusal is the rarer case. It's a small subset of the whole problem. No one stuck a rod up someone over mixed signals, or killed someone else over mixed signals. Tldr: random rebuttals made, final few points matter more.

india

t5_2qh1q

chxvjyp

Your the reasoning/logic is wrong. If you were that frustrated, you'd get a prostitute, or learn to find a girl. Firstly, to test any theory scientifically, it must be falsifiable. Yours is - if there is a case where a frustrated man doesn't indulge in rape the relation doesn't hold universally. The test for the hard case fails. This moves us to the soft case - perhaps for a certain section of men, rape is a result of sexual frustration or lack of availability of achievable sexual congress. Now we can test this further, real world data shows that there is an active prostitution and sex trade industry in our country, so these men must further be people who don't use this? Now this is also testable - men who go to prostitutes and also rape women will mean that sexual frustration isn't the case? Given that most raped are committed by people who know each other, that married men have committed rape, this is also on weak ground (it is possible that some people are just sexual predators and get off of rape). Still, further - given the size of the rural population, self reported incidence of sexual activity in the villages is also high (iirc there's even an old AMA here on the topic). So it's not like people need porn. This is by no means a real rebuttal. Just of the top of my head easy points to argue over. The fact is that most rapes occur between people who know each other and have more to do with whether the rapist believes other people have autonomy over their bodies, or deserve respect for it. Now if I wanted to defend your argument, I could argue that since men don't get sex and don't interact enough with women, they could misread a signal. But in general, misreading a refusal is the rarer case. It's a small subset of the whole problem. No one stuck a rod up someone over mixed signals, or killed someone else over mixed signals.

random rebuttals made, final few points matter more.

Eclipto14

I haven't seen this addressed yet but science and research methods are important to understand. The authors are claiming that gender-related perceptual biases affect how people react to hurricanes. According to their model, if the feminine-named hurricanes had male names, upwards to 3 times as many lives could have been saved. This is a **casual claim**, and a strong one at that. But, to be fair, the data *does* show that [stronger hurricanes caused more deaths if they had more feminine names] ( So the thing that strikes me as interesting is that in this model, hurricane name is the **independent variable** and death toll is the **dependent variable**. The names—feminine or masculine—also determine how the study sample is divided. Thus, methodologically, the independent variable also becomes a classification factor. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a study where the independent variable (an experimental factor) is also the sample selection criteria (classification factor). One of the first things you learn in any research and methods course is that classification factors (like sex and age human participants) can't be changed and therefore [cannot be randomly assigned]( So even with data collected in an experimental setting, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to conclude that something like one's sex or age causes something because you can't randomly assign someone to be a different sex or age. Random sampling/assignment is necessary for casual conclusions. After 1979, [we started giving hurricanes male names]( yes? Okay, that is all and well, but the process by which that happens is not random. The names alternate between male and female names. Imagine that we started with a female name when this process began in 1979. Now imagine that this results in the data set we have today. Okay, now imagine that we go back in time and start the entire process with a male name instead . All of the deadly hurricanes, like Katrina and Sandy, would have male names (and presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because the study wouldn't have been published). I don't see how honest researchers could even begin to claim or even imply that such a study could support a causal claim such as we could save up to 3x as many lives by selecting more masculine names. No random sampling/assignment = no casual claims. This is stuff one learns in the first week of Research Methods 101. **TL;DR** — The authors are trying to make casual or quasi-casual claims but there was neither random selection nor random assignment for how the hurricanes got their names. The non-randomness of this binary selection process introduces a potential bias that I have yet to see anyone discuss. Even *if* there were not any flaws with how the researchers analyzed their data, the study's design simply **does not** warrant one to make the claim that feminine or masculine names affects death tolls in hurricane-related natural disasters. Questionable science—enabled by publication biases—leads to even worse media attention which ultimately leads to the worst kind of discussions.

I haven't seen this addressed yet but science and research methods are important to understand. The authors are claiming that gender-related perceptual biases affect how people react to hurricanes. According to their model, if the feminine-named hurricanes had male names, upwards to 3 times as many lives could have been saved. This is a casual claim , and a strong one at that. But, to be fair, the data does show that [stronger hurricanes caused more deaths if they had more feminine names] ( So the thing that strikes me as interesting is that in this model, hurricane name is the independent variable and death toll is the dependent variable . The names—feminine or masculine—also determine how the study sample is divided. Thus, methodologically, the independent variable also becomes a classification factor. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a study where the independent variable (an experimental factor) is also the sample selection criteria (classification factor). One of the first things you learn in any research and methods course is that classification factors (like sex and age human participants) can't be changed and therefore [cannot be randomly assigned]( So even with data collected in an experimental setting, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to conclude that something like one's sex or age causes something because you can't randomly assign someone to be a different sex or age. Random sampling/assignment is necessary for casual conclusions. After 1979, [we started giving hurricanes male names]( yes? Okay, that is all and well, but the process by which that happens is not random. The names alternate between male and female names. Imagine that we started with a female name when this process began in 1979. Now imagine that this results in the data set we have today. Okay, now imagine that we go back in time and start the entire process with a male name instead . All of the deadly hurricanes, like Katrina and Sandy, would have male names (and presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because the study wouldn't have been published). I don't see how honest researchers could even begin to claim or even imply that such a study could support a causal claim such as we could save up to 3x as many lives by selecting more masculine names. No random sampling/assignment = no casual claims. This is stuff one learns in the first week of Research Methods 101. TL;DR — The authors are trying to make casual or quasi-casual claims but there was neither random selection nor random assignment for how the hurricanes got their names. The non-randomness of this binary selection process introduces a potential bias that I have yet to see anyone discuss. Even if there were not any flaws with how the researchers analyzed their data, the study's design simply does not warrant one to make the claim that feminine or masculine names affects death tolls in hurricane-related natural disasters. Questionable science—enabled by publication biases—leads to even worse media attention which ultimately leads to the worst kind of discussions.

TwoXChromosomes

t5_2r2jt

ci0kpiy

I haven't seen this addressed yet but science and research methods are important to understand. The authors are claiming that gender-related perceptual biases affect how people react to hurricanes. According to their model, if the feminine-named hurricanes had male names, upwards to 3 times as many lives could have been saved. This is a casual claim , and a strong one at that. But, to be fair, the data does show that [stronger hurricanes caused more deaths if they had more feminine names] ( So the thing that strikes me as interesting is that in this model, hurricane name is the independent variable and death toll is the dependent variable . The names—feminine or masculine—also determine how the study sample is divided. Thus, methodologically, the independent variable also becomes a classification factor. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a study where the independent variable (an experimental factor) is also the sample selection criteria (classification factor). One of the first things you learn in any research and methods course is that classification factors (like sex and age human participants) can't be changed and therefore [cannot be randomly assigned]( So even with data collected in an experimental setting, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, to conclude that something like one's sex or age causes something because you can't randomly assign someone to be a different sex or age. Random sampling/assignment is necessary for casual conclusions. After 1979, [we started giving hurricanes male names]( yes? Okay, that is all and well, but the process by which that happens is not random. The names alternate between male and female names. Imagine that we started with a female name when this process began in 1979. Now imagine that this results in the data set we have today. Okay, now imagine that we go back in time and start the entire process with a male name instead . All of the deadly hurricanes, like Katrina and Sandy, would have male names (and presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because the study wouldn't have been published). I don't see how honest researchers could even begin to claim or even imply that such a study could support a causal claim such as we could save up to 3x as many lives by selecting more masculine names. No random sampling/assignment = no casual claims. This is stuff one learns in the first week of Research Methods 101.

The authors are trying to make casual or quasi-casual claims but there was neither random selection nor random assignment for how the hurricanes got their names. The non-randomness of this binary selection process introduces a potential bias that I have yet to see anyone discuss. Even if there were not any flaws with how the researchers analyzed their data, the study's design simply does not warrant one to make the claim that feminine or masculine names affects death tolls in hurricane-related natural disasters. Questionable science—enabled by publication biases—leads to even worse media attention which ultimately leads to the worst kind of discussions.

I_want_fun

If you ask me you do not see it more because there is a rather limited pool of heroes on whom its actually an optimal buy at any given time. Tanky support cant afford to buy such an item because they need the defensive items. Most MID laners cant afford to buy it because the only time its actually a good buy is when you're very far ahead. By that point however it doesn't really matter. So most players on my level would stick to their regular build. As for junglers it might be good on one or two of them at the most, fiddlesticks for example. Most junglers need tankiness not pure ap dmg. Top and ADs really have no good reason to build it. And this is why you see it rarely. TLDR its a good item for a very small pool of champions mid ap assasins that are ahead and ap mage type supports. everyone else just has better stuff to build.

If you ask me you do not see it more because there is a rather limited pool of heroes on whom its actually an optimal buy at any given time. Tanky support cant afford to buy such an item because they need the defensive items. Most MID laners cant afford to buy it because the only time its actually a good buy is when you're very far ahead. By that point however it doesn't really matter. So most players on my level would stick to their regular build. As for junglers it might be good on one or two of them at the most, fiddlesticks for example. Most junglers need tankiness not pure ap dmg. Top and ADs really have no good reason to build it. And this is why you see it rarely. TLDR its a good item for a very small pool of champions mid ap assasins that are ahead and ap mage type supports. everyone else just has better stuff to build.

summonerschool

t5_2t9x3

chxwpou

If you ask me you do not see it more because there is a rather limited pool of heroes on whom its actually an optimal buy at any given time. Tanky support cant afford to buy such an item because they need the defensive items. Most MID laners cant afford to buy it because the only time its actually a good buy is when you're very far ahead. By that point however it doesn't really matter. So most players on my level would stick to their regular build. As for junglers it might be good on one or two of them at the most, fiddlesticks for example. Most junglers need tankiness not pure ap dmg. Top and ADs really have no good reason to build it. And this is why you see it rarely.

its a good item for a very small pool of champions mid ap assasins that are ahead and ap mage type supports. everyone else just has better stuff to build.

3DGrunge

>You're stupidity is so intense, I think this will be my last comment to you. All your posts have been riddled with grammatical errors I have not mentioned until now, and it's made them annoying to read. All your posts have been filled with retardation and childish naivety. Pathetic. Learn to read. >I have. The evidence you claim exists is nowhere in them, so far as I can recall. You haven't showed me the evidence either. Wtf are you talking about!? I have repeatedly given you the evidence. Learn to read. >You are so dumb, it's almost unbelievable. I'm pretty sure you're trolling, since no one could possibly be this stupid. We're talking about a Game of Thrones character, and suddenly you bring in Hitler? And you claim it's a related comparison? That's me comparing you to Hitler because you both drink water. It's idiotic. Learn to read. >Take me to this imaginary fairyland where this is actually true. You haven't proven jack shit. You keep claiming that you have, and that you have evidence, but you never actually prove any of your points. Read my fucking comments. If you had you would already have acknowledged that I have proved what I have said. You on the other hand just keep claiming "Nuhuh. Wahhh wahh nuhuh." That is what you have been writing. >Your first point is based on rumor alone, and we have no real evidence that it's true. As for your second point, he killed the mountain in a trial by combat. That's not murder, ya dingus. For fucks sake are you retarded!? He killed a lord which was suspected to be from poison, and then he is known to use poison on his weapons. He kills the mountain with poison. Put two and two to fucking together you moron! How thick are you that you are incapable of reading and putting things together?! You have literally got to be the most retarded individual on reddit. For fucks sake. Learn to fucking read. >Jesus Christ, have you even read a single reply that I've written? I never claimed he was a glorious hero, or that I loved him. You directly disagreed with my immediate statement that he is not a good guy that is all I said. He is a gray character just like the others. You jumped in saying I was wrong. If I was wrong with that that means your conclusion is that he is a good guy. And you defend him like he is some glorious figure that I have spoken ill of. It is pathetic. Learn to read. > I said that he wasn't as bad as The Mountain, a guy who rapes and murders civilians indiscriminately. I feel like you're just ignoring all my points that counteract yours, and pretending I said something else entirely. Learn to read. >I feel like you're just ignoring all my points that counteract yours, and pretending I said something else entirely. Lying to yourself by pretending you've won an argument on the internet about fictional characters is one of the most pathetic things I've seen so far. Congratulations. You have brought forward no points or information and claimed what I have said is not true when it is in the fucking books! Not once have you countered anything I have said. You have done nothing but try to attack me instead of the information provided. Learn to fucking read. >Your childish need to have the last word may inspire you to reply to this comment. Feel free to do so if it satisfies your ego, but I'm done with you. Learn to read you fucking imbecile. Furthermore making a claim like this is as childish as saying "loser say what under your breath to try and make fun of someone." Fucking pathetic. --- TLDR: Learn to fucking read.

>You're stupidity is so intense, I think this will be my last comment to you. All your posts have been riddled with grammatical errors I have not mentioned until now, and it's made them annoying to read. All your posts have been filled with retardation and childish naivety. Pathetic. Learn to read. >I have. The evidence you claim exists is nowhere in them, so far as I can recall. You haven't showed me the evidence either. Wtf are you talking about!? I have repeatedly given you the evidence. Learn to read. >You are so dumb, it's almost unbelievable. I'm pretty sure you're trolling, since no one could possibly be this stupid. We're talking about a Game of Thrones character, and suddenly you bring in Hitler? And you claim it's a related comparison? That's me comparing you to Hitler because you both drink water. It's idiotic. Learn to read. >Take me to this imaginary fairyland where this is actually true. You haven't proven jack shit. You keep claiming that you have, and that you have evidence, but you never actually prove any of your points. Read my fucking comments. If you had you would already have acknowledged that I have proved what I have said. You on the other hand just keep claiming "Nuhuh. Wahhh wahh nuhuh." That is what you have been writing. >Your first point is based on rumor alone, and we have no real evidence that it's true. As for your second point, he killed the mountain in a trial by combat. That's not murder, ya dingus. For fucks sake are you retarded!? He killed a lord which was suspected to be from poison, and then he is known to use poison on his weapons. He kills the mountain with poison. Put two and two to fucking together you moron! How thick are you that you are incapable of reading and putting things together?! You have literally got to be the most retarded individual on reddit. For fucks sake. Learn to fucking read. >Jesus Christ, have you even read a single reply that I've written? I never claimed he was a glorious hero, or that I loved him. You directly disagreed with my immediate statement that he is not a good guy that is all I said. He is a gray character just like the others. You jumped in saying I was wrong. If I was wrong with that that means your conclusion is that he is a good guy. And you defend him like he is some glorious figure that I have spoken ill of. It is pathetic. Learn to read. > I said that he wasn't as bad as The Mountain, a guy who rapes and murders civilians indiscriminately. I feel like you're just ignoring all my points that counteract yours, and pretending I said something else entirely. Learn to read. >I feel like you're just ignoring all my points that counteract yours, and pretending I said something else entirely. Lying to yourself by pretending you've won an argument on the internet about fictional characters is one of the most pathetic things I've seen so far. Congratulations. You have brought forward no points or information and claimed what I have said is not true when it is in the fucking books! Not once have you countered anything I have said. You have done nothing but try to attack me instead of the information provided. Learn to fucking read. >Your childish need to have the last word may inspire you to reply to this comment. Feel free to do so if it satisfies your ego, but I'm done with you. Learn to read you fucking imbecile. Furthermore making a claim like this is as childish as saying "loser say what under your breath to try and make fun of someone." Fucking pathetic. TLDR: Learn to fucking read.

gameofthrones

t5_2rjz2

chyas9j

You're stupidity is so intense, I think this will be my last comment to you. All your posts have been riddled with grammatical errors I have not mentioned until now, and it's made them annoying to read. All your posts have been filled with retardation and childish naivety. Pathetic. Learn to read. >I have. The evidence you claim exists is nowhere in them, so far as I can recall. You haven't showed me the evidence either. Wtf are you talking about!? I have repeatedly given you the evidence. Learn to read. >You are so dumb, it's almost unbelievable. I'm pretty sure you're trolling, since no one could possibly be this stupid. We're talking about a Game of Thrones character, and suddenly you bring in Hitler? And you claim it's a related comparison? That's me comparing you to Hitler because you both drink water. It's idiotic. Learn to read. >Take me to this imaginary fairyland where this is actually true. You haven't proven jack shit. You keep claiming that you have, and that you have evidence, but you never actually prove any of your points. Read my fucking comments. If you had you would already have acknowledged that I have proved what I have said. You on the other hand just keep claiming "Nuhuh. Wahhh wahh nuhuh." That is what you have been writing. >Your first point is based on rumor alone, and we have no real evidence that it's true. As for your second point, he killed the mountain in a trial by combat. That's not murder, ya dingus. For fucks sake are you retarded!? He killed a lord which was suspected to be from poison, and then he is known to use poison on his weapons. He kills the mountain with poison. Put two and two to fucking together you moron! How thick are you that you are incapable of reading and putting things together?! You have literally got to be the most retarded individual on reddit. For fucks sake. Learn to fucking read. >Jesus Christ, have you even read a single reply that I've written? I never claimed he was a glorious hero, or that I loved him. You directly disagreed with my immediate statement that he is not a good guy that is all I said. He is a gray character just like the others. You jumped in saying I was wrong. If I was wrong with that that means your conclusion is that he is a good guy. And you defend him like he is some glorious figure that I have spoken ill of. It is pathetic. Learn to read. > I said that he wasn't as bad as The Mountain, a guy who rapes and murders civilians indiscriminately. I feel like you're just ignoring all my points that counteract yours, and pretending I said something else entirely. Learn to read. >I feel like you're just ignoring all my points that counteract yours, and pretending I said something else entirely. Lying to yourself by pretending you've won an argument on the internet about fictional characters is one of the most pathetic things I've seen so far. Congratulations. You have brought forward no points or information and claimed what I have said is not true when it is in the fucking books! Not once have you countered anything I have said. You have done nothing but try to attack me instead of the information provided. Learn to fucking read. >Your childish need to have the last word may inspire you to reply to this comment. Feel free to do so if it satisfies your ego, but I'm done with you. Learn to read you fucking imbecile. Furthermore making a claim like this is as childish as saying "loser say what under your breath to try and make fun of someone." Fucking pathetic.

Learn to fucking read.

Pi_Rho

I was at a rave when I was 22. Yeah, I know a bit old but I was going out with a friend who really wanted to attend this show. I was giving light shows and a girl asked me to give her one. After about an hour long light show she asks me to sit next to her. I'm all for it as this girl is actually kinda cute and scantily clad. I sit down and we get to talking. After awhile she asks my age to which I respond truthfully albeit somewhat begrudgingly as I know I am getting to be on the "older" side of ravers. This was an adults only show and there was liquor being served virtually everywhere so I didn't think TOO much into it. We continue talking and she asks me what I'm doing after the show. "Probably an after party," I reply. She says, "Well, wherever you decide to go let me know." I advise her that I don't have her number in the most James Bond manner I can muster. She giggles and gives me her information. I notice that her handwriting is a bit on the "bubbly" side and for some reason THIS is the thing that has me asking, "So, how old are you?" Her response: 15. I don't remember saying anything further. I stood up. Left. Never raved again. TL;DR. Got hit on by a minor at a rave.

I was at a rave when I was 22. Yeah, I know a bit old but I was going out with a friend who really wanted to attend this show. I was giving light shows and a girl asked me to give her one. After about an hour long light show she asks me to sit next to her. I'm all for it as this girl is actually kinda cute and scantily clad. I sit down and we get to talking. After awhile she asks my age to which I respond truthfully albeit somewhat begrudgingly as I know I am getting to be on the "older" side of ravers. This was an adults only show and there was liquor being served virtually everywhere so I didn't think TOO much into it. We continue talking and she asks me what I'm doing after the show. "Probably an after party," I reply. She says, "Well, wherever you decide to go let me know." I advise her that I don't have her number in the most James Bond manner I can muster. She giggles and gives me her information. I notice that her handwriting is a bit on the "bubbly" side and for some reason THIS is the thing that has me asking, "So, how old are you?" Her response: 15. I don't remember saying anything further. I stood up. Left. Never raved again. TL;DR. Got hit on by a minor at a rave.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

chxnu9d

I was at a rave when I was 22. Yeah, I know a bit old but I was going out with a friend who really wanted to attend this show. I was giving light shows and a girl asked me to give her one. After about an hour long light show she asks me to sit next to her. I'm all for it as this girl is actually kinda cute and scantily clad. I sit down and we get to talking. After awhile she asks my age to which I respond truthfully albeit somewhat begrudgingly as I know I am getting to be on the "older" side of ravers. This was an adults only show and there was liquor being served virtually everywhere so I didn't think TOO much into it. We continue talking and she asks me what I'm doing after the show. "Probably an after party," I reply. She says, "Well, wherever you decide to go let me know." I advise her that I don't have her number in the most James Bond manner I can muster. She giggles and gives me her information. I notice that her handwriting is a bit on the "bubbly" side and for some reason THIS is the thing that has me asking, "So, how old are you?" Her response: 15. I don't remember saying anything further. I stood up. Left. Never raved again.

Got hit on by a minor at a rave.

xXCJN28Xx

I realized after I posted that I messed up the code (I took chunks of my game and copied/pasted them to pastebin). I thought it was good, but I'll have to fix it once I get home. I know what a function is and I have the latest version of love. Also, the code feels more organized for me if I separate the functions out. And yes, I have odd ways of attempting to approach things. TL; DR My main issue is that I don't know what to do with the return values from the CheckCollision functions.

I realized after I posted that I messed up the code (I took chunks of my game and copied/pasted them to pastebin). I thought it was good, but I'll have to fix it once I get home. I know what a function is and I have the latest version of love. Also, the code feels more organized for me if I separate the functions out. And yes, I have odd ways of attempting to approach things. TL; DR My main issue is that I don't know what to do with the return values from the CheckCollision functions.

love2d

t5_2sjyz

chxvul7

I realized after I posted that I messed up the code (I took chunks of my game and copied/pasted them to pastebin). I thought it was good, but I'll have to fix it once I get home. I know what a function is and I have the latest version of love. Also, the code feels more organized for me if I separate the functions out. And yes, I have odd ways of attempting to approach things.

My main issue is that I don't know what to do with the return values from the CheckCollision functions.

davou

yeah I read those... I didnt put much credence into it because you prefaced it with a 'palestinian watchdog' newsite. in fact, > "All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." -Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank. Here's something directly from the Torah > "Annihilate the Amalekites from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously, one after the other. Leave no child, plant, or tree. Kill their beasts, from camels to donkeys." Rosen adds that the Amalekites are not a particular race or religion, but rather all those who hate the Jews for religious or national motives. Heres more from the same scriptures > “The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.” > Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b > > “The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew.” > Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30 > > “Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form.” > Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855 > “A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal.” > Coschen hamischpat 405 > > “The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs.” > Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b > > “Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.” > Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b > > “If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog.” > Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b > > “If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: “God will replace ‘your loss’, just as if one of his oxen or asses had died”.” > Jore dea 377, 1 > > “Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals.” > Talmud Sanhedrin 74b > > “It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile.” > Sepher ikkarim III c 25 > > “It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” > Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5 > > “A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands.” > Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b > > “Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” > Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772 [For fucks sake, these people have no access to water of any kind at the moment because of Israeli intervention]( There are extremists on both sides of this argument, Only one of those groups of extremists has a presence at the UN, a standing army, and a nuclear stockpile. TLDR, There are extremists on both sides; But Isreal gets to call theirs a government and subsequently Plow over Palestinian houses, shut down schools, turn access to ANY water off... Rocket attacks are horrible, but you'd be getting much worse if not for Isreali brown-nosers in the UN, US and Euroblock.

yeah I read those... I didnt put much credence into it because you prefaced it with a 'palestinian watchdog' newsite. in fact, > "All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." -Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank. Here's something directly from the Torah > "Annihilate the Amalekites from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously, one after the other. Leave no child, plant, or tree. Kill their beasts, from camels to donkeys." Rosen adds that the Amalekites are not a particular race or religion, but rather all those who hate the Jews for religious or national motives. Heres more from the same scriptures > “The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.” > Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b > > “The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew.” > Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30 > > “Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form.” > Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855 > “A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal.” > Coschen hamischpat 405 > > “The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs.” > Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b > > “Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.” > Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b > > “If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog.” > Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b > > “If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: “God will replace ‘your loss’, just as if one of his oxen or asses had died”.” > Jore dea 377, 1 > > “Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals.” > Talmud Sanhedrin 74b > > “It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile.” > Sepher ikkarim III c 25 > > “It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” > Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5 > > “A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands.” > Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b > > “Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” > Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772 [For fucks sake, these people have no access to water of any kind at the moment because of Israeli intervention]( There are extremists on both sides of this argument, Only one of those groups of extremists has a presence at the UN, a standing army, and a nuclear stockpile. TLDR, There are extremists on both sides; But Isreal gets to call theirs a government and subsequently Plow over Palestinian houses, shut down schools, turn access to ANY water off... Rocket attacks are horrible, but you'd be getting much worse if not for Isreali brown-nosers in the UN, US and Euroblock.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

chycwha

yeah I read those... I didnt put much credence into it because you prefaced it with a 'palestinian watchdog' newsite. in fact, > "All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." -Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank. Here's something directly from the Torah > "Annihilate the Amalekites from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously, one after the other. Leave no child, plant, or tree. Kill their beasts, from camels to donkeys." Rosen adds that the Amalekites are not a particular race or religion, but rather all those who hate the Jews for religious or national motives. Heres more from the same scriptures > “The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.” > Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b > > “The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew.” > Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30 > > “Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form.” > Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855 > “A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal.” > Coschen hamischpat 405 > > “The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs.” > Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b > > “Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.” > Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b > > “If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog.” > Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b > > “If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: “God will replace ‘your loss’, just as if one of his oxen or asses had died”.” > Jore dea 377, 1 > > “Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals.” > Talmud Sanhedrin 74b > > “It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile.” > Sepher ikkarim III c 25 > > “It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah.” > Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5 > > “A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands.” > Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b > > “Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” > Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772 [For fucks sake, these people have no access to water of any kind at the moment because of Israeli intervention]( There are extremists on both sides of this argument, Only one of those groups of extremists has a presence at the UN, a standing army, and a nuclear stockpile.

There are extremists on both sides; But Isreal gets to call theirs a government and subsequently Plow over Palestinian houses, shut down schools, turn access to ANY water off... Rocket attacks are horrible, but you'd be getting much worse if not for Isreali brown-nosers in the UN, US and Euroblock.

Bastardus_Obesus

Ok, that's an interesting story. A fragments of it appear here and there on usenet forums and conspiracy sites, but naturally not a single one cites any semblance of a credible source. Except for the soviet sub. This one is totally new. Absolutely no one has mentioned it before so I guess all the credit goes to you. So as far as conspiracy theories go, yours is a good read. You even introduce a *deus ex machina* plot twist that no one have thought of previously. And here is mine. The American spy ship was on a spy mission. It was spying on Israel. No one knows to what end, but possibly to sell the intel to Arab countries in exchange to some or other commodity. Would not be the first time for America to backstab its allies. Investigation of possible killing of Egyptian POWs sound a bit off-key to me - one does not investigate it from 12nm from the shore. And since it was a spy ship on a spy mission - of course it was not flying a flag. The boats sent to rescue the crew after the ship was disabled were machine-gunned to scuttle a rescue operation which was likely to result in evacuation of the ship and sensitive spy equipment and recordings which, if exposed, were likely to cause a major embarrassment for the US administration. Don't forget, the fact the US is spying on everyone is out of the closet now, but back then it would have been a major Snowden moment. And so everything lines up. It is regrettable that Washington has refused to fess up when first asked about the ships in the area and only admitted the operation in progress when it was too late and the spy ship was already disabled. When the rescue operation was met with a .50 cal machine gun fire, Israeli side has interpreted it as an ambush targeting the S&R - a war crime, by the way. I cannot possibly claim that this is exactly how it played out, but my story is plausible because it makes sense. Besides, unlike yours it does not contradict the findings of no less than 7 investigations conducted by americans, specifically: * U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry of June 1967 * Joint Chief of Staff's Report of June 1967. * CIA Intelligence Memorandums of June 1967 * Clark Clifford Report of July 1967 * Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony during hearings of the 1967 * Foreign Aid Authorization bill, July 1967 * House Armed Services Committee Investigation of 1971 * The NSA History Report of 1981 All of those conclude that the attack was a regrettable but statistically inevitable case of mistaken identity due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The people who compiled those reports knew far more than either of us. They concluded that it was a case of friendly fire. There is no "*if only*" in history, but the whole situation would have been avoided if the skipper had refused an illegal order to spy on the ally or if whoever Israeli government were talking to in Washington had spilled the beans straight away. TL;DR - liberty should not have been where it was. If it absolutely had to, it should have identified itself (I do not believe the story about it flying the flag even for a moment).

Ok, that's an interesting story. A fragments of it appear here and there on usenet forums and conspiracy sites, but naturally not a single one cites any semblance of a credible source. Except for the soviet sub. This one is totally new. Absolutely no one has mentioned it before so I guess all the credit goes to you. So as far as conspiracy theories go, yours is a good read. You even introduce a deus ex machina plot twist that no one have thought of previously. And here is mine. The American spy ship was on a spy mission. It was spying on Israel. No one knows to what end, but possibly to sell the intel to Arab countries in exchange to some or other commodity. Would not be the first time for America to backstab its allies. Investigation of possible killing of Egyptian POWs sound a bit off-key to me - one does not investigate it from 12nm from the shore. And since it was a spy ship on a spy mission - of course it was not flying a flag. The boats sent to rescue the crew after the ship was disabled were machine-gunned to scuttle a rescue operation which was likely to result in evacuation of the ship and sensitive spy equipment and recordings which, if exposed, were likely to cause a major embarrassment for the US administration. Don't forget, the fact the US is spying on everyone is out of the closet now, but back then it would have been a major Snowden moment. And so everything lines up. It is regrettable that Washington has refused to fess up when first asked about the ships in the area and only admitted the operation in progress when it was too late and the spy ship was already disabled. When the rescue operation was met with a .50 cal machine gun fire, Israeli side has interpreted it as an ambush targeting the S&R - a war crime, by the way. I cannot possibly claim that this is exactly how it played out, but my story is plausible because it makes sense. Besides, unlike yours it does not contradict the findings of no less than 7 investigations conducted by americans, specifically: U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry of June 1967 Joint Chief of Staff's Report of June 1967. CIA Intelligence Memorandums of June 1967 Clark Clifford Report of July 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony during hearings of the 1967 Foreign Aid Authorization bill, July 1967 House Armed Services Committee Investigation of 1971 The NSA History Report of 1981 All of those conclude that the attack was a regrettable but statistically inevitable case of mistaken identity due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The people who compiled those reports knew far more than either of us. They concluded that it was a case of friendly fire. There is no " if only " in history, but the whole situation would have been avoided if the skipper had refused an illegal order to spy on the ally or if whoever Israeli government were talking to in Washington had spilled the beans straight away. TL;DR - liberty should not have been where it was. If it absolutely had to, it should have identified itself (I do not believe the story about it flying the flag even for a moment).

worldnews

t5_2qh13

ci0kqm3

Ok, that's an interesting story. A fragments of it appear here and there on usenet forums and conspiracy sites, but naturally not a single one cites any semblance of a credible source. Except for the soviet sub. This one is totally new. Absolutely no one has mentioned it before so I guess all the credit goes to you. So as far as conspiracy theories go, yours is a good read. You even introduce a deus ex machina plot twist that no one have thought of previously. And here is mine. The American spy ship was on a spy mission. It was spying on Israel. No one knows to what end, but possibly to sell the intel to Arab countries in exchange to some or other commodity. Would not be the first time for America to backstab its allies. Investigation of possible killing of Egyptian POWs sound a bit off-key to me - one does not investigate it from 12nm from the shore. And since it was a spy ship on a spy mission - of course it was not flying a flag. The boats sent to rescue the crew after the ship was disabled were machine-gunned to scuttle a rescue operation which was likely to result in evacuation of the ship and sensitive spy equipment and recordings which, if exposed, were likely to cause a major embarrassment for the US administration. Don't forget, the fact the US is spying on everyone is out of the closet now, but back then it would have been a major Snowden moment. And so everything lines up. It is regrettable that Washington has refused to fess up when first asked about the ships in the area and only admitted the operation in progress when it was too late and the spy ship was already disabled. When the rescue operation was met with a .50 cal machine gun fire, Israeli side has interpreted it as an ambush targeting the S&R - a war crime, by the way. I cannot possibly claim that this is exactly how it played out, but my story is plausible because it makes sense. Besides, unlike yours it does not contradict the findings of no less than 7 investigations conducted by americans, specifically: U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry of June 1967 Joint Chief of Staff's Report of June 1967. CIA Intelligence Memorandums of June 1967 Clark Clifford Report of July 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony during hearings of the 1967 Foreign Aid Authorization bill, July 1967 House Armed Services Committee Investigation of 1971 The NSA History Report of 1981 All of those conclude that the attack was a regrettable but statistically inevitable case of mistaken identity due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The people who compiled those reports knew far more than either of us. They concluded that it was a case of friendly fire. There is no " if only " in history, but the whole situation would have been avoided if the skipper had refused an illegal order to spy on the ally or if whoever Israeli government were talking to in Washington had spilled the beans straight away.

liberty should not have been where it was. If it absolutely had to, it should have identified itself (I do not believe the story about it flying the flag even for a moment).

RiteInTaEye

6 piece set effect is super amazing so i suggest doing that. it basically means you can leave all of your skills 2 SP below master level and it will be maxed anyway, and the bonus w. att is fantastic as well. selling a lot of leaves can maybe net you a cape and/or shoulders from raven horn set, which will give you the boss% set bonus which is the most beautiful thing ever. **tl;dr get all raven horn everything, it's worth it.**

6 piece set effect is super amazing so i suggest doing that. it basically means you can leave all of your skills 2 SP below master level and it will be maxed anyway, and the bonus w. att is fantastic as well. selling a lot of leaves can maybe net you a cape and/or shoulders from raven horn set, which will give you the boss% set bonus which is the most beautiful thing ever. tl;dr get all raven horn everything, it's worth it.

Maplestory

t5_2rrdo

chylw5x

6 piece set effect is super amazing so i suggest doing that. it basically means you can leave all of your skills 2 SP below master level and it will be maxed anyway, and the bonus w. att is fantastic as well. selling a lot of leaves can maybe net you a cape and/or shoulders from raven horn set, which will give you the boss% set bonus which is the most beautiful thing ever.

get all raven horn everything, it's worth it.

Dumbnub

Awesome, thanks for the advice! are the capes really that expensive? crap... I'm pretty broke and bad at making money (Evo is weird for me). I know the shoulder is expensive. TL;DR thanks a million! Time to search!

Awesome, thanks for the advice! are the capes really that expensive? crap... I'm pretty broke and bad at making money (Evo is weird for me). I know the shoulder is expensive. TL;DR thanks a million! Time to search!

Maplestory

t5_2rrdo

chyo5tc

Awesome, thanks for the advice! are the capes really that expensive? crap... I'm pretty broke and bad at making money (Evo is weird for me). I know the shoulder is expensive.

thanks a million! Time to search!

carbonetc

It's fine to be your no-libido self. Just be honest about it and don't string anyone along. For example, I don't want children (I'm sterilized, in fact). I make this clear before a relationship goes anywhere, because it would be unfair for me to get involved with someone who does want children. Sure, this seriously limits the number of people I can be in a relationship with, but that's the way it is. It would be the same if I had HIV or something. I have to tell the person, and if that's a deal-breaker it's their prerogative. Be honest with people that they won't get a sexual relationship with you, find a guy who's relieved that he won't have to put up with sex anymore (the ex of a woman in this sub, perhaps), and live the life you want to live. > but the problem with this theory is that I really WANT to want sex Why? Because people tell you you should? And if this ever happens, do you really think you'll want it often enough for someone with a typical libido? And do you think you'll want it for more than a few years? Probably not, and then your boyfriend ends up here. There are plenty of women talked about in this sub who *do* enjoy sex and *still* make their partners miserable. **TL;DR** Be honest with yourself. Don't give boyfriends false hope.

It's fine to be your no-libido self. Just be honest about it and don't string anyone along. For example, I don't want children (I'm sterilized, in fact). I make this clear before a relationship goes anywhere, because it would be unfair for me to get involved with someone who does want children. Sure, this seriously limits the number of people I can be in a relationship with, but that's the way it is. It would be the same if I had HIV or something. I have to tell the person, and if that's a deal-breaker it's their prerogative. Be honest with people that they won't get a sexual relationship with you, find a guy who's relieved that he won't have to put up with sex anymore (the ex of a woman in this sub, perhaps), and live the life you want to live. > but the problem with this theory is that I really WANT to want sex Why? Because people tell you you should? And if this ever happens, do you really think you'll want it often enough for someone with a typical libido? And do you think you'll want it for more than a few years? Probably not, and then your boyfriend ends up here. There are plenty of women talked about in this sub who do enjoy sex and still make their partners miserable. TL;DR Be honest with yourself. Don't give boyfriends false hope.

DeadBedrooms

t5_2t25p

chz689g

It's fine to be your no-libido self. Just be honest about it and don't string anyone along. For example, I don't want children (I'm sterilized, in fact). I make this clear before a relationship goes anywhere, because it would be unfair for me to get involved with someone who does want children. Sure, this seriously limits the number of people I can be in a relationship with, but that's the way it is. It would be the same if I had HIV or something. I have to tell the person, and if that's a deal-breaker it's their prerogative. Be honest with people that they won't get a sexual relationship with you, find a guy who's relieved that he won't have to put up with sex anymore (the ex of a woman in this sub, perhaps), and live the life you want to live. > but the problem with this theory is that I really WANT to want sex Why? Because people tell you you should? And if this ever happens, do you really think you'll want it often enough for someone with a typical libido? And do you think you'll want it for more than a few years? Probably not, and then your boyfriend ends up here. There are plenty of women talked about in this sub who do enjoy sex and still make their partners miserable.

Be honest with yourself. Don't give boyfriends false hope.

Duskendymion

Dwight is your favorite player? Well I'm glad there's one person in the world who likes him that much. I've always hated him for having a shitty offensive game. I mean since he's gotten here he's been an incredibly special athlete. His size, strength, and athleticism is absurd. He is dominant and has all time potential, but his offensive game has just never really developed and for some reason it made me think so little of him, despite the fact that he's still effective and scores points. Being a spurs fan I guess I just got used to admiring big men who look great on offense, footwork in the paint, can hit a little 15-18 footer, crafty and smooth scoring. David Robinson followed by Tim Duncan. If Dwight had half the skillset and leadership qualities they did he could have been an all time player. But instead he's just a really good player. Can't deny his defensive presence and how he helps a team. Noah isn't a great offensive player, but I like him better than Dwight because he does more with less (not as physically gifted), he a better and more intense leader, and a better all around player. TLDR: I don't like Dwight because he's just more physically gifted than he is skilled. Had he developed better skills he coulda been a legend.

Dwight is your favorite player? Well I'm glad there's one person in the world who likes him that much. I've always hated him for having a shitty offensive game. I mean since he's gotten here he's been an incredibly special athlete. His size, strength, and athleticism is absurd. He is dominant and has all time potential, but his offensive game has just never really developed and for some reason it made me think so little of him, despite the fact that he's still effective and scores points. Being a spurs fan I guess I just got used to admiring big men who look great on offense, footwork in the paint, can hit a little 15-18 footer, crafty and smooth scoring. David Robinson followed by Tim Duncan. If Dwight had half the skillset and leadership qualities they did he could have been an all time player. But instead he's just a really good player. Can't deny his defensive presence and how he helps a team. Noah isn't a great offensive player, but I like him better than Dwight because he does more with less (not as physically gifted), he a better and more intense leader, and a better all around player. TLDR: I don't like Dwight because he's just more physically gifted than he is skilled. Had he developed better skills he coulda been a legend.

nba

t5_2qo4s

chz54wn

Dwight is your favorite player? Well I'm glad there's one person in the world who likes him that much. I've always hated him for having a shitty offensive game. I mean since he's gotten here he's been an incredibly special athlete. His size, strength, and athleticism is absurd. He is dominant and has all time potential, but his offensive game has just never really developed and for some reason it made me think so little of him, despite the fact that he's still effective and scores points. Being a spurs fan I guess I just got used to admiring big men who look great on offense, footwork in the paint, can hit a little 15-18 footer, crafty and smooth scoring. David Robinson followed by Tim Duncan. If Dwight had half the skillset and leadership qualities they did he could have been an all time player. But instead he's just a really good player. Can't deny his defensive presence and how he helps a team. Noah isn't a great offensive player, but I like him better than Dwight because he does more with less (not as physically gifted), he a better and more intense leader, and a better all around player.

I don't like Dwight because he's just more physically gifted than he is skilled. Had he developed better skills he coulda been a legend.

_zards

First ariza gets snubbed of the all defense team, now wall of the all nba team. Guess nobody watching us play with zero national games really sucks. Sure, take the guy who gets more buckets, not the guy who plays far better defense, doesnt miss a single game all season, gives all the players on his team career years, and changes the wizards from being a bottom feeder to one of the last 6 teams in the playoffs... tl;dr salt!

First ariza gets snubbed of the all defense team, now wall of the all nba team. Guess nobody watching us play with zero national games really sucks. Sure, take the guy who gets more buckets, not the guy who plays far better defense, doesnt miss a single game all season, gives all the players on his team career years, and changes the wizards from being a bottom feeder to one of the last 6 teams in the playoffs... tl;dr salt!

nba

t5_2qo4s

chz59qd

First ariza gets snubbed of the all defense team, now wall of the all nba team. Guess nobody watching us play with zero national games really sucks. Sure, take the guy who gets more buckets, not the guy who plays far better defense, doesnt miss a single game all season, gives all the players on his team career years, and changes the wizards from being a bottom feeder to one of the last 6 teams in the playoffs...

salt!

elcoyote399

more than likely yeah...i've met people who came from nothing. literally a hut out in the mountains or desert from a "ranching" comunity, with dreams of making it big. for whatever reason; sending money back home, somebody abusing them financially, beer, lack of credit. They are arent able to get a newer "better" car, or are simply happy with what they got. that car is a lot more than they grew up thinking they would have. big flashy things apeal to them because they dont know any better, hence the chrome everywhere and huge fins/spoilers on trucks. i've been guilty of liking some similer things. my old truck used to have the virgin mary with my last name in chrome on the back. i stood out at a&m lol. tl;dr: yes its a hispanic from the rancho

more than likely yeah...i've met people who came from nothing. literally a hut out in the mountains or desert from a "ranching" comunity, with dreams of making it big. for whatever reason; sending money back home, somebody abusing them financially, beer, lack of credit. They are arent able to get a newer "better" car, or are simply happy with what they got. that car is a lot more than they grew up thinking they would have. big flashy things apeal to them because they dont know any better, hence the chrome everywhere and huge fins/spoilers on trucks. i've been guilty of liking some similer things. my old truck used to have the virgin mary with my last name in chrome on the back. i stood out at a&m lol. tl;dr: yes its a hispanic from the rancho

houston

t5_2qj1l

chzxrxa

more than likely yeah...i've met people who came from nothing. literally a hut out in the mountains or desert from a "ranching" comunity, with dreams of making it big. for whatever reason; sending money back home, somebody abusing them financially, beer, lack of credit. They are arent able to get a newer "better" car, or are simply happy with what they got. that car is a lot more than they grew up thinking they would have. big flashy things apeal to them because they dont know any better, hence the chrome everywhere and huge fins/spoilers on trucks. i've been guilty of liking some similer things. my old truck used to have the virgin mary with my last name in chrome on the back. i stood out at a&m lol.

yes its a hispanic from the rancho

Thanks_Ollie

At that speed I would argue it should be up to her. Honestly that looks like the speed of a slow jog, sure some freak accident could occur but the same could happen if you go running. Tldr: meh.

At that speed I would argue it should be up to her. Honestly that looks like the speed of a slow jog, sure some freak accident could occur but the same could happen if you go running. Tldr: meh.

longboarding

t5_2qvgw

chzm8is

At that speed I would argue it should be up to her. Honestly that looks like the speed of a slow jog, sure some freak accident could occur but the same could happen if you go running.

meh.

SquirrelMama

With this phrase making the rounds, I'm reminded of this kid I saw at an area football game (what do you want, it was free? The kid showed up with his redneck family, carrying the bottom 8 inches of his jeans legs. As the game goes on, the kid gets restless and starts playing with the pant legs. All at once, Bam! The pants pop past his nose and he flips shit. Can't get it off, screaming that he can't breathe, somebody called the medics, but a guy was able to jump down a couple of rows to free him with a pocket knife. TL;DR: if you are too stupid, it is possible to get pants stuck on your head. PS- I would never post a creep shot of a kid except that he can't be identified and it was 10 years ago.

With this phrase making the rounds, I'm reminded of this kid I saw at an area football game (what do you want, it was free? The kid showed up with his redneck family, carrying the bottom 8 inches of his jeans legs. As the game goes on, the kid gets restless and starts playing with the pant legs. All at once, Bam! The pants pop past his nose and he flips shit. Can't get it off, screaming that he can't breathe, somebody called the medics, but a guy was able to jump down a couple of rows to free him with a pocket knife. TL;DR: if you are too stupid, it is possible to get pants stuck on your head. PS- I would never post a creep shot of a kid except that he can't be identified and it was 10 years ago.

funny

t5_2qh33

chzjmxv

With this phrase making the rounds, I'm reminded of this kid I saw at an area football game (what do you want, it was free? The kid showed up with his redneck family, carrying the bottom 8 inches of his jeans legs. As the game goes on, the kid gets restless and starts playing with the pant legs. All at once, Bam! The pants pop past his nose and he flips shit. Can't get it off, screaming that he can't breathe, somebody called the medics, but a guy was able to jump down a couple of rows to free him with a pocket knife.

if you are too stupid, it is possible to get pants stuck on your head. PS- I would never post a creep shot of a kid except that he can't be identified and it was 10 years ago.

KexOnFire

The one time I went to a nudist beach I got a semi and thankfully not a full boner as expected. However when I get a semi it hangs down about 30/45 degrees to the vertical so it wasn't a problem. If your semi is 90 degrees to the vertical (ie pointing ahead) then that is more of a problem as, depending on your size, you may appear aroused and people might get the wrong impression. As to your second question, my friend who took me was a frequent nudist and advised me as a newbie to carry a towel around which could be discretely positioned in case I got wood. It's easier and less awkward for people to comment on the towel position than your erection (which becomes an elephant in the room, no pun intended), and easier for you to jokily brush it off by saying its your first time and you honestly didn't know how it would react. TL;DR Always carry a towel if you need to cover up a hard-on. EDIT: Just realised you mention the towel in the subject!

The one time I went to a nudist beach I got a semi and thankfully not a full boner as expected. However when I get a semi it hangs down about 30/45 degrees to the vertical so it wasn't a problem. If your semi is 90 degrees to the vertical (ie pointing ahead) then that is more of a problem as, depending on your size, you may appear aroused and people might get the wrong impression. As to your second question, my friend who took me was a frequent nudist and advised me as a newbie to carry a towel around which could be discretely positioned in case I got wood. It's easier and less awkward for people to comment on the towel position than your erection (which becomes an elephant in the room, no pun intended), and easier for you to jokily brush it off by saying its your first time and you honestly didn't know how it would react. TL;DR Always carry a towel if you need to cover up a hard-on. EDIT: Just realised you mention the towel in the subject!

nudism

t5_2qs47

chzrgfb

The one time I went to a nudist beach I got a semi and thankfully not a full boner as expected. However when I get a semi it hangs down about 30/45 degrees to the vertical so it wasn't a problem. If your semi is 90 degrees to the vertical (ie pointing ahead) then that is more of a problem as, depending on your size, you may appear aroused and people might get the wrong impression. As to your second question, my friend who took me was a frequent nudist and advised me as a newbie to carry a towel around which could be discretely positioned in case I got wood. It's easier and less awkward for people to comment on the towel position than your erection (which becomes an elephant in the room, no pun intended), and easier for you to jokily brush it off by saying its your first time and you honestly didn't know how it would react.

Always carry a towel if you need to cover up a hard-on. EDIT: Just realised you mention the towel in the subject!

Slukaj

He may not have been a Nazi, but he *fought* for Nazi's. A lot of people like to say "Oh, he was just fighting for Germany!" And I really have to question that line of thinking. He was fighting for... what, exactly? The security of Germany? The safety of the German peoples? The reality is that Germany was the aggressor during the Second World War. Not the Allies, not England, France, or Russia, not North Africa, nobody. Germany started the war. So Rommel had to be cognizant of the fact that *his* nation, under the direction of the Nazi party, was acting as an aggressor towards other neutral and peaceful nations for no other reason than Nazi greed. If Rommel was willing to look past the fact that Germany (under the control of the Nazis) was committing multiple acts of war and many more atrocities, how can you reconcile that with him allegedly being a good and noble character? If he *truly* didn't believe in the Nazis beliefs and goals, why was he willing to follow their orders? Surely a general as capable as Rommel would be able to go toe to toe with them, or at the very least lend his abilities to the Allies. The best we can say about him is that he was aware of a plot on Hitler's life, and didn't attempt to stop it. Whether you want to consider that universally redeeming of his character is another question, but I personally do not think it is enough. TL;DR: Rommel may not have been a Nazi, but he was absolutely cognizant to the Nazi's goals and ideals. EDIT: I would strongly urge everyone downvoting me to step back and just think about the fact that you are trying to defend the honor of a man who willingly fought against the Allies to allow the Nazis to continue what they were doing.

He may not have been a Nazi, but he fought for Nazi's. A lot of people like to say "Oh, he was just fighting for Germany!" And I really have to question that line of thinking. He was fighting for... what, exactly? The security of Germany? The safety of the German peoples? The reality is that Germany was the aggressor during the Second World War. Not the Allies, not England, France, or Russia, not North Africa, nobody. Germany started the war. So Rommel had to be cognizant of the fact that his nation, under the direction of the Nazi party, was acting as an aggressor towards other neutral and peaceful nations for no other reason than Nazi greed. If Rommel was willing to look past the fact that Germany (under the control of the Nazis) was committing multiple acts of war and many more atrocities, how can you reconcile that with him allegedly being a good and noble character? If he truly didn't believe in the Nazis beliefs and goals, why was he willing to follow their orders? Surely a general as capable as Rommel would be able to go toe to toe with them, or at the very least lend his abilities to the Allies. The best we can say about him is that he was aware of a plot on Hitler's life, and didn't attempt to stop it. Whether you want to consider that universally redeeming of his character is another question, but I personally do not think it is enough. TL;DR: Rommel may not have been a Nazi, but he was absolutely cognizant to the Nazi's goals and ideals. EDIT: I would strongly urge everyone downvoting me to step back and just think about the fact that you are trying to defend the honor of a man who willingly fought against the Allies to allow the Nazis to continue what they were doing.

todayilearned

t5_2qqjc

chzwyv5

He may not have been a Nazi, but he fought for Nazi's. A lot of people like to say "Oh, he was just fighting for Germany!" And I really have to question that line of thinking. He was fighting for... what, exactly? The security of Germany? The safety of the German peoples? The reality is that Germany was the aggressor during the Second World War. Not the Allies, not England, France, or Russia, not North Africa, nobody. Germany started the war. So Rommel had to be cognizant of the fact that his nation, under the direction of the Nazi party, was acting as an aggressor towards other neutral and peaceful nations for no other reason than Nazi greed. If Rommel was willing to look past the fact that Germany (under the control of the Nazis) was committing multiple acts of war and many more atrocities, how can you reconcile that with him allegedly being a good and noble character? If he truly didn't believe in the Nazis beliefs and goals, why was he willing to follow their orders? Surely a general as capable as Rommel would be able to go toe to toe with them, or at the very least lend his abilities to the Allies. The best we can say about him is that he was aware of a plot on Hitler's life, and didn't attempt to stop it. Whether you want to consider that universally redeeming of his character is another question, but I personally do not think it is enough.

Rommel may not have been a Nazi, but he was absolutely cognizant to the Nazi's goals and ideals. EDIT: I would strongly urge everyone downvoting me to step back and just think about the fact that you are trying to defend the honor of a man who willingly fought against the Allies to allow the Nazis to continue what they were doing.

jorcam

>My fiance and I went to a counselor who is supposedly knowledgeable in bipolar disorder in order to give us some pre-marital counseling. This is fantastic for you Two to be doing now, a lot of couples never do. >my psychiatrist is overly helpful, giving me suggestions on ways I can help control my life. Sounds like a good psychiatrist for you. >this woman wanted my fiance to read a book called "Surviving bipolar disorder" Sounds like this counselor wants your fiance to learn what it's like living with a bipolar fiance. >didn't want me to until after the wedding (which I've been overly stressed out about. Sounds like the counselor realizes you have a lot going on and didn't want to add any more stress to you before the wedding. > I feel this was a bad suggestion because I could use any help I can get. **you are getting help, your fiance is learning about "surviving bipolar disorder".** You and your fiance went to a counselor to receive some pre-marital counseling. The counselor believed the first step was to have your fiance learn about bipolar before moving on to the next step. The counselor (knowing you are bipolar and that you have a psychiatrist you enjoy) believed this to be the best way to start. TLDR: Wait until you have a couple more sessions with this counselor before trying someone else. Sounds to me like this counselor is proceeding in a logical manner.

>My fiance and I went to a counselor who is supposedly knowledgeable in bipolar disorder in order to give us some pre-marital counseling. This is fantastic for you Two to be doing now, a lot of couples never do. >my psychiatrist is overly helpful, giving me suggestions on ways I can help control my life. Sounds like a good psychiatrist for you. >this woman wanted my fiance to read a book called "Surviving bipolar disorder" Sounds like this counselor wants your fiance to learn what it's like living with a bipolar fiance. >didn't want me to until after the wedding (which I've been overly stressed out about. Sounds like the counselor realizes you have a lot going on and didn't want to add any more stress to you before the wedding. > I feel this was a bad suggestion because I could use any help I can get. you are getting help, your fiance is learning about "surviving bipolar disorder". You and your fiance went to a counselor to receive some pre-marital counseling. The counselor believed the first step was to have your fiance learn about bipolar before moving on to the next step. The counselor (knowing you are bipolar and that you have a psychiatrist you enjoy) believed this to be the best way to start. TLDR: Wait until you have a couple more sessions with this counselor before trying someone else. Sounds to me like this counselor is proceeding in a logical manner.

BipolarReddit

t5_2qzru

chzvjw8

My fiance and I went to a counselor who is supposedly knowledgeable in bipolar disorder in order to give us some pre-marital counseling. This is fantastic for you Two to be doing now, a lot of couples never do. >my psychiatrist is overly helpful, giving me suggestions on ways I can help control my life. Sounds like a good psychiatrist for you. >this woman wanted my fiance to read a book called "Surviving bipolar disorder" Sounds like this counselor wants your fiance to learn what it's like living with a bipolar fiance. >didn't want me to until after the wedding (which I've been overly stressed out about. Sounds like the counselor realizes you have a lot going on and didn't want to add any more stress to you before the wedding. > I feel this was a bad suggestion because I could use any help I can get. you are getting help, your fiance is learning about "surviving bipolar disorder". You and your fiance went to a counselor to receive some pre-marital counseling. The counselor believed the first step was to have your fiance learn about bipolar before moving on to the next step. The counselor (knowing you are bipolar and that you have a psychiatrist you enjoy) believed this to be the best way to start.

Wait until you have a couple more sessions with this counselor before trying someone else. Sounds to me like this counselor is proceeding in a logical manner.

zippityhooha

Nope. Not according to post-structuralism. From wikipedia: "The author's intended meaning **is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives.** The author's identity as a stable "self" with a single, discernible "intent" is a fictional construct. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or one singular existence. Instead, every individual reader creates a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text. **TL;DR: Every woman will interpret what i say differently depending on many factors**

Nope. Not according to post-structuralism. From wikipedia: "The author's intended meaning is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives. The author's identity as a stable "self" with a single, discernible "intent" is a fictional construct. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or one singular existence. Instead, every individual reader creates a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text. TL;DR: Every woman will interpret what i say differently depending on many factors

reactiongifs

t5_2t5y3

ci0diro

Nope. Not according to post-structuralism. From wikipedia: "The author's intended meaning is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives. The author's identity as a stable "self" with a single, discernible "intent" is a fictional construct. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or one singular existence. Instead, every individual reader creates a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text.

Every woman will interpret what i say differently depending on many factors

ryanthanks

I met Mike G after an Odd Future concert. He was just roaming the streets by himself in the city. I noticed him and called out. I wasn't that much of a fan of him at the time, nor am I now anyway but I was pretty stoked to be meeting him in the first place. After I called out to him he stopped and we talked. I had a joint and asked if he wanted some, he turned it down. I can't remember what I said, it was a shit conversation that he didn't seem particularly fond of and I tried to keep going because I was keen for a cool story to share with my friends or something. Afterwards two half-decent looking girls walked past in odd future shirts, I asked them if they enjoyed the show while I was with Mike G and they didn't recognize him. Eventually after talking with them for a while, they clicked he was a part of Odd Future and then he invited them back to his hotel and they went off. That's my Mike G encounter. tl;dr had a boring encounter with Mike G, people walked past and didn't know it was Mike G.

I met Mike G after an Odd Future concert. He was just roaming the streets by himself in the city. I noticed him and called out. I wasn't that much of a fan of him at the time, nor am I now anyway but I was pretty stoked to be meeting him in the first place. After I called out to him he stopped and we talked. I had a joint and asked if he wanted some, he turned it down. I can't remember what I said, it was a shit conversation that he didn't seem particularly fond of and I tried to keep going because I was keen for a cool story to share with my friends or something. Afterwards two half-decent looking girls walked past in odd future shirts, I asked them if they enjoyed the show while I was with Mike G and they didn't recognize him. Eventually after talking with them for a while, they clicked he was a part of Odd Future and then he invited them back to his hotel and they went off. That's my Mike G encounter. tl;dr had a boring encounter with Mike G, people walked past and didn't know it was Mike G.

hiphopheads

t5_2rh4c

ci0jwnk

I met Mike G after an Odd Future concert. He was just roaming the streets by himself in the city. I noticed him and called out. I wasn't that much of a fan of him at the time, nor am I now anyway but I was pretty stoked to be meeting him in the first place. After I called out to him he stopped and we talked. I had a joint and asked if he wanted some, he turned it down. I can't remember what I said, it was a shit conversation that he didn't seem particularly fond of and I tried to keep going because I was keen for a cool story to share with my friends or something. Afterwards two half-decent looking girls walked past in odd future shirts, I asked them if they enjoyed the show while I was with Mike G and they didn't recognize him. Eventually after talking with them for a while, they clicked he was a part of Odd Future and then he invited them back to his hotel and they went off. That's my Mike G encounter.

had a boring encounter with Mike G, people walked past and didn't know it was Mike G.

twitmer

Infinity Augmented Reality (ALSO) looks like a REALLY bad investment. Other than a "concept" video, it doesn't look like they've produced anything other than hype. According to their financials they have never made a dime. (literally, they have never sold anything...zero revenue) LinkedIn also seems to indicate that the company is comprised of less than 20 people, most of whom are C-level execs, managers, or marketers in Israel. Their stated vision is to offer an AR Platform. Although it's not clear whether they plan on releasing a software development platform like Qualcomm's Vuforia SDK or a content platform like Blippar or Layar. In either case they'll need lots of developers to do that, and a strategy to make their platform better than the others that are out there. (And a strategy to monetize that platform) **At best ALSO appears to be a tech start-up without a viable business plan, and at worst a thinly veiled scam.** Even though it's most frequently used for marketing gimmicks, I'd agree with you that AR does have huge potential. The problem, from an investment standpoint, is that you can't really "invest in Augmented Reality" at least no more than you can "invest in the internet." It's just a set of technologies. The power of augmented reality comes from what developers do with it. To invest in AR you'd want to find a company that has a killer application for it and a plan to monetize it. One of the best examples I can think of is SportVision (the company that makes the yellow first-down line appear on football broadcast)... they pioneered AR for broadcast sports and have presumably made good money doing it. Unfortunately they're not a public company so you're out of luck there, but you get the idea. TL;DR. ALSO looks like a scam. Only invest in companies that you understand.

Infinity Augmented Reality (ALSO) looks like a REALLY bad investment. Other than a "concept" video, it doesn't look like they've produced anything other than hype. According to their financials they have never made a dime. (literally, they have never sold anything...zero revenue) LinkedIn also seems to indicate that the company is comprised of less than 20 people, most of whom are C-level execs, managers, or marketers in Israel. Their stated vision is to offer an AR Platform. Although it's not clear whether they plan on releasing a software development platform like Qualcomm's Vuforia SDK or a content platform like Blippar or Layar. In either case they'll need lots of developers to do that, and a strategy to make their platform better than the others that are out there. (And a strategy to monetize that platform) At best ALSO appears to be a tech start-up without a viable business plan, and at worst a thinly veiled scam. Even though it's most frequently used for marketing gimmicks, I'd agree with you that AR does have huge potential. The problem, from an investment standpoint, is that you can't really "invest in Augmented Reality" at least no more than you can "invest in the internet." It's just a set of technologies. The power of augmented reality comes from what developers do with it. To invest in AR you'd want to find a company that has a killer application for it and a plan to monetize it. One of the best examples I can think of is SportVision (the company that makes the yellow first-down line appear on football broadcast)... they pioneered AR for broadcast sports and have presumably made good money doing it. Unfortunately they're not a public company so you're out of luck there, but you get the idea. TL;DR. ALSO looks like a scam. Only invest in companies that you understand.

investing

t5_2qhhq

ci07h8n

Infinity Augmented Reality (ALSO) looks like a REALLY bad investment. Other than a "concept" video, it doesn't look like they've produced anything other than hype. According to their financials they have never made a dime. (literally, they have never sold anything...zero revenue) LinkedIn also seems to indicate that the company is comprised of less than 20 people, most of whom are C-level execs, managers, or marketers in Israel. Their stated vision is to offer an AR Platform. Although it's not clear whether they plan on releasing a software development platform like Qualcomm's Vuforia SDK or a content platform like Blippar or Layar. In either case they'll need lots of developers to do that, and a strategy to make their platform better than the others that are out there. (And a strategy to monetize that platform) At best ALSO appears to be a tech start-up without a viable business plan, and at worst a thinly veiled scam. Even though it's most frequently used for marketing gimmicks, I'd agree with you that AR does have huge potential. The problem, from an investment standpoint, is that you can't really "invest in Augmented Reality" at least no more than you can "invest in the internet." It's just a set of technologies. The power of augmented reality comes from what developers do with it. To invest in AR you'd want to find a company that has a killer application for it and a plan to monetize it. One of the best examples I can think of is SportVision (the company that makes the yellow first-down line appear on football broadcast)... they pioneered AR for broadcast sports and have presumably made good money doing it. Unfortunately they're not a public company so you're out of luck there, but you get the idea.

ALSO looks like a scam. Only invest in companies that you understand.

Alcmaeonidae

Hey this is a crosspost from another r/Seattle thread, but I posted some research that looked at the effect of minimum wage increases on the cost of goods and services. > On Inflation u/svengalus pointed out a common reason that many people criticize these minimum wage hikes as it results in an increase in basic goods and services. Doing some basic researching, it appears that it may increase good and services, but to a small or limited extent. > [One study]( found that a nationwide wide minimum wage increase would increase food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. (This study was featured in the article: [Minimum Wage Hikes Do Not Cause Inflation]( > The non-partisan congressional budget office (CBO) has also released a [report]( this year on the effects a national increase may have on employment and earnings per different income class (relative to poverty line). Please note that both of these studies are examining national increases and not local increases which are happening in Seattle. I would guess that similar conclusions could still be made or perhaps the effects would be even further lessened given limited areas for these wage increases. TL;DR: Increases in minimum wage may also result in a small increase in goods and services [Original Post](

Hey this is a crosspost from another r/Seattle thread, but I posted some research that looked at the effect of minimum wage increases on the cost of goods and services. > On Inflation u/svengalus pointed out a common reason that many people criticize these minimum wage hikes as it results in an increase in basic goods and services. Doing some basic researching, it appears that it may increase good and services, but to a small or limited extent. > [One study]( found that a nationwide wide minimum wage increase would increase food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. (This study was featured in the article: [Minimum Wage Hikes Do Not Cause Inflation]( > The non-partisan congressional budget office (CBO) has also released a report . Please note that both of these studies are examining national increases and not local increases which are happening in Seattle. I would guess that similar conclusions could still be made or perhaps the effects would be even further lessened given limited areas for these wage increases. TL;DR: Increases in minimum wage may also result in a small increase in goods and services [Original Post](

Seattle

t5_2qhad

ci0xhnl

Hey this is a crosspost from another r/Seattle thread, but I posted some research that looked at the effect of minimum wage increases on the cost of goods and services. > On Inflation u/svengalus pointed out a common reason that many people criticize these minimum wage hikes as it results in an increase in basic goods and services. Doing some basic researching, it appears that it may increase good and services, but to a small or limited extent. > [One study]( found that a nationwide wide minimum wage increase would increase food prices by no more than 4% and overall prices by no more than 0.4%. (This study was featured in the article: [Minimum Wage Hikes Do Not Cause Inflation]( > The non-partisan congressional budget office (CBO) has also released a report . Please note that both of these studies are examining national increases and not local increases which are happening in Seattle. I would guess that similar conclusions could still be made or perhaps the effects would be even further lessened given limited areas for these wage increases.

Increases in minimum wage may also result in a small increase in goods and services [Original Post](

LaxMike

That the American government is some sort of shadowy, all-powerful entity that is plotting to oppress everyone and everything. Yes, the US government is arguably one of the most powerful in the world, and yes at times it does questionable things, but at the end of the day it is still composed of people just like you and me. Politicians aren't super geniuses bent on world domination, more often than not, they're just like anyone else, only charismatic enough to win an election. Some might be more selfish than others, some might be more nice, but because of the constant media scrutiny, too man people make assumptions about their entire character based on one action. For example, there might be a story on this site that essentially saya: "Congressman Phil O'Riley (More like O'HITLER, AMIRITE?) sponsors a bill to increase funding to the military: Another step towards Fascism!" Whereas in reality, it very well could have been that Phil had had a long day going over countless bills and just wanted to go home. He had had an awful weekend because his alma-mater had lost its big rivalry game, the power went out Saturday night, and the cable company was being a pain in his ass while his teenage daughter kept complaining about the TV being broken. His son had gotten detention for getting in a fight when a classmate had called his dad a murderous pig, and he had to deal with that as well. And so one final bill for the day. *A small increase to the military budget?* He skims over it, seeing nothing wrong. Polls showed his constituents were in favor of the bill, and while he really had no strong opinion on the matter, he was elected to represent these people, and if they were in favor it, he would be too. He signs off on it and heads home. The next morning he has a 9:30 tee-time with his buddy Bill and their other friends. Bill was a lobbyist for some oil company, but outside of work, their kids went to school together and they Bill had a Luxury Box for Redskins games, which he shared with him occasionally. As they finish up and wait for the valets to bring their cars up, Phil, having lost $40 after losing by a fair margin, cracks a joke about Bill not needing the money, as he had already sold his soul for a nice paycheck, but as the valet pulls up with Bill's brand new sportscar, he flashes Phil a grin, shrugs and simply says "Worth it." Which Phil chuckles at before getting in his own car to go home. Next Day on Reddit: "Congressman O'Riley: Hellbound on war, and in Big Oil's Pocket: How can the US Survive with Corrupt Madmen like this in Power?!?!" TL;DR: The American government is made up of real people, that have flaws and personalities just like anyone else.

That the American government is some sort of shadowy, all-powerful entity that is plotting to oppress everyone and everything. Yes, the US government is arguably one of the most powerful in the world, and yes at times it does questionable things, but at the end of the day it is still composed of people just like you and me. Politicians aren't super geniuses bent on world domination, more often than not, they're just like anyone else, only charismatic enough to win an election. Some might be more selfish than others, some might be more nice, but because of the constant media scrutiny, too man people make assumptions about their entire character based on one action. For example, there might be a story on this site that essentially saya: "Congressman Phil O'Riley (More like O'HITLER, AMIRITE?) sponsors a bill to increase funding to the military: Another step towards Fascism!" Whereas in reality, it very well could have been that Phil had had a long day going over countless bills and just wanted to go home. He had had an awful weekend because his alma-mater had lost its big rivalry game, the power went out Saturday night, and the cable company was being a pain in his ass while his teenage daughter kept complaining about the TV being broken. His son had gotten detention for getting in a fight when a classmate had called his dad a murderous pig, and he had to deal with that as well. And so one final bill for the day. A small increase to the military budget? He skims over it, seeing nothing wrong. Polls showed his constituents were in favor of the bill, and while he really had no strong opinion on the matter, he was elected to represent these people, and if they were in favor it, he would be too. He signs off on it and heads home. The next morning he has a 9:30 tee-time with his buddy Bill and their other friends. Bill was a lobbyist for some oil company, but outside of work, their kids went to school together and they Bill had a Luxury Box for Redskins games, which he shared with him occasionally. As they finish up and wait for the valets to bring their cars up, Phil, having lost $40 after losing by a fair margin, cracks a joke about Bill not needing the money, as he had already sold his soul for a nice paycheck, but as the valet pulls up with Bill's brand new sportscar, he flashes Phil a grin, shrugs and simply says "Worth it." Which Phil chuckles at before getting in his own car to go home. Next Day on Reddit: "Congressman O'Riley: Hellbound on war, and in Big Oil's Pocket: How can the US Survive with Corrupt Madmen like this in Power?!?!" TL;DR: The American government is made up of real people, that have flaws and personalities just like anyone else.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

ci0qbc5

That the American government is some sort of shadowy, all-powerful entity that is plotting to oppress everyone and everything. Yes, the US government is arguably one of the most powerful in the world, and yes at times it does questionable things, but at the end of the day it is still composed of people just like you and me. Politicians aren't super geniuses bent on world domination, more often than not, they're just like anyone else, only charismatic enough to win an election. Some might be more selfish than others, some might be more nice, but because of the constant media scrutiny, too man people make assumptions about their entire character based on one action. For example, there might be a story on this site that essentially saya: "Congressman Phil O'Riley (More like O'HITLER, AMIRITE?) sponsors a bill to increase funding to the military: Another step towards Fascism!" Whereas in reality, it very well could have been that Phil had had a long day going over countless bills and just wanted to go home. He had had an awful weekend because his alma-mater had lost its big rivalry game, the power went out Saturday night, and the cable company was being a pain in his ass while his teenage daughter kept complaining about the TV being broken. His son had gotten detention for getting in a fight when a classmate had called his dad a murderous pig, and he had to deal with that as well. And so one final bill for the day. A small increase to the military budget? He skims over it, seeing nothing wrong. Polls showed his constituents were in favor of the bill, and while he really had no strong opinion on the matter, he was elected to represent these people, and if they were in favor it, he would be too. He signs off on it and heads home. The next morning he has a 9:30 tee-time with his buddy Bill and their other friends. Bill was a lobbyist for some oil company, but outside of work, their kids went to school together and they Bill had a Luxury Box for Redskins games, which he shared with him occasionally. As they finish up and wait for the valets to bring their cars up, Phil, having lost $40 after losing by a fair margin, cracks a joke about Bill not needing the money, as he had already sold his soul for a nice paycheck, but as the valet pulls up with Bill's brand new sportscar, he flashes Phil a grin, shrugs and simply says "Worth it." Which Phil chuckles at before getting in his own car to go home. Next Day on Reddit: "Congressman O'Riley: Hellbound on war, and in Big Oil's Pocket: How can the US Survive with Corrupt Madmen like this in Power?!?!"

The American government is made up of real people, that have flaws and personalities just like anyone else.

PornUseOnly

I love Reddit. I came here to find a video to make myself happy and here i find a video that made me so happy i cried. TL;DR came on to fap, ended up crying. Viva Reddit

I love Reddit. I came here to find a video to make myself happy and here i find a video that made me so happy i cried. TL;DR came on to fap, ended up crying. Viva Reddit

videos

t5_2qh1e

ci0vcov

I love Reddit. I came here to find a video to make myself happy and here i find a video that made me so happy i cried.

came on to fap, ended up crying. Viva Reddit

lmeier359

When I was about 10 my sister who was 5 at the time over heard my mom say she wanted a beach house. My sister, who had always been quite the suck up to my mother, said "when I grow up I'll buy you a beach house mommy!". So hearing this,and being a smart ass, I responded with " I'll buy you a motor home mom and you can park it at any beach you want!" My mom said jokingly(I hope) "your sister is my favorite child now" But jokes on her because I only have buy a motor home while my sister has some beach front property to buy Tldr- I promised my mom a motor home, Op probably won't deliver.

When I was about 10 my sister who was 5 at the time over heard my mom say she wanted a beach house. My sister, who had always been quite the suck up to my mother, said "when I grow up I'll buy you a beach house mommy!". So hearing this,and being a smart ass, I responded with " I'll buy you a motor home mom and you can park it at any beach you want!" My mom said jokingly(I hope) "your sister is my favorite child now" But jokes on her because I only have buy a motor home while my sister has some beach front property to buy Tldr- I promised my mom a motor home, Op probably won't deliver.

videos

t5_2qh1e

ci10ijn

When I was about 10 my sister who was 5 at the time over heard my mom say she wanted a beach house. My sister, who had always been quite the suck up to my mother, said "when I grow up I'll buy you a beach house mommy!". So hearing this,and being a smart ass, I responded with " I'll buy you a motor home mom and you can park it at any beach you want!" My mom said jokingly(I hope) "your sister is my favorite child now" But jokes on her because I only have buy a motor home while my sister has some beach front property to buy

I promised my mom a motor home, Op probably won't deliver.

Account_Mondego

The distinction is difficult to make, and those who make it often do so for political reasons. There is a disconnect between the government and "the people" in every country as the process of reducing an entire society's opinions into a single set of policies inherently excludes many people because of diversity of opinion or simple convenience. Even in countries that are supposed to be democratic there are only specific ways in which one can interact with the government, and so democracy takes on a procedural form (in which there is periodic voting to broadly approve or disapprove of the government's policies) rather than a substantive form (in which every decision of the government is explicitly approved of by "the people"). This disconnect between procedural and substantive democracy gives the word "democracy" itself a subjective meaning. This subjectivity is used by individuals and groups to further specific political goals by painting different countries as "democratic" or "tyrannical." TL;DR There is not so much a this/that dichotomy of president/dictator as a broad spectrum of democratic involvement and political openness that ranges of fascist/Stalinist authoritarianism to Anarchist direct democracy with most countries in the world naturally somewhere in between.

The distinction is difficult to make, and those who make it often do so for political reasons. There is a disconnect between the government and "the people" in every country as the process of reducing an entire society's opinions into a single set of policies inherently excludes many people because of diversity of opinion or simple convenience. Even in countries that are supposed to be democratic there are only specific ways in which one can interact with the government, and so democracy takes on a procedural form (in which there is periodic voting to broadly approve or disapprove of the government's policies) rather than a substantive form (in which every decision of the government is explicitly approved of by "the people"). This disconnect between procedural and substantive democracy gives the word "democracy" itself a subjective meaning. This subjectivity is used by individuals and groups to further specific political goals by painting different countries as "democratic" or "tyrannical." TL;DR There is not so much a this/that dichotomy of president/dictator as a broad spectrum of democratic involvement and political openness that ranges of fascist/Stalinist authoritarianism to Anarchist direct democracy with most countries in the world naturally somewhere in between.

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

ci1a747

The distinction is difficult to make, and those who make it often do so for political reasons. There is a disconnect between the government and "the people" in every country as the process of reducing an entire society's opinions into a single set of policies inherently excludes many people because of diversity of opinion or simple convenience. Even in countries that are supposed to be democratic there are only specific ways in which one can interact with the government, and so democracy takes on a procedural form (in which there is periodic voting to broadly approve or disapprove of the government's policies) rather than a substantive form (in which every decision of the government is explicitly approved of by "the people"). This disconnect between procedural and substantive democracy gives the word "democracy" itself a subjective meaning. This subjectivity is used by individuals and groups to further specific political goals by painting different countries as "democratic" or "tyrannical."

There is not so much a this/that dichotomy of president/dictator as a broad spectrum of democratic involvement and political openness that ranges of fascist/Stalinist authoritarianism to Anarchist direct democracy with most countries in the world naturally somewhere in between.

UnknownAutist

Yes, for the record, I edited "ground slam" to leap slam in my original post about 50 minutes before your post, because I too realized that you can just go for a high attack speed elemental ground slam build with a 1h weapon and shield. EDIT: Not to mention, while I have no doubt that is a viable build (after all, you need 120+ exalts for the gears), I don't think your build is actually superior to a traditional physical ground slam build with a similar investment in currency. You are essentially relying almost entirely on elemental damage from anger + wrath since you have no passive points left to invest in physical nodes after all the aura nodes. The optimal weapon is probably going to be brightbeak due to its high attack speed alone, thus making physical nodes even more useless. With a similar investment in a good 1h physical weapon, and 400% increased physical damage from passives and gems, you will definitely be able to deal more damage with a physical based ground slam build. So, it is definitely not true that your super expensive elemental Shav+CoE groundslam build is better than a traditional physical build. EDIT 2: >Build could probably run RF+CoE+Lowlife too with good enough ES gear. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There's no way in hell this build can run RF. You have very little regen from the tree and you have no +max res nodes at all. You have 5.2% life regen, so you need at least 93% fire res to sustain RF, not to mention you have extra degen from your life pool as well as blood rage. There's no way you can run RF, not even using blooddance (zero frenzy nodes, good luck) or sacrificing your ES shield for a RotF would work. TL;DR: You literally can't just slap on a CoE and make any build better.

Yes, for the record, I edited "ground slam" to leap slam in my original post about 50 minutes before your post, because I too realized that you can just go for a high attack speed elemental ground slam build with a 1h weapon and shield. EDIT: Not to mention, while I have no doubt that is a viable build (after all, you need 120+ exalts for the gears), I don't think your build is actually superior to a traditional physical ground slam build with a similar investment in currency. You are essentially relying almost entirely on elemental damage from anger + wrath since you have no passive points left to invest in physical nodes after all the aura nodes. The optimal weapon is probably going to be brightbeak due to its high attack speed alone, thus making physical nodes even more useless. With a similar investment in a good 1h physical weapon, and 400% increased physical damage from passives and gems, you will definitely be able to deal more damage with a physical based ground slam build. So, it is definitely not true that your super expensive elemental Shav+CoE groundslam build is better than a traditional physical build. EDIT 2: >Build could probably run RF+CoE+Lowlife too with good enough ES gear. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There's no way in hell this build can run RF. You have very little regen from the tree and you have no +max res nodes at all. You have 5.2% life regen, so you need at least 93% fire res to sustain RF, not to mention you have extra degen from your life pool as well as blood rage. There's no way you can run RF, not even using blooddance (zero frenzy nodes, good luck) or sacrificing your ES shield for a RotF would work. TL;DR: You literally can't just slap on a CoE and make any build better.

pathofexile

t5_2sf6m

ci187hv

Yes, for the record, I edited "ground slam" to leap slam in my original post about 50 minutes before your post, because I too realized that you can just go for a high attack speed elemental ground slam build with a 1h weapon and shield. EDIT: Not to mention, while I have no doubt that is a viable build (after all, you need 120+ exalts for the gears), I don't think your build is actually superior to a traditional physical ground slam build with a similar investment in currency. You are essentially relying almost entirely on elemental damage from anger + wrath since you have no passive points left to invest in physical nodes after all the aura nodes. The optimal weapon is probably going to be brightbeak due to its high attack speed alone, thus making physical nodes even more useless. With a similar investment in a good 1h physical weapon, and 400% increased physical damage from passives and gems, you will definitely be able to deal more damage with a physical based ground slam build. So, it is definitely not true that your super expensive elemental Shav+CoE groundslam build is better than a traditional physical build. EDIT 2: >Build could probably run RF+CoE+Lowlife too with good enough ES gear. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There's no way in hell this build can run RF. You have very little regen from the tree and you have no +max res nodes at all. You have 5.2% life regen, so you need at least 93% fire res to sustain RF, not to mention you have extra degen from your life pool as well as blood rage. There's no way you can run RF, not even using blooddance (zero frenzy nodes, good luck) or sacrificing your ES shield for a RotF would work.

You literally can't just slap on a CoE and make any build better.

ViolentHallucination

Well, I was working at a super market as the time as the supervisor of the stock crew. In other words, I was one of only a handful of full time employees there, and any odd job that need to be done, it's all on me. One day the drain in the meat market gets clogged with disgustingly rotting meat particles, and of course they call me to fix it. They give me a vaccum, thick gloves and rubber boots and a spray bottle of some kind of acid or degreaser. As soon as I started sucking up the slimy rotting meat chowder, I started gagging, as the hose didn't exactly fit the drain hole, and the gasses from the mixture of a thousand different animal's meat scoop were torture. So I took a 5 minute breather break, and decided to spray "David loves cock" on the wall with the chemical (David was the store manager that made me do this). So before I get back to work, I grabbed the water hose to wash it off. Except.. it didn't wash off the words. It instead washed off the paint that I sprayed the apparently very corrosive shit on. So there was an entire white wall, with only "David loves cock" perfectly written with bare cement wall. I owned up to it, and somehow KEPT MY FUCKING JOB. I couldn't believe it. No write up or anything, just a very stern talking to. It was there for around 4 months before they finally got the floorman to paint over. But with just the right lighting, you can still see the outline of "David loves cock" written on the wall in the meat cutting room. Tl;Dr: David loves cock

Well, I was working at a super market as the time as the supervisor of the stock crew. In other words, I was one of only a handful of full time employees there, and any odd job that need to be done, it's all on me. One day the drain in the meat market gets clogged with disgustingly rotting meat particles, and of course they call me to fix it. They give me a vaccum, thick gloves and rubber boots and a spray bottle of some kind of acid or degreaser. As soon as I started sucking up the slimy rotting meat chowder, I started gagging, as the hose didn't exactly fit the drain hole, and the gasses from the mixture of a thousand different animal's meat scoop were torture. So I took a 5 minute breather break, and decided to spray "David loves cock" on the wall with the chemical (David was the store manager that made me do this). So before I get back to work, I grabbed the water hose to wash it off. Except.. it didn't wash off the words. It instead washed off the paint that I sprayed the apparently very corrosive shit on. So there was an entire white wall, with only "David loves cock" perfectly written with bare cement wall. I owned up to it, and somehow KEPT MY FUCKING JOB. I couldn't believe it. No write up or anything, just a very stern talking to. It was there for around 4 months before they finally got the floorman to paint over. But with just the right lighting, you can still see the outline of "David loves cock" written on the wall in the meat cutting room. Tl;Dr: David loves cock

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

ci1aws4

Well, I was working at a super market as the time as the supervisor of the stock crew. In other words, I was one of only a handful of full time employees there, and any odd job that need to be done, it's all on me. One day the drain in the meat market gets clogged with disgustingly rotting meat particles, and of course they call me to fix it. They give me a vaccum, thick gloves and rubber boots and a spray bottle of some kind of acid or degreaser. As soon as I started sucking up the slimy rotting meat chowder, I started gagging, as the hose didn't exactly fit the drain hole, and the gasses from the mixture of a thousand different animal's meat scoop were torture. So I took a 5 minute breather break, and decided to spray "David loves cock" on the wall with the chemical (David was the store manager that made me do this). So before I get back to work, I grabbed the water hose to wash it off. Except.. it didn't wash off the words. It instead washed off the paint that I sprayed the apparently very corrosive shit on. So there was an entire white wall, with only "David loves cock" perfectly written with bare cement wall. I owned up to it, and somehow KEPT MY FUCKING JOB. I couldn't believe it. No write up or anything, just a very stern talking to. It was there for around 4 months before they finally got the floorman to paint over. But with just the right lighting, you can still see the outline of "David loves cock" written on the wall in the meat cutting room.

David loves cock

Slowrider8

I play Arma 2 with a group still. I have great fun and it all feels very atmospheric especially with added mods. However, several players in the group constantly have problems with A2, including crashing at map screen, problems with recording and multiple mod launching problems. A few of us regularly play some ArmA 3, and it's great Zeus mode. We have a couple of mods running which are not any problems and nobody seems to have problems with crashing etc. All in all, we find Arma 3 generally more reliable than 2. However, A2 has so many more and better mods than A3 that we are sticking to that until atleast when ACE is released. TLDR; A3 more reliable, less features, A2 less reliable, more mods + features.

I play Arma 2 with a group still. I have great fun and it all feels very atmospheric especially with added mods. However, several players in the group constantly have problems with A2, including crashing at map screen, problems with recording and multiple mod launching problems. A few of us regularly play some ArmA 3, and it's great Zeus mode. We have a couple of mods running which are not any problems and nobody seems to have problems with crashing etc. All in all, we find Arma 3 generally more reliable than 2. However, A2 has so many more and better mods than A3 that we are sticking to that until atleast when ACE is released. TLDR; A3 more reliable, less features, A2 less reliable, more mods + features.

arma

t5_2s3q7

ci1fh7l

I play Arma 2 with a group still. I have great fun and it all feels very atmospheric especially with added mods. However, several players in the group constantly have problems with A2, including crashing at map screen, problems with recording and multiple mod launching problems. A few of us regularly play some ArmA 3, and it's great Zeus mode. We have a couple of mods running which are not any problems and nobody seems to have problems with crashing etc. All in all, we find Arma 3 generally more reliable than 2. However, A2 has so many more and better mods than A3 that we are sticking to that until atleast when ACE is released.

A3 more reliable, less features, A2 less reliable, more mods + features.

chimpfunkz

I absolutely agree with this. Now let me start by saying I wasn't of this opinion a month ago, but I am now because of the last game I played. Basically, it started with an early collective voyage, and then another, and then me stealing a survival, pitching it to get prophet. And here's where things went wrong. Situation: everyone has 10+ mana, I have somewhere in the range of 15-17. I dropped prophet, and I turned a 5 person game into a 1v4 game against me. Literally i would play prophet, untap, then the guy to my left would try to kill it. I'd bring it back, replay my board, and the entire thing would repeat. I was able to trade resources 1 for 0 with the guy to my left for essentially nothing. And I was still able to stop the next 2 guys. This was a table that was running answers; and I was able to beat them. Prophet has slowly become my least favorite thing to see in a deck. Sheldon has talked about the "extra turn" effect of seedborn muse, but that's nothing compare to prophet. This card is literally a card you fight about. Bribery it out early to just take 3 extra turns. Play it late game, you've basically time stretched 3 times (late game turns are that good). I always want to bring it back and play it, even over my commander sometimes (and i'm playing maelstrom wanderer). I'm actually gonna go out on a limb and say that combined with any draw spells (like sphinx or Arcanis) it is more powerful than future sight. Quite honestly, after the last game I played, I think I'm done with it in real life. Probably just going to replace it with Dack Fayden (if I can get one) because he seems like a good card to help dig for ramp/answers. Tl:dr prophet let me beat a table of 5 by myself. Deadeye was/is not the problem. Prophet is.

I absolutely agree with this. Now let me start by saying I wasn't of this opinion a month ago, but I am now because of the last game I played. Basically, it started with an early collective voyage, and then another, and then me stealing a survival, pitching it to get prophet. And here's where things went wrong. Situation: everyone has 10+ mana, I have somewhere in the range of 15-17. I dropped prophet, and I turned a 5 person game into a 1v4 game against me. Literally i would play prophet, untap, then the guy to my left would try to kill it. I'd bring it back, replay my board, and the entire thing would repeat. I was able to trade resources 1 for 0 with the guy to my left for essentially nothing. And I was still able to stop the next 2 guys. This was a table that was running answers; and I was able to beat them. Prophet has slowly become my least favorite thing to see in a deck. Sheldon has talked about the "extra turn" effect of seedborn muse, but that's nothing compare to prophet. This card is literally a card you fight about. Bribery it out early to just take 3 extra turns. Play it late game, you've basically time stretched 3 times (late game turns are that good). I always want to bring it back and play it, even over my commander sometimes (and i'm playing maelstrom wanderer). I'm actually gonna go out on a limb and say that combined with any draw spells (like sphinx or Arcanis) it is more powerful than future sight. Quite honestly, after the last game I played, I think I'm done with it in real life. Probably just going to replace it with Dack Fayden (if I can get one) because he seems like a good card to help dig for ramp/answers. Tl:dr prophet let me beat a table of 5 by myself. Deadeye was/is not the problem. Prophet is.

EDH

t5_2scee

ci1i12x

I absolutely agree with this. Now let me start by saying I wasn't of this opinion a month ago, but I am now because of the last game I played. Basically, it started with an early collective voyage, and then another, and then me stealing a survival, pitching it to get prophet. And here's where things went wrong. Situation: everyone has 10+ mana, I have somewhere in the range of 15-17. I dropped prophet, and I turned a 5 person game into a 1v4 game against me. Literally i would play prophet, untap, then the guy to my left would try to kill it. I'd bring it back, replay my board, and the entire thing would repeat. I was able to trade resources 1 for 0 with the guy to my left for essentially nothing. And I was still able to stop the next 2 guys. This was a table that was running answers; and I was able to beat them. Prophet has slowly become my least favorite thing to see in a deck. Sheldon has talked about the "extra turn" effect of seedborn muse, but that's nothing compare to prophet. This card is literally a card you fight about. Bribery it out early to just take 3 extra turns. Play it late game, you've basically time stretched 3 times (late game turns are that good). I always want to bring it back and play it, even over my commander sometimes (and i'm playing maelstrom wanderer). I'm actually gonna go out on a limb and say that combined with any draw spells (like sphinx or Arcanis) it is more powerful than future sight. Quite honestly, after the last game I played, I think I'm done with it in real life. Probably just going to replace it with Dack Fayden (if I can get one) because he seems like a good card to help dig for ramp/answers.

prophet let me beat a table of 5 by myself. Deadeye was/is not the problem. Prophet is.

Evangeliowned

The trees behind it are blurry because they're far away and you're not focusing on them. The difference here is that you should be able to at least make out the shape and colors of the cow clearly. Regardless of if that's how you believe vision works this is a video game and being able to see clearly when you have to fight is needed. There's nothing fun about having to turn and center your vision on something just to tell if its a threat or what you're looking for. **tl;dr** adding realism to a fantasy rpg is almost never needed for obvious reason.

The trees behind it are blurry because they're far away and you're not focusing on them. The difference here is that you should be able to at least make out the shape and colors of the cow clearly. Regardless of if that's how you believe vision works this is a video game and being able to see clearly when you have to fight is needed. There's nothing fun about having to turn and center your vision on something just to tell if its a threat or what you're looking for. tl;dr adding realism to a fantasy rpg is almost never needed for obvious reason.

gaming

t5_2qh03

ci1leao

The trees behind it are blurry because they're far away and you're not focusing on them. The difference here is that you should be able to at least make out the shape and colors of the cow clearly. Regardless of if that's how you believe vision works this is a video game and being able to see clearly when you have to fight is needed. There's nothing fun about having to turn and center your vision on something just to tell if its a threat or what you're looking for.

adding realism to a fantasy rpg is almost never needed for obvious reason.

Holy_City

"Chord progression" is just a fancy word people throw around when we're talking about the specifics of harmony. It's not really that complicated, you have a melody and the harmony puts the melody in context. Adding a harmony to a melody is called "harmonizing" (original word, huh?) In your examples, the first one has chords being played by a pad. Listen for the higher pitched sound behind everything, that's where the progression is. In the second it's harder because the "chord" isn't really there, it's more of an arpeggio going on but the chord that's arpeggiated changes (more or less, it stays constant for a bit). When you listen, try and hear the backdrop of notes that put the vocal line in context. I'll give you a really easy example I cooked up for you. listen to [this]( melody which I know you have heard ad nauseum in your life. The first four bars are the melody with the basic harmony in the original, it's just I-V-I-V. The melody stands by itself, but the chords just provide context for it to exist in. It makes the melody happy, sad, dark, bright, joyful, whatever. Changing the harmony changes how the melody can be interpretted. The second four bars are the same melody with absolutely no changes, just put into a minor context. It sounds darker and broodier, not the joyful praise to god Beethoven meant it to be. The last is a blend of the two, back in the major but with a different feel. Tl:Dr the chord progression or harmony is just context for a melody to exist in. If you're using a bassline underneath the melody, guess what that's harmony! Now fill in the other notes based on your knowledge of theory and how you want the melody to be interpretted. It's actually pretty easy with a bit of practice. To practice take a simple melody and just put it against chords. Change up the rhythm of the chords, the voicing, or whatever to really learn what kind of harmony you like.

"Chord progression" is just a fancy word people throw around when we're talking about the specifics of harmony. It's not really that complicated, you have a melody and the harmony puts the melody in context. Adding a harmony to a melody is called "harmonizing" (original word, huh?) In your examples, the first one has chords being played by a pad. Listen for the higher pitched sound behind everything, that's where the progression is. In the second it's harder because the "chord" isn't really there, it's more of an arpeggio going on but the chord that's arpeggiated changes (more or less, it stays constant for a bit). When you listen, try and hear the backdrop of notes that put the vocal line in context. I'll give you a really easy example I cooked up for you. listen to [this]( melody which I know you have heard ad nauseum in your life. The first four bars are the melody with the basic harmony in the original, it's just I-V-I-V. The melody stands by itself, but the chords just provide context for it to exist in. It makes the melody happy, sad, dark, bright, joyful, whatever. Changing the harmony changes how the melody can be interpretted. The second four bars are the same melody with absolutely no changes, just put into a minor context. It sounds darker and broodier, not the joyful praise to god Beethoven meant it to be. The last is a blend of the two, back in the major but with a different feel. Tl:Dr the chord progression or harmony is just context for a melody to exist in. If you're using a bassline underneath the melody, guess what that's harmony! Now fill in the other notes based on your knowledge of theory and how you want the melody to be interpretted. It's actually pretty easy with a bit of practice. To practice take a simple melody and just put it against chords. Change up the rhythm of the chords, the voicing, or whatever to really learn what kind of harmony you like.

edmproduction

t5_2sa4x

ci1st92

Chord progression" is just a fancy word people throw around when we're talking about the specifics of harmony. It's not really that complicated, you have a melody and the harmony puts the melody in context. Adding a harmony to a melody is called "harmonizing" (original word, huh?) In your examples, the first one has chords being played by a pad. Listen for the higher pitched sound behind everything, that's where the progression is. In the second it's harder because the "chord" isn't really there, it's more of an arpeggio going on but the chord that's arpeggiated changes (more or less, it stays constant for a bit). When you listen, try and hear the backdrop of notes that put the vocal line in context. I'll give you a really easy example I cooked up for you. listen to [this]( melody which I know you have heard ad nauseum in your life. The first four bars are the melody with the basic harmony in the original, it's just I-V-I-V. The melody stands by itself, but the chords just provide context for it to exist in. It makes the melody happy, sad, dark, bright, joyful, whatever. Changing the harmony changes how the melody can be interpretted. The second four bars are the same melody with absolutely no changes, just put into a minor context. It sounds darker and broodier, not the joyful praise to god Beethoven meant it to be. The last is a blend of the two, back in the major but with a different feel.

the chord progression or harmony is just context for a melody to exist in. If you're using a bassline underneath the melody, guess what that's harmony! Now fill in the other notes based on your knowledge of theory and how you want the melody to be interpretted. It's actually pretty easy with a bit of practice. To practice take a simple melody and just put it against chords. Change up the rhythm of the chords, the voicing, or whatever to really learn what kind of harmony you like.

drjgm74

It is possible but I am unconvinced. Maybe they were referring to *Cough Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation* ([letter in Circulation, 2006]( which is the use of vigorous coughing to generate an arterial pulse and thus keep someone conscious when they would otherwise be unconscious and pulseless (eg. ventricular tachycardia or severe bradycardia). This presumable works by increasing and decreasing the pressure in the chest cavity and so pushing blood out of the chest into the arteries and then sucking blood into the chest from the veins to keep the blood going round and round the body. Or they may be more specifically referring to "*valsalva termination of ventricular tachycardia*" but using a cough because it is kind of but not very similar to the [valsalva manoeuvre]( A valsalva can be thought of in simple terms as trying to blow out forcefully and thus raising the pressure within the chest. There is an article in Circulation from 1980 entitled Valsalva-termination of ventricular tachycardia ([pdf here]( Also in 1980 in the American Journal of Cardiology there was an article titled "Cough-facilitated conversion of ventricular tachycardia", however I don't have a copy of this. The mechanism for cardioversion is thought to be the increased vagal outflow during the strain phase of the valsalva manoeuvre which slows transmission of cardiac conduction through the atrioventricular node. Using the assumption that a firm cough is roughly equivalent to a valsalva (which is a stretch) then if someone was to have a out-of-hospital cardiac event, the most common being a ventricular tachycardia associated with ischaemic heart disease, then if they recognised this, lay flat, and coughed forcefully, then it is possible that the heart rhythm would revert to normal, thus saving them (temporarily). So you see that this idea has been around over 30 years and it has been observed many times, usually in people with a implanted pacemaker/defibrillators, or people on table in the cardiac catheter laboratory or electrophysiological studies lab. So there is no doubt that it is a real phenomenon. I'm not sure that it has been demonstrated to be effective in the out-of-hospital milieu, or in "normal" people (ie. not the pacemaker population). ***The American Heart Association does not endorse "cough CPR,*** and you can read a [brief statement about cough-CPR by the AHA here]( The meat of the matter is > Why isn't "cough CPR" appropriate in CPR training courses? > "Cough CPR" should not be taught in lay-rescuer CPR courses because it is generally not useful in the prehospital setting. In virtually all lay-rescuer CPR courses, the finding that signals an emergency is the victim's unresponsiveness. Unresponsive victims will not be able to perform "cough CPR." **TL,DR; the AHA don't recommend "cough-CPR".** Addit: i'm not a cardiologist.

It is possible but I am unconvinced. Maybe they were referring to Cough Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ( letter in Circulation, 2006 . This presumable works by increasing and decreasing the pressure in the chest cavity and so pushing blood out of the chest into the arteries and then sucking blood into the chest from the veins to keep the blood going round and round the body. Or they may be more specifically referring to " valsalva termination of ventricular tachycardia " but using a cough because it is kind of but not very similar to the [valsalva manoeuvre]( A valsalva can be thought of in simple terms as trying to blow out forcefully and thus raising the pressure within the chest. There is an article in Circulation from 1980 entitled Valsalva-termination of ventricular tachycardia ([pdf here]( Also in 1980 in the American Journal of Cardiology there was an article titled "Cough-facilitated conversion of ventricular tachycardia", however I don't have a copy of this. The mechanism for cardioversion is thought to be the increased vagal outflow during the strain phase of the valsalva manoeuvre which slows transmission of cardiac conduction through the atrioventricular node. Using the assumption that a firm cough is roughly equivalent to a valsalva (which is a stretch) then if someone was to have a out-of-hospital cardiac event, the most common being a ventricular tachycardia associated with ischaemic heart disease, then if they recognised this, lay flat, and coughed forcefully, then it is possible that the heart rhythm would revert to normal, thus saving them (temporarily). So you see that this idea has been around over 30 years and it has been observed many times, usually in people with a implanted pacemaker/defibrillators, or people on table in the cardiac catheter laboratory or electrophysiological studies lab. So there is no doubt that it is a real phenomenon. I'm not sure that it has been demonstrated to be effective in the out-of-hospital milieu, or in "normal" people (ie. not the pacemaker population). The American Heart Association does not endorse "cough CPR, and you can read a [brief statement about cough-CPR by the AHA here]( The meat of the matter is > Why isn't "cough CPR" appropriate in CPR training courses? > "Cough CPR" should not be taught in lay-rescuer CPR courses because it is generally not useful in the prehospital setting. In virtually all lay-rescuer CPR courses, the finding that signals an emergency is the victim's unresponsiveness. Unresponsive victims will not be able to perform "cough CPR." TL,DR; the AHA don't recommend "cough-CPR". Addit: i'm not a cardiologist.

askscience

t5_2qm4e

ci22tg4

It is possible but I am unconvinced. Maybe they were referring to Cough Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ( letter in Circulation, 2006 . This presumable works by increasing and decreasing the pressure in the chest cavity and so pushing blood out of the chest into the arteries and then sucking blood into the chest from the veins to keep the blood going round and round the body. Or they may be more specifically referring to " valsalva termination of ventricular tachycardia " but using a cough because it is kind of but not very similar to the [valsalva manoeuvre]( A valsalva can be thought of in simple terms as trying to blow out forcefully and thus raising the pressure within the chest. There is an article in Circulation from 1980 entitled Valsalva-termination of ventricular tachycardia ([pdf here]( Also in 1980 in the American Journal of Cardiology there was an article titled "Cough-facilitated conversion of ventricular tachycardia", however I don't have a copy of this. The mechanism for cardioversion is thought to be the increased vagal outflow during the strain phase of the valsalva manoeuvre which slows transmission of cardiac conduction through the atrioventricular node. Using the assumption that a firm cough is roughly equivalent to a valsalva (which is a stretch) then if someone was to have a out-of-hospital cardiac event, the most common being a ventricular tachycardia associated with ischaemic heart disease, then if they recognised this, lay flat, and coughed forcefully, then it is possible that the heart rhythm would revert to normal, thus saving them (temporarily). So you see that this idea has been around over 30 years and it has been observed many times, usually in people with a implanted pacemaker/defibrillators, or people on table in the cardiac catheter laboratory or electrophysiological studies lab. So there is no doubt that it is a real phenomenon. I'm not sure that it has been demonstrated to be effective in the out-of-hospital milieu, or in "normal" people (ie. not the pacemaker population). The American Heart Association does not endorse "cough CPR, and you can read a [brief statement about cough-CPR by the AHA here]( The meat of the matter is > Why isn't "cough CPR" appropriate in CPR training courses? > "Cough CPR" should not be taught in lay-rescuer CPR courses because it is generally not useful in the prehospital setting. In virtually all lay-rescuer CPR courses, the finding that signals an emergency is the victim's unresponsiveness. Unresponsive victims will not be able to perform "cough CPR."

the AHA don't recommend "cough-CPR". Addit: i'm not a cardiologist.

mmm27

It's this kind of shit that really gets to me. When I invite people over to do something fun, I almost always just end up feeling like a dumbass. I guess it's a pride thing, but something that always kills me is when I'm becoming friends with someone and I do all the work. I may respond immediately to a text when they take forever, invite someone over and they'll either cancel or be totally passive about what we're doing, not showing enthusiasm in the slightest when I feel like I would exaggerate or even *fake* enthusiasm for the other person, or respect someone else's opinion or subject they're talking about when they seem to dismiss my opinions or completely ignore what I have to say when it's my turn. Of course, maybe it could be me trying too hard, but I feel like me trying to be the more active one in the friendship never works out. And each time I fail, I just end up hurting myself and I don't even want to try the next time it happens. Recently, it's kind of just evolved into me just not wanting to give a shit about most people anymore. Just taking actual friends that want to care about me as they come (*if* they come). I've realized that I'm just not a person who can make close friends with others similar to other people. I do have *some* friends, but sometimes it's hard to get them to do anything with me, as the close ones sometimes just dismiss my ideas some time down the line. I suppose there's still hope left for me though, as the one person I consider to be my best friend, even if he never really wants to do anything besides talk in school always finds a way to make me laugh, and is one person I believe I'd rather hang out with over anybody in the world. The problem is that we never communicate on a deeper level other than laughing at dumb stuff, but I can recall a time where I asked him to be serious with me, and he was. Also, I play games with one of my old friends every other weekend, and I recently got invited to come over to one of my other friends' house to do *something* (anything's good, to be honest). I shouldn't say I have *no* friends, but I have few, but even most of them are not that close with me. I think it was at this point that I realized I was going to continue "hobbying": just doing the same game-dev, exercise, and studying routine that I usually do, and connecting with communities that respect what games I'd made and would care to try them. Of course, this is hard when you haven't really made anything worthy of contribution to the community, but it's a start and it keeps me from jumping off a cliff every day, knowing that once I do actually finish a project, I have the option of giving it to others and communicating through my work. I guess getting a hobby and actually doing something productive with my life has always protected me from what misfortune I may have with communicating with others because it's always added a feeling of significance to my life, as though there was something I was able to do that would give me an identity, that would help me attain character, and most importantly, wouldn't require what everyone else thought to make me/my hobby feel significant. So, **TL;DR** : If you feel like shit because you have no friends (like me), try getting a hobby and doing something productive. Not everything good you experience in life needs to depend on the approval of others, and there's knowledge, fun, and edification to be found in creating or doing something that is close to your heart.

It's this kind of shit that really gets to me. When I invite people over to do something fun, I almost always just end up feeling like a dumbass. I guess it's a pride thing, but something that always kills me is when I'm becoming friends with someone and I do all the work. I may respond immediately to a text when they take forever, invite someone over and they'll either cancel or be totally passive about what we're doing, not showing enthusiasm in the slightest when I feel like I would exaggerate or even fake enthusiasm for the other person, or respect someone else's opinion or subject they're talking about when they seem to dismiss my opinions or completely ignore what I have to say when it's my turn. Of course, maybe it could be me trying too hard, but I feel like me trying to be the more active one in the friendship never works out. And each time I fail, I just end up hurting myself and I don't even want to try the next time it happens. Recently, it's kind of just evolved into me just not wanting to give a shit about most people anymore. Just taking actual friends that want to care about me as they come ( if they come). I've realized that I'm just not a person who can make close friends with others similar to other people. I do have some friends, but sometimes it's hard to get them to do anything with me, as the close ones sometimes just dismiss my ideas some time down the line. I suppose there's still hope left for me though, as the one person I consider to be my best friend, even if he never really wants to do anything besides talk in school always finds a way to make me laugh, and is one person I believe I'd rather hang out with over anybody in the world. The problem is that we never communicate on a deeper level other than laughing at dumb stuff, but I can recall a time where I asked him to be serious with me, and he was. Also, I play games with one of my old friends every other weekend, and I recently got invited to come over to one of my other friends' house to do something (anything's good, to be honest). I shouldn't say I have no friends, but I have few, but even most of them are not that close with me. I think it was at this point that I realized I was going to continue "hobbying": just doing the same game-dev, exercise, and studying routine that I usually do, and connecting with communities that respect what games I'd made and would care to try them. Of course, this is hard when you haven't really made anything worthy of contribution to the community, but it's a start and it keeps me from jumping off a cliff every day, knowing that once I do actually finish a project, I have the option of giving it to others and communicating through my work. I guess getting a hobby and actually doing something productive with my life has always protected me from what misfortune I may have with communicating with others because it's always added a feeling of significance to my life, as though there was something I was able to do that would give me an identity, that would help me attain character, and most importantly, wouldn't require what everyone else thought to make me/my hobby feel significant. So, TL;DR : If you feel like shit because you have no friends (like me), try getting a hobby and doing something productive. Not everything good you experience in life needs to depend on the approval of others, and there's knowledge, fun, and edification to be found in creating or doing something that is close to your heart.

self

t5_2qh96

ci2k7bq

It's this kind of shit that really gets to me. When I invite people over to do something fun, I almost always just end up feeling like a dumbass. I guess it's a pride thing, but something that always kills me is when I'm becoming friends with someone and I do all the work. I may respond immediately to a text when they take forever, invite someone over and they'll either cancel or be totally passive about what we're doing, not showing enthusiasm in the slightest when I feel like I would exaggerate or even fake enthusiasm for the other person, or respect someone else's opinion or subject they're talking about when they seem to dismiss my opinions or completely ignore what I have to say when it's my turn. Of course, maybe it could be me trying too hard, but I feel like me trying to be the more active one in the friendship never works out. And each time I fail, I just end up hurting myself and I don't even want to try the next time it happens. Recently, it's kind of just evolved into me just not wanting to give a shit about most people anymore. Just taking actual friends that want to care about me as they come ( if they come). I've realized that I'm just not a person who can make close friends with others similar to other people. I do have some friends, but sometimes it's hard to get them to do anything with me, as the close ones sometimes just dismiss my ideas some time down the line. I suppose there's still hope left for me though, as the one person I consider to be my best friend, even if he never really wants to do anything besides talk in school always finds a way to make me laugh, and is one person I believe I'd rather hang out with over anybody in the world. The problem is that we never communicate on a deeper level other than laughing at dumb stuff, but I can recall a time where I asked him to be serious with me, and he was. Also, I play games with one of my old friends every other weekend, and I recently got invited to come over to one of my other friends' house to do something (anything's good, to be honest). I shouldn't say I have no friends, but I have few, but even most of them are not that close with me. I think it was at this point that I realized I was going to continue "hobbying": just doing the same game-dev, exercise, and studying routine that I usually do, and connecting with communities that respect what games I'd made and would care to try them. Of course, this is hard when you haven't really made anything worthy of contribution to the community, but it's a start and it keeps me from jumping off a cliff every day, knowing that once I do actually finish a project, I have the option of giving it to others and communicating through my work. I guess getting a hobby and actually doing something productive with my life has always protected me from what misfortune I may have with communicating with others because it's always added a feeling of significance to my life, as though there was something I was able to do that would give me an identity, that would help me attain character, and most importantly, wouldn't require what everyone else thought to make me/my hobby feel significant. So,

If you feel like shit because you have no friends (like me), try getting a hobby and doing something productive. Not everything good you experience in life needs to depend on the approval of others, and there's knowledge, fun, and edification to be found in creating or doing something that is close to your heart.

lone_turkey

All 4k tv's have semi decent upscaleing chips, they should switch to h265 and turbocharge the bit rate to deliver bluray quality streams, 4k owners will get a far better picture than they currently do and so will regular owners. To actually stream 4k is going to take some serious bandwidth so possibly best let physical media go first and perfect and prep the encoding and back end systems early. Tl:Dr no but start using new tech now to increase current stream quality in preparation.

All 4k tv's have semi decent upscaleing chips, they should switch to h265 and turbocharge the bit rate to deliver bluray quality streams, 4k owners will get a far better picture than they currently do and so will regular owners. To actually stream 4k is going to take some serious bandwidth so possibly best let physical media go first and perfect and prep the encoding and back end systems early. Tl:Dr no but start using new tech now to increase current stream quality in preparation.

xboxone

t5_2xbci

ci23s76

All 4k tv's have semi decent upscaleing chips, they should switch to h265 and turbocharge the bit rate to deliver bluray quality streams, 4k owners will get a far better picture than they currently do and so will regular owners. To actually stream 4k is going to take some serious bandwidth so possibly best let physical media go first and perfect and prep the encoding and back end systems early.

no but start using new tech now to increase current stream quality in preparation.

Spe3dy

If I'm not out of term here, let me say this. Not every 'famous' Youtuber is absolutely, completely up to date with everything they play. In this case, FrankynnPCin1080p is just another player, with his own knowledge of it. I get where you're coming from though. I have the same views sometimes where I think people SHOULD know certain things when they play certain games. tl;dr: Keep in mind that not everyone is as informed as you are.

If I'm not out of term here, let me say this. Not every 'famous' Youtuber is absolutely, completely up to date with everything they play. In this case, FrankynnPCin1080p is just another player, with his own knowledge of it. I get where you're coming from though. I have the same views sometimes where I think people SHOULD know certain things when they play certain games. tl;dr: Keep in mind that not everyone is as informed as you are.

starcitizen

t5_2v94d

ci2cs4z

If I'm not out of term here, let me say this. Not every 'famous' Youtuber is absolutely, completely up to date with everything they play. In this case, FrankynnPCin1080p is just another player, with his own knowledge of it. I get where you're coming from though. I have the same views sometimes where I think people SHOULD know certain things when they play certain games.

Keep in mind that not everyone is as informed as you are.

Aiolus

I would read them.... maybe. I have read them and they were just meh or terrible (the last book omg bad). However they do take place in the awesome world. His writing is sophomoric (think I'm using that right) it feel strictly like a bad writer is being thrown a bone and given awesome content to write about (I know ICE is a co-creator but a shit writer). I wish Erikson wrote them. TL;DR - ICE wrote poorly about an awesome world. Some information is nice to know. Barely worth reading.

I would read them.... maybe. I have read them and they were just meh or terrible (the last book omg bad). However they do take place in the awesome world. His writing is sophomoric (think I'm using that right) it feel strictly like a bad writer is being thrown a bone and given awesome content to write about (I know ICE is a co-creator but a shit writer). I wish Erikson wrote them. TL;DR - ICE wrote poorly about an awesome world. Some information is nice to know. Barely worth reading.

Malazan

t5_2t1dv

cij8lh4

I would read them.... maybe. I have read them and they were just meh or terrible (the last book omg bad). However they do take place in the awesome world. His writing is sophomoric (think I'm using that right) it feel strictly like a bad writer is being thrown a bone and given awesome content to write about (I know ICE is a co-creator but a shit writer). I wish Erikson wrote them.

ICE wrote poorly about an awesome world. Some information is nice to know. Barely worth reading.

ritchie70

Your girlfriend is 22, and you haven't mentioned any developmental deficiencies, so I assume she's OK. Like a lot of things I see in /r/legaladvice it's really a relationship/psychology question. She needs to have a talk with her dad, and keep talking until she understands why he's doing what he's doing, and what exactly he's doing. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be concerned about IRS interest in possible tax evasion and in shifting of liability in case of injury at the house. If he's had her sign random documents she didn't read, she may be liable for loans or other stuff too. tl;dr ELI5, daddy.

Your girlfriend is 22, and you haven't mentioned any developmental deficiencies, so I assume she's OK. Like a lot of things I see in /r/legaladvice it's really a relationship/psychology question. She needs to have a talk with her dad, and keep talking until she understands why he's doing what he's doing, and what exactly he's doing. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be concerned about IRS interest in possible tax evasion and in shifting of liability in case of injury at the house. If he's had her sign random documents she didn't read, she may be liable for loans or other stuff too. tl;dr ELI5, daddy.

legaladvice

t5_2rawz

ci3boxf

Your girlfriend is 22, and you haven't mentioned any developmental deficiencies, so I assume she's OK. Like a lot of things I see in /r/legaladvice it's really a relationship/psychology question. She needs to have a talk with her dad, and keep talking until she understands why he's doing what he's doing, and what exactly he's doing. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be concerned about IRS interest in possible tax evasion and in shifting of liability in case of injury at the house. If he's had her sign random documents she didn't read, she may be liable for loans or other stuff too.

ELI5, daddy.

SGellner

Walk. I know that sounds facetious, but it's the truth. My "routine" basically goes like this: I go about each day mindful of getting steps, if I have an opportunity to walk, I take it. Which means, I take the stairs instead of the escalator (or at least walk up the escalator), instead of standing still while waiting for the microwave to finish I walk back and forth, I walk to the grocery store even if it takes a bit longer, etc. At the end of the day I usually don't have my 12k, so I go for a walk after dinner. Sometimes that's a short little 2k walk, other times it's more like 8k. If I need less than 1k I usually just walk around the house. What I never do is skip a day. Even if it's bed time and I realize I'm missing 500 steps, which wouldn't be a big deal, I still force myself to pace around in the living room for a little while until I've reached my goal. So no big secrets really. I suppose the TLDR would be: Be mindful of opportunities to walk, and always take them.

Walk. I know that sounds facetious, but it's the truth. My "routine" basically goes like this: I go about each day mindful of getting steps, if I have an opportunity to walk, I take it. Which means, I take the stairs instead of the escalator (or at least walk up the escalator), instead of standing still while waiting for the microwave to finish I walk back and forth, I walk to the grocery store even if it takes a bit longer, etc. At the end of the day I usually don't have my 12k, so I go for a walk after dinner. Sometimes that's a short little 2k walk, other times it's more like 8k. If I need less than 1k I usually just walk around the house. What I never do is skip a day. Even if it's bed time and I realize I'm missing 500 steps, which wouldn't be a big deal, I still force myself to pace around in the living room for a little while until I've reached my goal. So no big secrets really. I suppose the TLDR would be: Be mindful of opportunities to walk, and always take them.

fitbit

t5_2tat5

ci2vpc3

Walk. I know that sounds facetious, but it's the truth. My "routine" basically goes like this: I go about each day mindful of getting steps, if I have an opportunity to walk, I take it. Which means, I take the stairs instead of the escalator (or at least walk up the escalator), instead of standing still while waiting for the microwave to finish I walk back and forth, I walk to the grocery store even if it takes a bit longer, etc. At the end of the day I usually don't have my 12k, so I go for a walk after dinner. Sometimes that's a short little 2k walk, other times it's more like 8k. If I need less than 1k I usually just walk around the house. What I never do is skip a day. Even if it's bed time and I realize I'm missing 500 steps, which wouldn't be a big deal, I still force myself to pace around in the living room for a little while until I've reached my goal. So no big secrets really. I suppose the

would be: Be mindful of opportunities to walk, and always take them.

oktnxbai

After months of figuring out which brand (Ducky), model (DK2108S - Ducky Zero Shine), and switch (Brown) to buy - I decided to go out and buy one. Bad news is I live in a country wherein there are very few Ducky resellers and the specific model I wanted, was always out of stock. So I decided to go to the source - Taiwan. Fortunately my girlfriend has few computer-literate (though not mechanical keyboard enthusiasts) relatives living in the country that will soon go back home. I sent in the exact details of the keyboard I wanted + few pictures from the net. After a week, they said they were able to get the exact model of the keyboard. I was really happy! Fast forward two more weeks, the keyboard finally was in my hands: Ducky - Check!, DK2108S - Check!, Orange LED - Check!, Brown Switch - Check! (According to the box) A few typing afterwards, I noticed that my keyboard doesn't give out that tactile feedback from browns from what I have heard and seen from the net. I grabbed the keycap puller and to my surprise, a black switch was before me! Hmmmmm. It got me wondering, why the hell was is labelled brown switch in the box? Did my GF's relatives got scammed? Not really. I googled for the keyboard's SKU which is AUSALT - the hits were all about Ducky Shines having MX black switches. Since the relatives won't be going back to Taiwan soon, I guess I'll have to live with MX black, which was actually my second choice after browns. **TLDR:** Don't believe the sticker label plastered in the box and be very specific of the model when buying a mechanical keyboard.

After months of figuring out which brand (Ducky), model (DK2108S - Ducky Zero Shine), and switch (Brown) to buy - I decided to go out and buy one. Bad news is I live in a country wherein there are very few Ducky resellers and the specific model I wanted, was always out of stock. So I decided to go to the source - Taiwan. Fortunately my girlfriend has few computer-literate (though not mechanical keyboard enthusiasts) relatives living in the country that will soon go back home. I sent in the exact details of the keyboard I wanted + few pictures from the net. After a week, they said they were able to get the exact model of the keyboard. I was really happy! Fast forward two more weeks, the keyboard finally was in my hands: Ducky - Check!, DK2108S - Check!, Orange LED - Check!, Brown Switch - Check! (According to the box) A few typing afterwards, I noticed that my keyboard doesn't give out that tactile feedback from browns from what I have heard and seen from the net. I grabbed the keycap puller and to my surprise, a black switch was before me! Hmmmmm. It got me wondering, why the hell was is labelled brown switch in the box? Did my GF's relatives got scammed? Not really. I googled for the keyboard's SKU which is AUSALT - the hits were all about Ducky Shines having MX black switches. Since the relatives won't be going back to Taiwan soon, I guess I'll have to live with MX black, which was actually my second choice after browns. TLDR: Don't believe the sticker label plastered in the box and be very specific of the model when buying a mechanical keyboard.

MechanicalKeyboards

t5_2ugo7

ci2vgr6

After months of figuring out which brand (Ducky), model (DK2108S - Ducky Zero Shine), and switch (Brown) to buy - I decided to go out and buy one. Bad news is I live in a country wherein there are very few Ducky resellers and the specific model I wanted, was always out of stock. So I decided to go to the source - Taiwan. Fortunately my girlfriend has few computer-literate (though not mechanical keyboard enthusiasts) relatives living in the country that will soon go back home. I sent in the exact details of the keyboard I wanted + few pictures from the net. After a week, they said they were able to get the exact model of the keyboard. I was really happy! Fast forward two more weeks, the keyboard finally was in my hands: Ducky - Check!, DK2108S - Check!, Orange LED - Check!, Brown Switch - Check! (According to the box) A few typing afterwards, I noticed that my keyboard doesn't give out that tactile feedback from browns from what I have heard and seen from the net. I grabbed the keycap puller and to my surprise, a black switch was before me! Hmmmmm. It got me wondering, why the hell was is labelled brown switch in the box? Did my GF's relatives got scammed? Not really. I googled for the keyboard's SKU which is AUSALT - the hits were all about Ducky Shines having MX black switches. Since the relatives won't be going back to Taiwan soon, I guess I'll have to live with MX black, which was actually my second choice after browns.

Don't believe the sticker label plastered in the box and be very specific of the model when buying a mechanical keyboard.

firinmylazah

I am a weird extinct bizarre person who uses safari as a browser on PC. For the curious, it is to have my favorites and tabs sync up with my iPhone. In the past months, youtube was alerting me that it was no longer going to be a supported browser and I should switch. Now it has happen and when I use Safari to go on YouTube, I can watch the video but the whole comments thing and some other options have disappeared. I've never been better. TL;DR My browser doesn't support YouTube anymore and only show me the video, it is great.

I am a weird extinct bizarre person who uses safari as a browser on PC. For the curious, it is to have my favorites and tabs sync up with my iPhone. In the past months, youtube was alerting me that it was no longer going to be a supported browser and I should switch. Now it has happen and when I use Safari to go on YouTube, I can watch the video but the whole comments thing and some other options have disappeared. I've never been better. TL;DR My browser doesn't support YouTube anymore and only show me the video, it is great.

gaming

t5_2qh03

ci31hdk

I am a weird extinct bizarre person who uses safari as a browser on PC. For the curious, it is to have my favorites and tabs sync up with my iPhone. In the past months, youtube was alerting me that it was no longer going to be a supported browser and I should switch. Now it has happen and when I use Safari to go on YouTube, I can watch the video but the whole comments thing and some other options have disappeared. I've never been better.

My browser doesn't support YouTube anymore and only show me the video, it is great.

Trolltaku

Necessary no. But it's a lot rarer that girls play PC games in general than boys, not to mention live stream them. So it tells everyone at a glance that this wasn't your "typical" PC gamer, as well as what happened to them. We tend to be more descriptive in mentioning the particulars of a person in addition to describing something that happened to them when they are a minority, instead of just what happened to "a person". It's just the way it is. If it was a handicapped player, it would be included in the title. If it was a girl, it would be included in the title. If it was a guy, it would just be about a "gamer", since males make up the vast majority of the subculture, so when not mentioned it's assumed that the subject is male, unless otherwise specified. This isn't sexist or anything, in almost every subculture out there, the majority of who make up that subculture are assumed to be the subject in a story where the details about their identity are not mentioned. For instance, if there was a story about a customer who had their purse robbed, with no mention of their gender, you would assume it was a woman. Why? Because most women carry purses, and most men don't, even though there are men who do. The "majority" of purse carriers are women, so they are assumed to be the default. It's not sexist against men or anything if there was a case where a man was robbed for his purse to mention that he was a man, since it's not "the norm" for men to carry purses. It's worthy of mention since it adds a little bit more interest that it happened to someone who isn't part of the typical majority for that subculture. If and when someday girls play PC games just as much as guys, this sort of mention of their gender won't happen as often, but right now, it's just a fact that girls are a minority in the PC gaming world. That makes them noteworthy when something happens to them in it that could just as easily happen to a guy. Hope that makes sense. tl:dr - Necessary? No. Adds interest? Yes.

Necessary no. But it's a lot rarer that girls play PC games in general than boys, not to mention live stream them. So it tells everyone at a glance that this wasn't your "typical" PC gamer, as well as what happened to them. We tend to be more descriptive in mentioning the particulars of a person in addition to describing something that happened to them when they are a minority, instead of just what happened to "a person". It's just the way it is. If it was a handicapped player, it would be included in the title. If it was a girl, it would be included in the title. If it was a guy, it would just be about a "gamer", since males make up the vast majority of the subculture, so when not mentioned it's assumed that the subject is male, unless otherwise specified. This isn't sexist or anything, in almost every subculture out there, the majority of who make up that subculture are assumed to be the subject in a story where the details about their identity are not mentioned. For instance, if there was a story about a customer who had their purse robbed, with no mention of their gender, you would assume it was a woman. Why? Because most women carry purses, and most men don't, even though there are men who do. The "majority" of purse carriers are women, so they are assumed to be the default. It's not sexist against men or anything if there was a case where a man was robbed for his purse to mention that he was a man, since it's not "the norm" for men to carry purses. It's worthy of mention since it adds a little bit more interest that it happened to someone who isn't part of the typical majority for that subculture. If and when someday girls play PC games just as much as guys, this sort of mention of their gender won't happen as often, but right now, it's just a fact that girls are a minority in the PC gaming world. That makes them noteworthy when something happens to them in it that could just as easily happen to a guy. Hope that makes sense. tl:dr - Necessary? No. Adds interest? Yes.

gaming

t5_2qh03

ci31ikn

Necessary no. But it's a lot rarer that girls play PC games in general than boys, not to mention live stream them. So it tells everyone at a glance that this wasn't your "typical" PC gamer, as well as what happened to them. We tend to be more descriptive in mentioning the particulars of a person in addition to describing something that happened to them when they are a minority, instead of just what happened to "a person". It's just the way it is. If it was a handicapped player, it would be included in the title. If it was a girl, it would be included in the title. If it was a guy, it would just be about a "gamer", since males make up the vast majority of the subculture, so when not mentioned it's assumed that the subject is male, unless otherwise specified. This isn't sexist or anything, in almost every subculture out there, the majority of who make up that subculture are assumed to be the subject in a story where the details about their identity are not mentioned. For instance, if there was a story about a customer who had their purse robbed, with no mention of their gender, you would assume it was a woman. Why? Because most women carry purses, and most men don't, even though there are men who do. The "majority" of purse carriers are women, so they are assumed to be the default. It's not sexist against men or anything if there was a case where a man was robbed for his purse to mention that he was a man, since it's not "the norm" for men to carry purses. It's worthy of mention since it adds a little bit more interest that it happened to someone who isn't part of the typical majority for that subculture. If and when someday girls play PC games just as much as guys, this sort of mention of their gender won't happen as often, but right now, it's just a fact that girls are a minority in the PC gaming world. That makes them noteworthy when something happens to them in it that could just as easily happen to a guy. Hope that makes sense.

Necessary? No. Adds interest? Yes.

guydawg

I like this idea, on paper anyway from the days of being a broke teen living on my own, to being a decently-paid adult 10 years later.. I still find tipping incredibly uncomfortable at times. like, if you get bad service you're supposed to leave a bad tip. but doing that is essentially saying "you did a shitty job so I give you no money, bye" then you basically can never go back to that restaurant again or have that server. it's a bit confrontational. by the same token, tipping well should signify good service, however unless you're a regular who tips well, or a straight up fat cat, people probably won't "assume" you are going to give a good tip anyway. so you may never even get the amazing service you are willing to pay for. tldr tipping sucks for everyone except restaurant owners and people who make a lot of $$ in tips

I like this idea, on paper anyway from the days of being a broke teen living on my own, to being a decently-paid adult 10 years later.. I still find tipping incredibly uncomfortable at times. like, if you get bad service you're supposed to leave a bad tip. but doing that is essentially saying "you did a shitty job so I give you no money, bye" then you basically can never go back to that restaurant again or have that server. it's a bit confrontational. by the same token, tipping well should signify good service, however unless you're a regular who tips well, or a straight up fat cat, people probably won't "assume" you are going to give a good tip anyway. so you may never even get the amazing service you are willing to pay for. tldr tipping sucks for everyone except restaurant owners and people who make a lot of $$ in tips

business

t5_2qgzg

ci2z2m9

I like this idea, on paper anyway from the days of being a broke teen living on my own, to being a decently-paid adult 10 years later.. I still find tipping incredibly uncomfortable at times. like, if you get bad service you're supposed to leave a bad tip. but doing that is essentially saying "you did a shitty job so I give you no money, bye" then you basically can never go back to that restaurant again or have that server. it's a bit confrontational. by the same token, tipping well should signify good service, however unless you're a regular who tips well, or a straight up fat cat, people probably won't "assume" you are going to give a good tip anyway. so you may never even get the amazing service you are willing to pay for.

tipping sucks for everyone except restaurant owners and people who make a lot of $$ in tips

guydawg

should probably clarify that then also, 20% may be too high for some places. in your gf's example (which btw, doesn't seem that crazy for someone working 6 days a week for 52 weeks straight - that's fucking hard work) for every 1% they lowered the commission rate by, your gf would make slightly <$5k less over the year. make it 15% and all of a sudden that 93k is 70k also I don't understand your math at all. if your wife sells $1500/day, and made avg of 15% in tips on that, that would be $225 in tips per day + wages (@$5/hour that's $40 for an 8 hour shift). usually they have to tip out 2-3% so that's $45 tip out @ 3%. $40/day + $180 per day = $220. x 6 days a week x 52 weeks a year = 68640 ALSO... you keep mentioning the owners costs, but if the owner is raising prices by 20% and basically paying that 20% out to the wait staff how does any money come out of their pocket? TL;DR you got way too excited, way too fast. simmer down young buck.

should probably clarify that then also, 20% may be too high for some places. in your gf's example (which btw, doesn't seem that crazy for someone working 6 days a week for 52 weeks straight - that's fucking hard work) for every 1% they lowered the commission rate by, your gf would make slightly <$5k less over the year. make it 15% and all of a sudden that 93k is 70k also I don't understand your math at all. if your wife sells $1500/day, and made avg of 15% in tips on that, that would be $225 in tips per day + wages (@$5/hour that's $40 for an 8 hour shift). usually they have to tip out 2-3% so that's $45 tip out @ 3%. $40/day + $180 per day = $220. x 6 days a week x 52 weeks a year = 68640 ALSO... you keep mentioning the owners costs, but if the owner is raising prices by 20% and basically paying that 20% out to the wait staff how does any money come out of their pocket? TL;DR you got way too excited, way too fast. simmer down young buck.

business

t5_2qgzg

ci33ja2

should probably clarify that then also, 20% may be too high for some places. in your gf's example (which btw, doesn't seem that crazy for someone working 6 days a week for 52 weeks straight - that's fucking hard work) for every 1% they lowered the commission rate by, your gf would make slightly <$5k less over the year. make it 15% and all of a sudden that 93k is 70k also I don't understand your math at all. if your wife sells $1500/day, and made avg of 15% in tips on that, that would be $225 in tips per day + wages (@$5/hour that's $40 for an 8 hour shift). usually they have to tip out 2-3% so that's $45 tip out @ 3%. $40/day + $180 per day = $220. x 6 days a week x 52 weeks a year = 68640 ALSO... you keep mentioning the owners costs, but if the owner is raising prices by 20% and basically paying that 20% out to the wait staff how does any money come out of their pocket?

you got way too excited, way too fast. simmer down young buck.

hepokattivaan

Ok, lets compare pure numbers for a second. * Finnish air force operates **62** F/A-18C Hornets (and about **75** Hawks) * Let's say 80% of those are operational at any given moment, rest are in maintenance, that leaves us with **48** Hornets. * Those Hornets are armed with just air-to-air armament (4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM and 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder) 99% of the time, making rearming and refueling quicker than if they were to carry air-to-ground armament. They also operate from nearby airfields and highway bases scattered all around the country ( Thus we can assume that each Hornet can fly **5** sorties per day, this gives the Finnish airforce Hornet fleet a combined **240** sorties / day. * Ontop of that Hawks can provide air-to-air close defense for the highway bases and airfields. * Finnish army and Navy have -at war time - at any given moment **~700** surface-to-air missiles and hundreds of AAA ready to fire. (Not even counting in Stingers) * Russian air force operates a wide array of planes, for tactical offensive operations in a hostile airspace Su-27 + Su-30 + Su-35 are usable. Russia operates **260-300** of those, but they cannot in any circumstance operate all of them in the Finnish front at the same time, Russia must secure its **20,000km** of borders in the west, east and south. Let's say they can get 60% of those to the Finnish front, of which 80% are operational at any given moment. That's **134** modern fighter jets. These must escort bombers and operate from airfields further away, we can assume they can fly **3** sorties each / day. Giving the Russian air force a combined **400** sorties / day. * Finnish air force can thus match **60%** of the sorties of the Russian air force. Add Finnish AA and AAA there as well. **TL:DR.** I wouldn't say "Your Air Force couldn't put a dent in Russia's."

Ok, lets compare pure numbers for a second. Finnish air force operates 62 F/A-18C Hornets (and about 75 Hawks) Let's say 80% of those are operational at any given moment, rest are in maintenance, that leaves us with 48 Hornets. Those Hornets are armed with just air-to-air armament (4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM and 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder) 99% of the time, making rearming and refueling quicker than if they were to carry air-to-ground armament. They also operate from nearby airfields and highway bases scattered all around the country ( Thus we can assume that each Hornet can fly 5 sorties per day, this gives the Finnish airforce Hornet fleet a combined 240 sorties / day. Ontop of that Hawks can provide air-to-air close defense for the highway bases and airfields. Finnish army and Navy have -at war time - at any given moment ~700 surface-to-air missiles and hundreds of AAA ready to fire. (Not even counting in Stingers) Russian air force operates a wide array of planes, for tactical offensive operations in a hostile airspace Su-27 + Su-30 + Su-35 are usable. Russia operates 260-300 of those, but they cannot in any circumstance operate all of them in the Finnish front at the same time, Russia must secure its 20,000km of borders in the west, east and south. Let's say they can get 60% of those to the Finnish front, of which 80% are operational at any given moment. That's 134 modern fighter jets. These must escort bombers and operate from airfields further away, we can assume they can fly 3 sorties each / day. Giving the Russian air force a combined 400 sorties / day. Finnish air force can thus match 60% of the sorties of the Russian air force. Add Finnish AA and AAA there as well. TL:DR. I wouldn't say "Your Air Force couldn't put a dent in Russia's."

polandball

t5_2sih3

ci3mr8w

Ok, lets compare pure numbers for a second. Finnish air force operates 62 F/A-18C Hornets (and about 75 Hawks) Let's say 80% of those are operational at any given moment, rest are in maintenance, that leaves us with 48 Hornets. Those Hornets are armed with just air-to-air armament (4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM and 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder) 99% of the time, making rearming and refueling quicker than if they were to carry air-to-ground armament. They also operate from nearby airfields and highway bases scattered all around the country ( Thus we can assume that each Hornet can fly 5 sorties per day, this gives the Finnish airforce Hornet fleet a combined 240 sorties / day. Ontop of that Hawks can provide air-to-air close defense for the highway bases and airfields. Finnish army and Navy have -at war time - at any given moment ~700 surface-to-air missiles and hundreds of AAA ready to fire. (Not even counting in Stingers) Russian air force operates a wide array of planes, for tactical offensive operations in a hostile airspace Su-27 + Su-30 + Su-35 are usable. Russia operates 260-300 of those, but they cannot in any circumstance operate all of them in the Finnish front at the same time, Russia must secure its 20,000km of borders in the west, east and south. Let's say they can get 60% of those to the Finnish front, of which 80% are operational at any given moment. That's 134 modern fighter jets. These must escort bombers and operate from airfields further away, we can assume they can fly 3 sorties each / day. Giving the Russian air force a combined 400 sorties / day. Finnish air force can thus match 60% of the sorties of the Russian air force. Add Finnish AA and AAA there as well.

I wouldn't say "Your Air Force couldn't put a dent in Russia's."

ethidda

Well, I will give you our process. We have already drawn up several different sketches of what we think might work. They have windows and walls and the loft in the same places. We plan to frame the tiny house and then put tape on the ground to get a good feel for things. For example, if we find a cheap fridge that is a slightly different dimension, we will be able to accommodate that. We don't have utilities on the lot and may not pull them at all. But since the tiny house can be mobile, we'd already decided to build it for use with utilities and propane. So we will have piping for propane and electricity to all the major appliances (fridge, stove). We'll use battery powered lamps for lights if we don't get electricity. If we really can't stand it, we'll probably get a propane power generator that we can hook up to. Water/sewer is the difficult one. We already plan to do a composting toilet, so we will probably have only grey water out. Maybe plan to carry a separate tank if we put the tiny house somewhere where we can't do a drip line (we don't expect to have to do that). Since it's our vacation cabin, we'll probably just put a water crock over the sink and plan to not take showers or take only solar showers. We'll see about that one... tl;dr: Pipe for *everything*. Only hookup the things that can be hooked up.

Well, I will give you our process. We have already drawn up several different sketches of what we think might work. They have windows and walls and the loft in the same places. We plan to frame the tiny house and then put tape on the ground to get a good feel for things. For example, if we find a cheap fridge that is a slightly different dimension, we will be able to accommodate that. We don't have utilities on the lot and may not pull them at all. But since the tiny house can be mobile, we'd already decided to build it for use with utilities and propane. So we will have piping for propane and electricity to all the major appliances (fridge, stove). We'll use battery powered lamps for lights if we don't get electricity. If we really can't stand it, we'll probably get a propane power generator that we can hook up to. Water/sewer is the difficult one. We already plan to do a composting toilet, so we will probably have only grey water out. Maybe plan to carry a separate tank if we put the tiny house somewhere where we can't do a drip line (we don't expect to have to do that). Since it's our vacation cabin, we'll probably just put a water crock over the sink and plan to not take showers or take only solar showers. We'll see about that one... tl;dr: Pipe for everything . Only hookup the things that can be hooked up.

TinyHouses

t5_2rab5

ci4a2uz

Well, I will give you our process. We have already drawn up several different sketches of what we think might work. They have windows and walls and the loft in the same places. We plan to frame the tiny house and then put tape on the ground to get a good feel for things. For example, if we find a cheap fridge that is a slightly different dimension, we will be able to accommodate that. We don't have utilities on the lot and may not pull them at all. But since the tiny house can be mobile, we'd already decided to build it for use with utilities and propane. So we will have piping for propane and electricity to all the major appliances (fridge, stove). We'll use battery powered lamps for lights if we don't get electricity. If we really can't stand it, we'll probably get a propane power generator that we can hook up to. Water/sewer is the difficult one. We already plan to do a composting toilet, so we will probably have only grey water out. Maybe plan to carry a separate tank if we put the tiny house somewhere where we can't do a drip line (we don't expect to have to do that). Since it's our vacation cabin, we'll probably just put a water crock over the sink and plan to not take showers or take only solar showers. We'll see about that one...

Pipe for everything . Only hookup the things that can be hooked up.

IYellAtVideoGames

If you're a commentator, game volume should always be significantly lower than your own voice. Personally, I always set my game volume at -20dB, which seems to be a good standard. Voice volume depends entirely on how loud or quiet you were in the video. I never set my voice volume higher than 1 or 2 decibels after applying the filters to it. Sometimes lowering the gain on it helps a little with peaks. Finally, set your PC to a certain volume, and then go watch some other videos on YouTube. Are they too loud or quiet? If they sound about right, edit your video/commentary at that volume setting from now on, and adjust the levels until it sounds good at that volume. Personally, I set my PC to 50% volume, and edit at that level. It ensures that my video will always sound good, presuming the viewer has their PC set to a reasonable level of volume. tl;dr You've got to define your own standard of volume.

If you're a commentator, game volume should always be significantly lower than your own voice. Personally, I always set my game volume at -20dB, which seems to be a good standard. Voice volume depends entirely on how loud or quiet you were in the video. I never set my voice volume higher than 1 or 2 decibels after applying the filters to it. Sometimes lowering the gain on it helps a little with peaks. Finally, set your PC to a certain volume, and then go watch some other videos on YouTube. Are they too loud or quiet? If they sound about right, edit your video/commentary at that volume setting from now on, and adjust the levels until it sounds good at that volume. Personally, I set my PC to 50% volume, and edit at that level. It ensures that my video will always sound good, presuming the viewer has their PC set to a reasonable level of volume. tl;dr You've got to define your own standard of volume.

letsplay

t5_2qss1

ci3p7j8

If you're a commentator, game volume should always be significantly lower than your own voice. Personally, I always set my game volume at -20dB, which seems to be a good standard. Voice volume depends entirely on how loud or quiet you were in the video. I never set my voice volume higher than 1 or 2 decibels after applying the filters to it. Sometimes lowering the gain on it helps a little with peaks. Finally, set your PC to a certain volume, and then go watch some other videos on YouTube. Are they too loud or quiet? If they sound about right, edit your video/commentary at that volume setting from now on, and adjust the levels until it sounds good at that volume. Personally, I set my PC to 50% volume, and edit at that level. It ensures that my video will always sound good, presuming the viewer has their PC set to a reasonable level of volume.

You've got to define your own standard of volume.

StrangerMind

Wilson would probably be a low end QB1 in your league. He would be poor trade bait with only 1 QB starting but it is a possibility and always nice to have on the bench for byes. Rice is possibly a low end RB2 so not the worst guy to keep on the bench in case a RB goes down. DeAndre Hopkins is a low end WR3 for you. He is the number 2 WR on a team with a poor QB. It is tough for me between Rice and Wilson. Chances are you will not be able to replace either but I would **keep Wilson** and look to draft a RB with potential or hope someone drops one I could grab. tl;dr - **Bold**

Wilson would probably be a low end QB1 in your league. He would be poor trade bait with only 1 QB starting but it is a possibility and always nice to have on the bench for byes. Rice is possibly a low end RB2 so not the worst guy to keep on the bench in case a RB goes down. DeAndre Hopkins is a low end WR3 for you. He is the number 2 WR on a team with a poor QB. It is tough for me between Rice and Wilson. Chances are you will not be able to replace either but I would keep Wilson and look to draft a RB with potential or hope someone drops one I could grab. tl;dr - Bold

fantasyfootball

t5_2qlqq

ci3tmam

Wilson would probably be a low end QB1 in your league. He would be poor trade bait with only 1 QB starting but it is a possibility and always nice to have on the bench for byes. Rice is possibly a low end RB2 so not the worst guy to keep on the bench in case a RB goes down. DeAndre Hopkins is a low end WR3 for you. He is the number 2 WR on a team with a poor QB. It is tough for me between Rice and Wilson. Chances are you will not be able to replace either but I would keep Wilson and look to draft a RB with potential or hope someone drops one I could grab.

Bold

codalaw

Without it my guild wouldnt have its members i has today. It's the job the GM to make the guild feel welcome. Sure we auto-invited you, but you sir/ma'am are freaking awesome and we want you to feel welcome! TL;DR Blame the GM, not the addon

Without it my guild wouldnt have its members i has today. It's the job the GM to make the guild feel welcome. Sure we auto-invited you, but you sir/ma'am are freaking awesome and we want you to feel welcome! TL;DR Blame the GM, not the addon

wow

t5_2qio8

ci4kyyl

Without it my guild wouldnt have its members i has today. It's the job the GM to make the guild feel welcome. Sure we auto-invited you, but you sir/ma'am are freaking awesome and we want you to feel welcome!

Blame the GM, not the addon

Teewhy4kill

He never played in the D league, so don't really know why you're just making shit up. He got a scholarship to UNC (albeit 90% probably because of his height) but he couldn't have been 'terrible'. TL;DR Big fucking guy got injured trying to play sports

He never played in the D league, so don't really know why you're just making shit up. He got a scholarship to UNC (albeit 90% probably because of his height) but he couldn't have been 'terrible'. TL;DR Big fucking guy got injured trying to play sports

gameofthrones

t5_2rjz2

ci4gi11

He never played in the D league, so don't really know why you're just making shit up. He got a scholarship to UNC (albeit 90% probably because of his height) but he couldn't have been 'terrible'.

Big fucking guy got injured trying to play sports

FatalG91

Don't mash the button. Flay is a precision spell, if the target is still immobilized by hook, they won't be flayed. Furthermore, other types of displacement don't work on enemies affected by death sentence, either. Even if this was a bug, you are wasting the effective duration of CC possible by the combo by flaying too early. TLDR this isn't a bug, only bad timing.

Don't mash the button. Flay is a precision spell, if the target is still immobilized by hook, they won't be flayed. Furthermore, other types of displacement don't work on enemies affected by death sentence, either. Even if this was a bug, you are wasting the effective duration of CC possible by the combo by flaying too early. TLDR this isn't a bug, only bad timing.

leagueoflegends

t5_2rfxx

ci50e26

Don't mash the button. Flay is a precision spell, if the target is still immobilized by hook, they won't be flayed. Furthermore, other types of displacement don't work on enemies affected by death sentence, either. Even if this was a bug, you are wasting the effective duration of CC possible by the combo by flaying too early.

this isn't a bug, only bad timing.

MissingCharacters

Have you ever seen any correlation between the persons employment or familiarity with computers\internet, and the severity of the Porn habit? I happen to work in IT and my usual is\was about 3-5 times a day for the past couple years, and just like you I started very young. (first time I saw it was 12-13, first time I realized what it was and started PMO was around 14 TL;DR: I feel it would be more severe the more knowledgeable they are with the internet. (a.k.a the electrician\mechanic who can't use a computer or click a mouse probably does not have as severe a case. (there's always videos and VHS XD)

Have you ever seen any correlation between the persons employment or familiarity with computers\internet, and the severity of the Porn habit? I happen to work in IT and my usual is\was about 3-5 times a day for the past couple years, and just like you I started very young. (first time I saw it was 12-13, first time I realized what it was and started PMO was around 14 TL;DR: I feel it would be more severe the more knowledgeable they are with the internet. (a.k.a the electrician\mechanic who can't use a computer or click a mouse probably does not have as severe a case. (there's always videos and VHS XD)

NoFap

t5_2skrn

ci4f5ux

Have you ever seen any correlation between the persons employment or familiarity with computers\internet, and the severity of the Porn habit? I happen to work in IT and my usual is\was about 3-5 times a day for the past couple years, and just like you I started very young. (first time I saw it was 12-13, first time I realized what it was and started PMO was around 14

I feel it would be more severe the more knowledgeable they are with the internet. (a.k.a the electrician\mechanic who can't use a computer or click a mouse probably does not have as severe a case. (there's always videos and VHS XD)

ouwenbelg

I have a thruxton and sometimes I wish I bought a bonnie instead (because of riding position). That said, I'm quite sure I would have said exactly the opposite (because of looks) when I would have bought a bonnie. TL;DR: buy both.

I have a thruxton and sometimes I wish I bought a bonnie instead (because of riding position). That said, I'm quite sure I would have said exactly the opposite (because of looks) when I would have bought a bonnie. TL;DR: buy both.

Triumph

t5_2rzm0

ci4oxxf

I have a thruxton and sometimes I wish I bought a bonnie instead (because of riding position). That said, I'm quite sure I would have said exactly the opposite (because of looks) when I would have bought a bonnie.

buy both.

EvilToaster0ven

Well, "cost-effectiveness" is somewhat subjective, and is also significantly affected by the timeliness of availability. The Gridseed Blades were first to the market as "big" ASICs, so they were much more costly than a similarly performing ASIC being released now. *But* that also meant they were unchallenged in their hash/watt efficiency, and even when they were over $1k, they were still more "cost effective" than trying to get a matching total hashrate out of a collection of GPUs. The downside being that they are now in moving toward the position that GPUs were in when Gridseeds were first introduced (i.e. their hash/dollar ratios aren't as good, though the hash/watt ratio is still competitive). So, at $575 for the blade, the hash/$ ratio is 9 KH/$. Your power figures seem a tad low compared to the published stats, but if we go with the published stats (64w-70w per panel = 128w-140w total) then it has a hash/watt ratio would be 37.1-40.6 KH/w which actually puts it above the Furies I discussed earlier. Thus, the overhead costs to run that blade are theoretically lower than the cost to run Furies matching the Blade's hashrate (it would take 4 Furies to match 5.2 MH/s, each at 45w totaling 180w versus the high estimate of 140w for the blade). **Analysis over. Annoying "real-talk" incoming:** All in all, the hard truth is what many have said but most of us don't like to hear: During a "gold rush" the ones who profit most are the ones selling the "shovels." That doesn't stop me from mining, but I don't have any illusions that this has every possibility (perhaps even likelihood) of being a fruitless and expensive endeavor if Doge tanks (yes, I'm one of the stubborn ones who still mine Doge exclusively). But then again, I abandoned the pipe-dream of Doge being my ticket to riches a long time ago. I dig the community, the different fundraisers/events, and do believe Doge has a real shot at being the "Internet's Currency" for micro-transactions. But if it fails, I won't be in a bad financial situation, and I'll be able to say I was part of something very "unique" for a while. TL;DR - There aren't really any "good" investments in this game because it's all speculative. There are certainly "bad" ones like throwing money at vaporware. Research everything before you buy, and recognize that bigger isn't always better. EDIT: Just noticed you mentioned your Blade is running at 5.9 MH/s, so that shifts the hash/dollar ratio to 10.26 which is actually quite competitive. If folks can get Blades at the price you're getting them, they're decently competitive with these newer "Gen 2" ASICs.

Well, "cost-effectiveness" is somewhat subjective, and is also significantly affected by the timeliness of availability. The Gridseed Blades were first to the market as "big" ASICs, so they were much more costly than a similarly performing ASIC being released now. But that also meant they were unchallenged in their hash/watt efficiency, and even when they were over $1k, they were still more "cost effective" than trying to get a matching total hashrate out of a collection of GPUs. The downside being that they are now in moving toward the position that GPUs were in when Gridseeds were first introduced (i.e. their hash/dollar ratios aren't as good, though the hash/watt ratio is still competitive). So, at $575 for the blade, the hash/$ ratio is 9 KH/$. Your power figures seem a tad low compared to the published stats, but if we go with the published stats (64w-70w per panel = 128w-140w total) then it has a hash/watt ratio would be 37.1-40.6 KH/w which actually puts it above the Furies I discussed earlier. Thus, the overhead costs to run that blade are theoretically lower than the cost to run Furies matching the Blade's hashrate (it would take 4 Furies to match 5.2 MH/s, each at 45w totaling 180w versus the high estimate of 140w for the blade). Analysis over. Annoying "real-talk" incoming: All in all, the hard truth is what many have said but most of us don't like to hear: During a "gold rush" the ones who profit most are the ones selling the "shovels." That doesn't stop me from mining, but I don't have any illusions that this has every possibility (perhaps even likelihood) of being a fruitless and expensive endeavor if Doge tanks (yes, I'm one of the stubborn ones who still mine Doge exclusively). But then again, I abandoned the pipe-dream of Doge being my ticket to riches a long time ago. I dig the community, the different fundraisers/events, and do believe Doge has a real shot at being the "Internet's Currency" for micro-transactions. But if it fails, I won't be in a bad financial situation, and I'll be able to say I was part of something very "unique" for a while. TL;DR - There aren't really any "good" investments in this game because it's all speculative. There are certainly "bad" ones like throwing money at vaporware. Research everything before you buy, and recognize that bigger isn't always better. EDIT: Just noticed you mentioned your Blade is running at 5.9 MH/s, so that shifts the hash/dollar ratio to 10.26 which is actually quite competitive. If folks can get Blades at the price you're getting them, they're decently competitive with these newer "Gen 2" ASICs.

dogemining

t5_2zgq3

ci4vlk4

Well, "cost-effectiveness" is somewhat subjective, and is also significantly affected by the timeliness of availability. The Gridseed Blades were first to the market as "big" ASICs, so they were much more costly than a similarly performing ASIC being released now. But that also meant they were unchallenged in their hash/watt efficiency, and even when they were over $1k, they were still more "cost effective" than trying to get a matching total hashrate out of a collection of GPUs. The downside being that they are now in moving toward the position that GPUs were in when Gridseeds were first introduced (i.e. their hash/dollar ratios aren't as good, though the hash/watt ratio is still competitive). So, at $575 for the blade, the hash/$ ratio is 9 KH/$. Your power figures seem a tad low compared to the published stats, but if we go with the published stats (64w-70w per panel = 128w-140w total) then it has a hash/watt ratio would be 37.1-40.6 KH/w which actually puts it above the Furies I discussed earlier. Thus, the overhead costs to run that blade are theoretically lower than the cost to run Furies matching the Blade's hashrate (it would take 4 Furies to match 5.2 MH/s, each at 45w totaling 180w versus the high estimate of 140w for the blade). Analysis over. Annoying "real-talk" incoming: All in all, the hard truth is what many have said but most of us don't like to hear: During a "gold rush" the ones who profit most are the ones selling the "shovels." That doesn't stop me from mining, but I don't have any illusions that this has every possibility (perhaps even likelihood) of being a fruitless and expensive endeavor if Doge tanks (yes, I'm one of the stubborn ones who still mine Doge exclusively). But then again, I abandoned the pipe-dream of Doge being my ticket to riches a long time ago. I dig the community, the different fundraisers/events, and do believe Doge has a real shot at being the "Internet's Currency" for micro-transactions. But if it fails, I won't be in a bad financial situation, and I'll be able to say I was part of something very "unique" for a while.

There aren't really any "good" investments in this game because it's all speculative. There are certainly "bad" ones like throwing money at vaporware. Research everything before you buy, and recognize that bigger isn't always better. EDIT: Just noticed you mentioned your Blade is running at 5.9 MH/s, so that shifts the hash/dollar ratio to 10.26 which is actually quite competitive. If folks can get Blades at the price you're getting them, they're decently competitive with these newer "Gen 2" ASICs.

27th_wonder

I didn't really plan one, I just noticed certain things about my high school (low security, easy escape routes, a large group of children being gathered on the main yard at the beginning of each day, along with all their form tutors) that would have made an attack extremely deadly, and easy. I would never have seriously done it (mostly because guns are a rarity here), only to try and scare people into thinking. A few supersoakers would have sufficed, and you can declare anyone who gets wet a casualty of the attack. Now imagine if those were life rounds. But hey, I've left school now and I'm kinda glad I was smart/lazy enough to never do it. It would have been interesting to see how people reacted... tl:dr- Never wanted to kill anyone, just scare people

I didn't really plan one, I just noticed certain things about my high school (low security, easy escape routes, a large group of children being gathered on the main yard at the beginning of each day, along with all their form tutors) that would have made an attack extremely deadly, and easy. I would never have seriously done it (mostly because guns are a rarity here), only to try and scare people into thinking. A few supersoakers would have sufficed, and you can declare anyone who gets wet a casualty of the attack. Now imagine if those were life rounds. But hey, I've left school now and I'm kinda glad I was smart/lazy enough to never do it. It would have been interesting to see how people reacted... tl:dr- Never wanted to kill anyone, just scare people

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

ci4q2qc

I didn't really plan one, I just noticed certain things about my high school (low security, easy escape routes, a large group of children being gathered on the main yard at the beginning of each day, along with all their form tutors) that would have made an attack extremely deadly, and easy. I would never have seriously done it (mostly because guns are a rarity here), only to try and scare people into thinking. A few supersoakers would have sufficed, and you can declare anyone who gets wet a casualty of the attack. Now imagine if those were life rounds. But hey, I've left school now and I'm kinda glad I was smart/lazy enough to never do it. It would have been interesting to see how people reacted...

Never wanted to kill anyone, just scare people

ElrondofVvardenfell

I never actually planned anything, but for a long time it's what I think anywhere I go. Guns are almost impossible to come by in my country unless you have a lot of money and/or the right(?) friends I was not bullied in school, I was ignored...the little geek that nobody cares unless it's test week. At home I was left aside because my older brother has ashtma and every one treated him like he's made of glass at 14-15 yo my dad that was my hero admited to have an affair with 2 baby girls already and left...I was devasted In high school I started to walk around with a small knife, to use on my own arm or on anyone that tried to mess with me..."fortunally" no one ever did because I was still ignored.... as I grown I starded to shed the "goody two shoes" mask and do crazy shit like drinking, smoking, drugs and more self cutting and always thinking about how many would I be able to hurt/kill before someone could stop me anywhere I go at 22 i met a girl, we dated we had sex and we got married....her mom hates me what lead to an very unhappy marrieage...she somehow convince ex that I was not worth the effort....divorced at 28...severe depression and A LOT of thinking about killing the entire family (theirs) the only thing that stops me now is our son....he's 15 and I adore him. I miss him more than anything in the world and I would not do anything to hurt him but even with him in mind my life is not at all better...just a few days ago I started to cry uncontrollably because I had no money to take him to the movies and dinner....he had to pick one I did cut myself again a week ago and I still think on how I would love to kill everyone around me, specially when I'm in crowded places tl;dr: never acually planned mass killing but think about it all the time. when younger was stoped by the non availability of guns and now because i love my son and would not hurt him in any way

I never actually planned anything, but for a long time it's what I think anywhere I go. Guns are almost impossible to come by in my country unless you have a lot of money and/or the right(?) friends I was not bullied in school, I was ignored...the little geek that nobody cares unless it's test week. At home I was left aside because my older brother has ashtma and every one treated him like he's made of glass at 14-15 yo my dad that was my hero admited to have an affair with 2 baby girls already and left...I was devasted In high school I started to walk around with a small knife, to use on my own arm or on anyone that tried to mess with me..."fortunally" no one ever did because I was still ignored.... as I grown I starded to shed the "goody two shoes" mask and do crazy shit like drinking, smoking, drugs and more self cutting and always thinking about how many would I be able to hurt/kill before someone could stop me anywhere I go at 22 i met a girl, we dated we had sex and we got married....her mom hates me what lead to an very unhappy marrieage...she somehow convince ex that I was not worth the effort....divorced at 28...severe depression and A LOT of thinking about killing the entire family (theirs) the only thing that stops me now is our son....he's 15 and I adore him. I miss him more than anything in the world and I would not do anything to hurt him but even with him in mind my life is not at all better...just a few days ago I started to cry uncontrollably because I had no money to take him to the movies and dinner....he had to pick one I did cut myself again a week ago and I still think on how I would love to kill everyone around me, specially when I'm in crowded places tl;dr: never acually planned mass killing but think about it all the time. when younger was stoped by the non availability of guns and now because i love my son and would not hurt him in any way

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

ci4qiab

I never actually planned anything, but for a long time it's what I think anywhere I go. Guns are almost impossible to come by in my country unless you have a lot of money and/or the right(?) friends I was not bullied in school, I was ignored...the little geek that nobody cares unless it's test week. At home I was left aside because my older brother has ashtma and every one treated him like he's made of glass at 14-15 yo my dad that was my hero admited to have an affair with 2 baby girls already and left...I was devasted In high school I started to walk around with a small knife, to use on my own arm or on anyone that tried to mess with me..."fortunally" no one ever did because I was still ignored.... as I grown I starded to shed the "goody two shoes" mask and do crazy shit like drinking, smoking, drugs and more self cutting and always thinking about how many would I be able to hurt/kill before someone could stop me anywhere I go at 22 i met a girl, we dated we had sex and we got married....her mom hates me what lead to an very unhappy marrieage...she somehow convince ex that I was not worth the effort....divorced at 28...severe depression and A LOT of thinking about killing the entire family (theirs) the only thing that stops me now is our son....he's 15 and I adore him. I miss him more than anything in the world and I would not do anything to hurt him but even with him in mind my life is not at all better...just a few days ago I started to cry uncontrollably because I had no money to take him to the movies and dinner....he had to pick one I did cut myself again a week ago and I still think on how I would love to kill everyone around me, specially when I'm in crowded places

never acually planned mass killing but think about it all the time. when younger was stoped by the non availability of guns and now because i love my son and would not hurt him in any way

ajuc

Polish "pospolite ruszenie" or "popular movement" was unpaid army of nobles + mercenaries hired by them. King in exchange offered them some priviledges, and besides nobility in Poland paid almost no taxes and had rights unheard elsewhere (electing kings, voting on taxes and wars, religious freedoms etc). When Olbracht went to fight Turks he used 40 000 strong pospolite ruszenie army, that (theorethically) was mostly nobility. And there were huge casualties in that war on Polish side, that's why nobles afterwards created the proverb. TL; DR: king Olbracht persuaded them to fight Turks and lost. Of course the proverb is hyperbole. Nowhere close to destroying nobility - it was around 10% of Polish population at the time.

Polish "pospolite ruszenie" or "popular movement" was unpaid army of nobles + mercenaries hired by them. King in exchange offered them some priviledges, and besides nobility in Poland paid almost no taxes and had rights unheard elsewhere (electing kings, voting on taxes and wars, religious freedoms etc). When Olbracht went to fight Turks he used 40 000 strong pospolite ruszenie army, that (theorethically) was mostly nobility. And there were huge casualties in that war on Polish side, that's why nobles afterwards created the proverb. TL; DR: king Olbracht persuaded them to fight Turks and lost. Of course the proverb is hyperbole. Nowhere close to destroying nobility - it was around 10% of Polish population at the time.

europe

t5_2qh4j

ci55zki

Polish "pospolite ruszenie" or "popular movement" was unpaid army of nobles + mercenaries hired by them. King in exchange offered them some priviledges, and besides nobility in Poland paid almost no taxes and had rights unheard elsewhere (electing kings, voting on taxes and wars, religious freedoms etc). When Olbracht went to fight Turks he used 40 000 strong pospolite ruszenie army, that (theorethically) was mostly nobility. And there were huge casualties in that war on Polish side, that's why nobles afterwards created the proverb.

king Olbracht persuaded them to fight Turks and lost. Of course the proverb is hyperbole. Nowhere close to destroying nobility - it was around 10% of Polish population at the time.

rush_n_attack

As a missionary, no doubt you're well versed in Mormon apologetics (answering criticisms of the faith). Have you ever read any Muslim apologetics, or mainstream (ie, anti-Mormon) Christian apologetics? I've read apologetic material from pretty much any religion that bothers to produce it. One of the things you find when doing so is that the same techniques are used by all religions to explain away problems and to make ludicrous claims seem less outrageous. For example, you can appeal to "different moral values" or "different cultural norms" in different eras to explain away the bad behavior of a "prophet". Or you can appeal to obscure, variant word readings in a problematic text to rescue the text from factual disproof or internal contradiction. Or you can engage in various fallacies, eg, let yourself be led into circular reasoning, in which you argue for your faith's validity based on its own scriptures, etc. **TL;DR -** I don't mean to be rude, but everything you guys do in terms of exegesis and apologetics, the other major religions do, too. And they use the *same techniques*. Have you considered that?

As a missionary, no doubt you're well versed in Mormon apologetics (answering criticisms of the faith). Have you ever read any Muslim apologetics, or mainstream (ie, anti-Mormon) Christian apologetics? I've read apologetic material from pretty much any religion that bothers to produce it. One of the things you find when doing so is that the same techniques are used by all religions to explain away problems and to make ludicrous claims seem less outrageous. For example, you can appeal to "different moral values" or "different cultural norms" in different eras to explain away the bad behavior of a "prophet". Or you can appeal to obscure, variant word readings in a problematic text to rescue the text from factual disproof or internal contradiction. Or you can engage in various fallacies, eg, let yourself be led into circular reasoning, in which you argue for your faith's validity based on its own scriptures, etc. TL;DR - I don't mean to be rude, but everything you guys do in terms of exegesis and apologetics, the other major religions do, too. And they use the same techniques . Have you considered that?

AMA

t5_2r4eo

ci5dnd4

As a missionary, no doubt you're well versed in Mormon apologetics (answering criticisms of the faith). Have you ever read any Muslim apologetics, or mainstream (ie, anti-Mormon) Christian apologetics? I've read apologetic material from pretty much any religion that bothers to produce it. One of the things you find when doing so is that the same techniques are used by all religions to explain away problems and to make ludicrous claims seem less outrageous. For example, you can appeal to "different moral values" or "different cultural norms" in different eras to explain away the bad behavior of a "prophet". Or you can appeal to obscure, variant word readings in a problematic text to rescue the text from factual disproof or internal contradiction. Or you can engage in various fallacies, eg, let yourself be led into circular reasoning, in which you argue for your faith's validity based on its own scriptures, etc.

I don't mean to be rude, but everything you guys do in terms of exegesis and apologetics, the other major religions do, too. And they use the same techniques . Have you considered that?

loud_car

To be fair, this guy has had both hips, knees, and shoulders replaced. Looks like he's had some ankle work done too. TL;DR he's mostly metal.

To be fair, this guy has had both hips, knees, and shoulders replaced. Looks like he's had some ankle work done too. TL;DR he's mostly metal.

WTF

t5_2qh61

ci574ix

To be fair, this guy has had both hips, knees, and shoulders replaced. Looks like he's had some ankle work done too.

he's mostly metal.

LondonZombie

Never mind the unrealistically large gap between rib cage and pelvis. I suspect that obesity would be the least of this individual's problems if the pelvis was to stop functioning as a "gut bucket" and their viscera were freely floating in a sea of fat. I also can't ignore the rather disconcerting asymmetry present in the limbs; the humerus may be longer than the ulna/radius, but it sure as shit ain't that long, nor should it vary that much - forced perspective issues aside. The reversed angle - tapering upward from patellar surface/condyles to trochanter/pelvic joint - of the femur bothers me also. tl; dr - anatomy is all over the place; artist careless, sloppy.

Never mind the unrealistically large gap between rib cage and pelvis. I suspect that obesity would be the least of this individual's problems if the pelvis was to stop functioning as a "gut bucket" and their viscera were freely floating in a sea of fat. I also can't ignore the rather disconcerting asymmetry present in the limbs; the humerus may be longer than the ulna/radius, but it sure as shit ain't that long, nor should it vary that much - forced perspective issues aside. The reversed angle - tapering upward from patellar surface/condyles to trochanter/pelvic joint - of the femur bothers me also. tl; dr - anatomy is all over the place; artist careless, sloppy.

WTF

t5_2qh61

ci5ak93

Never mind the unrealistically large gap between rib cage and pelvis. I suspect that obesity would be the least of this individual's problems if the pelvis was to stop functioning as a "gut bucket" and their viscera were freely floating in a sea of fat. I also can't ignore the rather disconcerting asymmetry present in the limbs; the humerus may be longer than the ulna/radius, but it sure as shit ain't that long, nor should it vary that much - forced perspective issues aside. The reversed angle - tapering upward from patellar surface/condyles to trochanter/pelvic joint - of the femur bothers me also.

anatomy is all over the place; artist careless, sloppy.

sraboy

To be fair, most schools are that way. They analyze the course overviews provided by the school and decide whether or not it covered the subjects they expect. A lot of my classes should have transferred when I changed schools but my new school requires I submit a syllabus from the course that I took in 2005 and show documentation from the school outlining what it covered. TL;DR-It's not just CCAF that does that and being strict with it lends some sort of credibility to the institution as a whole.

To be fair, most schools are that way. They analyze the course overviews provided by the school and decide whether or not it covered the subjects they expect. A lot of my classes should have transferred when I changed schools but my new school requires I submit a syllabus from the course that I took in 2005 and show documentation from the school outlining what it covered. TL;DR-It's not just CCAF that does that and being strict with it lends some sort of credibility to the institution as a whole.

AirForce

t5_2roa2

ci5cymk

To be fair, most schools are that way. They analyze the course overviews provided by the school and decide whether or not it covered the subjects they expect. A lot of my classes should have transferred when I changed schools but my new school requires I submit a syllabus from the course that I took in 2005 and show documentation from the school outlining what it covered.

It's not just CCAF that does that and being strict with it lends some sort of credibility to the institution as a whole.

Cowmagnet

We're picking an English club because of how many leagues there are and the increased opportunity for growth. If you know anything about America, you know that football/soccer doesn't have the same level of popularity it has in the rest of the world. It's rising, but gradually. Also, anyone actually serious about this project isn't of the idea that we're going to lead this team to the Premier league. That's not a reasonable goal to start a business venture off with. The actually business savvy people behind this has done a staggering amount of research well beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. TL;DR: Go troll somewhere else.

We're picking an English club because of how many leagues there are and the increased opportunity for growth. If you know anything about America, you know that football/soccer doesn't have the same level of popularity it has in the rest of the world. It's rising, but gradually. Also, anyone actually serious about this project isn't of the idea that we're going to lead this team to the Premier league. That's not a reasonable goal to start a business venture off with. The actually business savvy people behind this has done a staggering amount of research well beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. TL;DR: Go troll somewhere else.

OurRedditFC

t5_31ak9

ci8wety

We're picking an English club because of how many leagues there are and the increased opportunity for growth. If you know anything about America, you know that football/soccer doesn't have the same level of popularity it has in the rest of the world. It's rising, but gradually. Also, anyone actually serious about this project isn't of the idea that we're going to lead this team to the Premier league. That's not a reasonable goal to start a business venture off with. The actually business savvy people behind this has done a staggering amount of research well beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article.

Go troll somewhere else.

throwing_vibes

Throwaway because I don't want people who have my account to find this, of course. I'm still living at home and one day, like all teenagers, I decided, eh I'm bored, may as well masturbate. I thought the coast was clear and no one would bother me for the rest of the night so I take out my vibrator. After awhile, my mom just opened my door and came in my room without even knocking, but I heard the knob twist so I had just enough time to put my vibrator inside me and I had blankets on top of me. She then continues to hold a conversation with me while my vibrator is on INSIDE OF ME, and she says "Do you hear something?" I laugh it off and say must be the neighbors and she soon leaves. *She knew, she must have knew.* TL;DR vibe inside while talking to my mom

Throwaway because I don't want people who have my account to find this, of course. I'm still living at home and one day, like all teenagers, I decided, eh I'm bored, may as well masturbate. I thought the coast was clear and no one would bother me for the rest of the night so I take out my vibrator. After awhile, my mom just opened my door and came in my room without even knocking, but I heard the knob twist so I had just enough time to put my vibrator inside me and I had blankets on top of me. She then continues to hold a conversation with me while my vibrator is on INSIDE OF ME, and she says "Do you hear something?" I laugh it off and say must be the neighbors and she soon leaves. She knew, she must have knew. TL;DR vibe inside while talking to my mom

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

ci5ecnk

Throwaway because I don't want people who have my account to find this, of course. I'm still living at home and one day, like all teenagers, I decided, eh I'm bored, may as well masturbate. I thought the coast was clear and no one would bother me for the rest of the night so I take out my vibrator. After awhile, my mom just opened my door and came in my room without even knocking, but I heard the knob twist so I had just enough time to put my vibrator inside me and I had blankets on top of me. She then continues to hold a conversation with me while my vibrator is on INSIDE OF ME, and she says "Do you hear something?" I laugh it off and say must be the neighbors and she soon leaves. She knew, she must have knew.

vibe inside while talking to my mom

soxgal

Some of the comments here lead me to believe many of you went to large schools. There were 147 people in my graduating class. I remember everyone in the town making a big fuss about our class because it was the first time in a long time that every student who was supposed to graduate actually did graduate. I remember having to write and give a graduation speech. It had to be approved by the administration ahead of time so it was, um, traditional. I remember being nervous and the VHS recording of the graduation shows me tripping over my words at the end. What are you planning to do after high school? There are lots of opportunities out there in the world but you have to be willing to work for them. Nothing comes from little effort. Keep an open mind about the opportunities presented to you and the people you meet. No one is above you and no task is beneath you. Treat people decently and whenever possible, try to learn their names. Saying "hi, name" each time you see someone can go a long way. You never know when who you know will matter. You will want to build your network as big as you can make it. Don't be afraid to reach out to it when you need to. You never know when someone will know the perfect candidate for a job you're trying to fill, or, even better, will think of YOU as the perfect match for an opportunity. Try everything once. Ask questions. What do you have to lose? The worst that can happen when you ask for something is to be told 'no.' The best that can happen is you get a 'yes' response. The only certain answer to a question is to the question that isn't asked. **TL;DR Be a decent person to others, ask questions, keep an open mind**

Some of the comments here lead me to believe many of you went to large schools. There were 147 people in my graduating class. I remember everyone in the town making a big fuss about our class because it was the first time in a long time that every student who was supposed to graduate actually did graduate. I remember having to write and give a graduation speech. It had to be approved by the administration ahead of time so it was, um, traditional. I remember being nervous and the VHS recording of the graduation shows me tripping over my words at the end. What are you planning to do after high school? There are lots of opportunities out there in the world but you have to be willing to work for them. Nothing comes from little effort. Keep an open mind about the opportunities presented to you and the people you meet. No one is above you and no task is beneath you. Treat people decently and whenever possible, try to learn their names. Saying "hi, name" each time you see someone can go a long way. You never know when who you know will matter. You will want to build your network as big as you can make it. Don't be afraid to reach out to it when you need to. You never know when someone will know the perfect candidate for a job you're trying to fill, or, even better, will think of YOU as the perfect match for an opportunity. Try everything once. Ask questions. What do you have to lose? The worst that can happen when you ask for something is to be told 'no.' The best that can happen is you get a 'yes' response. The only certain answer to a question is to the question that isn't asked. TL;DR Be a decent person to others, ask questions, keep an open mind

Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

t5_2tx47

ci5bu4w

Some of the comments here lead me to believe many of you went to large schools. There were 147 people in my graduating class. I remember everyone in the town making a big fuss about our class because it was the first time in a long time that every student who was supposed to graduate actually did graduate. I remember having to write and give a graduation speech. It had to be approved by the administration ahead of time so it was, um, traditional. I remember being nervous and the VHS recording of the graduation shows me tripping over my words at the end. What are you planning to do after high school? There are lots of opportunities out there in the world but you have to be willing to work for them. Nothing comes from little effort. Keep an open mind about the opportunities presented to you and the people you meet. No one is above you and no task is beneath you. Treat people decently and whenever possible, try to learn their names. Saying "hi, name" each time you see someone can go a long way. You never know when who you know will matter. You will want to build your network as big as you can make it. Don't be afraid to reach out to it when you need to. You never know when someone will know the perfect candidate for a job you're trying to fill, or, even better, will think of YOU as the perfect match for an opportunity. Try everything once. Ask questions. What do you have to lose? The worst that can happen when you ask for something is to be told 'no.' The best that can happen is you get a 'yes' response. The only certain answer to a question is to the question that isn't asked.

Be a decent person to others, ask questions, keep an open mind

Bahatur

With 7 Intelligence and arbitrarily high Wisdom, I'd be inclined to play them as an apex predator. Low intelligence denotes a poor ability to process information, high wisdom being deeply in touch with yourself and your surroundings. Since evil, a complete understanding of your place in the world as the foremost of predators, and having no concern with with the fate of the weak, or with non-apparent consequences, or with anything abstract would seem appropriate. Portray most of your beliefs and skills as instinct rather than faith or reason. Stupid creatures don't really articulate. Or plan. You might consider developing a relatively consistent pattern of approach to various situations, demonstrate a poor ability to grasp complex strategy by diverting into what you would normally do, etc. Fortunately, wisdom leaves you the low-cunning route to problem solving. TL;DR: Ask yourself "What would a sabre-tooth tiger do?" and "What would a sabre-tooth tiger do, with magic?"

With 7 Intelligence and arbitrarily high Wisdom, I'd be inclined to play them as an apex predator. Low intelligence denotes a poor ability to process information, high wisdom being deeply in touch with yourself and your surroundings. Since evil, a complete understanding of your place in the world as the foremost of predators, and having no concern with with the fate of the weak, or with non-apparent consequences, or with anything abstract would seem appropriate. Portray most of your beliefs and skills as instinct rather than faith or reason. Stupid creatures don't really articulate. Or plan. You might consider developing a relatively consistent pattern of approach to various situations, demonstrate a poor ability to grasp complex strategy by diverting into what you would normally do, etc. Fortunately, wisdom leaves you the low-cunning route to problem solving. TL;DR: Ask yourself "What would a sabre-tooth tiger do?" and "What would a sabre-tooth tiger do, with magic?"

DnD

t5_2r9ei

ci5cqgr

With 7 Intelligence and arbitrarily high Wisdom, I'd be inclined to play them as an apex predator. Low intelligence denotes a poor ability to process information, high wisdom being deeply in touch with yourself and your surroundings. Since evil, a complete understanding of your place in the world as the foremost of predators, and having no concern with with the fate of the weak, or with non-apparent consequences, or with anything abstract would seem appropriate. Portray most of your beliefs and skills as instinct rather than faith or reason. Stupid creatures don't really articulate. Or plan. You might consider developing a relatively consistent pattern of approach to various situations, demonstrate a poor ability to grasp complex strategy by diverting into what you would normally do, etc. Fortunately, wisdom leaves you the low-cunning route to problem solving.

Ask yourself "What would a sabre-tooth tiger do?" and "What would a sabre-tooth tiger do, with magic?"

GameMachineJames

&gt;"Rips off a homeless dude" That man can afford to eat tonight. He clearly needed the $30 and I don't see an issue here. Just looked up the post you are bitching about and the difference is plain. /u/Supersonics20 got a great deal (And helped a hungry person eat besides) and added the games to his collection. Your "Yard sale haul" where you admitted to buying things cheap solely for reselling. There's a big difference. tl:dr Stop being a whiny babby.

>"Rips off a homeless dude" That man can afford to eat tonight. He clearly needed the $30 and I don't see an issue here. Just looked up the post you are bitching about and the difference is plain. /u/Supersonics20 got a great deal (And helped a hungry person eat besides) and added the games to his collection. Your "Yard sale haul" where you admitted to buying things cheap solely for reselling. There's a big difference. tl:dr Stop being a whiny babby.

gamecollecting

t5_2s8fe

ci5os5n

Rips off a homeless dude" That man can afford to eat tonight. He clearly needed the $30 and I don't see an issue here. Just looked up the post you are bitching about and the difference is plain. /u/Supersonics20 got a great deal (And helped a hungry person eat besides) and added the games to his collection. Your "Yard sale haul" where you admitted to buying things cheap solely for reselling. There's a big difference.

Stop being a whiny babby.

Sweet1e

Okay this may be a long comment: I am a sales associate at a pretty well known game store and this exact argument has been presented at me many times. I am also the local Nintendo go-to person, because my co-workers do not play Nintendo games or keep up with the news revolving around them; so whenever anyone has a question about Nintendo or the products it ends up directed at me. Because of this, I hear similar comments, such as, “You play the same game over-and-over again, its just an updated and re-skinned version.” This comment is probably the most frequent. Please understand, Nintendo games are quite different than titles such as Cod, Battlefield, and other third party titles. The differences between them cannot be over exaggerated. The focus of the argument against Nintendo tends to be that they use the same characters over-and-over again. This is not untrue, they do reuse IPs and characters. But, Nintendo has been in the video game market since the 1970’s, and have successfully kept many of their IPs fresh and innovative for the video game market. In comparison Call of Duty is still relatively a new IP, and has already pushed out many games in a short time with barely any changes being made to the series that one could call majorly innovative. The games that Nintendo release tend to innovate the gaming world and compliment the current hardware that they are selling; because of this their games can be drastically different. But, they tend to use the same character rosters to push forward new concepts and ideas. Some people label these concepts “gimmicks,” and get upset about the changes that are made, so many ignore the “gimmick” ideas and just see the same roster of characters and assume that it is the same. This is far from the truth, as you can take a game such as Super Mario Sunshine and lay it next to Super Mario 64. These two games may have similar characters and some familiar gameplay functionality, but you would have to be blind to not understand the difference between the two. The game mechanics and workings are completely different as a whole. The same with Star Fox Adventures and Star Fox 64, the games have similar characters, but the focus of the game is completely different with different mechanics. Nintendo has many IPs under their thumb, whereas CoD is only one IP, both have different time constraints and focuses; this makes it difficult to really compare the two. CoD is a series that comes out every couple of years, while Nintendo games can sometimes have sequels that are spaced out by many years and other times be almost forgotten about, with the occasional nod. (Earthbound, Wario’s Woods, etc.) You used SSB as your example. Super Smash is a coveted competitive game series with a pretty big following, and it has been about six years since the last game. This leaves a pretty large fanbase that is ready for a new game, so many people are excited about the prospects of playing a new smash. When something is very rare and fun, it makes people excited to experience it; this is not to say that cod is not enjoyable, just that it might be over saturated and unchanged in comparison. TL;DR: I played the first Super Smash Brothers when I was 6 years old. I am playing the fourth one at 20. It is really hard to say that Nintendo is milking Super Smash bros, as the games are not released very often. People are reacting in a very positive way, because this is something that rarely happens and they want to play the game.

Okay this may be a long comment: I am a sales associate at a pretty well known game store and this exact argument has been presented at me many times. I am also the local Nintendo go-to person, because my co-workers do not play Nintendo games or keep up with the news revolving around them; so whenever anyone has a question about Nintendo or the products it ends up directed at me. Because of this, I hear similar comments, such as, “You play the same game over-and-over again, its just an updated and re-skinned version.” This comment is probably the most frequent. Please understand, Nintendo games are quite different than titles such as Cod, Battlefield, and other third party titles. The differences between them cannot be over exaggerated. The focus of the argument against Nintendo tends to be that they use the same characters over-and-over again. This is not untrue, they do reuse IPs and characters. But, Nintendo has been in the video game market since the 1970’s, and have successfully kept many of their IPs fresh and innovative for the video game market. In comparison Call of Duty is still relatively a new IP, and has already pushed out many games in a short time with barely any changes being made to the series that one could call majorly innovative. The games that Nintendo release tend to innovate the gaming world and compliment the current hardware that they are selling; because of this their games can be drastically different. But, they tend to use the same character rosters to push forward new concepts and ideas. Some people label these concepts “gimmicks,” and get upset about the changes that are made, so many ignore the “gimmick” ideas and just see the same roster of characters and assume that it is the same. This is far from the truth, as you can take a game such as Super Mario Sunshine and lay it next to Super Mario 64. These two games may have similar characters and some familiar gameplay functionality, but you would have to be blind to not understand the difference between the two. The game mechanics and workings are completely different as a whole. The same with Star Fox Adventures and Star Fox 64, the games have similar characters, but the focus of the game is completely different with different mechanics. Nintendo has many IPs under their thumb, whereas CoD is only one IP, both have different time constraints and focuses; this makes it difficult to really compare the two. CoD is a series that comes out every couple of years, while Nintendo games can sometimes have sequels that are spaced out by many years and other times be almost forgotten about, with the occasional nod. (Earthbound, Wario’s Woods, etc.) You used SSB as your example. Super Smash is a coveted competitive game series with a pretty big following, and it has been about six years since the last game. This leaves a pretty large fanbase that is ready for a new game, so many people are excited about the prospects of playing a new smash. When something is very rare and fun, it makes people excited to experience it; this is not to say that cod is not enjoyable, just that it might be over saturated and unchanged in comparison. TL;DR: I played the first Super Smash Brothers when I was 6 years old. I am playing the fourth one at 20. It is really hard to say that Nintendo is milking Super Smash bros, as the games are not released very often. People are reacting in a very positive way, because this is something that rarely happens and they want to play the game.

truegaming

t5_2sgq6

ci6edt7

Okay this may be a long comment: I am a sales associate at a pretty well known game store and this exact argument has been presented at me many times. I am also the local Nintendo go-to person, because my co-workers do not play Nintendo games or keep up with the news revolving around them; so whenever anyone has a question about Nintendo or the products it ends up directed at me. Because of this, I hear similar comments, such as, “You play the same game over-and-over again, its just an updated and re-skinned version.” This comment is probably the most frequent. Please understand, Nintendo games are quite different than titles such as Cod, Battlefield, and other third party titles. The differences between them cannot be over exaggerated. The focus of the argument against Nintendo tends to be that they use the same characters over-and-over again. This is not untrue, they do reuse IPs and characters. But, Nintendo has been in the video game market since the 1970’s, and have successfully kept many of their IPs fresh and innovative for the video game market. In comparison Call of Duty is still relatively a new IP, and has already pushed out many games in a short time with barely any changes being made to the series that one could call majorly innovative. The games that Nintendo release tend to innovate the gaming world and compliment the current hardware that they are selling; because of this their games can be drastically different. But, they tend to use the same character rosters to push forward new concepts and ideas. Some people label these concepts “gimmicks,” and get upset about the changes that are made, so many ignore the “gimmick” ideas and just see the same roster of characters and assume that it is the same. This is far from the truth, as you can take a game such as Super Mario Sunshine and lay it next to Super Mario 64. These two games may have similar characters and some familiar gameplay functionality, but you would have to be blind to not understand the difference between the two. The game mechanics and workings are completely different as a whole. The same with Star Fox Adventures and Star Fox 64, the games have similar characters, but the focus of the game is completely different with different mechanics. Nintendo has many IPs under their thumb, whereas CoD is only one IP, both have different time constraints and focuses; this makes it difficult to really compare the two. CoD is a series that comes out every couple of years, while Nintendo games can sometimes have sequels that are spaced out by many years and other times be almost forgotten about, with the occasional nod. (Earthbound, Wario’s Woods, etc.) You used SSB as your example. Super Smash is a coveted competitive game series with a pretty big following, and it has been about six years since the last game. This leaves a pretty large fanbase that is ready for a new game, so many people are excited about the prospects of playing a new smash. When something is very rare and fun, it makes people excited to experience it; this is not to say that cod is not enjoyable, just that it might be over saturated and unchanged in comparison.

I played the first Super Smash Brothers when I was 6 years old. I am playing the fourth one at 20. It is really hard to say that Nintendo is milking Super Smash bros, as the games are not released very often. People are reacting in a very positive way, because this is something that rarely happens and they want to play the game.