Datasets:

webis

/

tldr-17

like 40

Follow

Webis Group 32

BCRE8TVE

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any creation stories of any kind from any religion, there is simply religious re-interpretation of facts we have learned in the last 50 years (thanks to science) to fit their religious books. What we do know is this. Today, everything we see is moving away from itself, and for reasons we don't quite yet understand, everything is moving away from itself faster and faster. Going back in time means that at some point, all the matter came from a single point. This single point of infinite density and infinitely small volume is called a singularity. We don't understand singularities very well or what they mean for physics, but we think there is a singularity at the heart of every black hole as well. The big bang theory explains how all the matter in the universe expanded from that singularity, and accounts for practically all the evidence we have ([red-shifting]( and [blue-shifting]( as well as the [cosmic background radiation]( The big bang theory does not say where all matter came from or how it got to our universe, it only described how matter then expanded into space, and later on formed stars, planets, asteroids, etc etc etc. Per having a clue, I would recommend reading astronomy books, they usually cover the subject very well. You can also read up a lot on the [wikipedia entry on the big bang theory]( or ask questions on /r/askscience. You'll find most atheists default to whatever is the scientific consensus, and that atheist laymen obviously cannot explain what the scientific consensus is as well as scientists themselves. TL;DR I think what you know of the big bang theory is almost certainly wrong, and was probably given to you from a person in a position of religious authority, who made the big bang theory sound dumb to make it easier to believe in religious stories rather than scientific theories. Please please please ask questions and learn about the sciences.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any creation stories of any kind from any religion, there is simply religious re-interpretation of facts we have learned in the last 50 years (thanks to science) to fit their religious books. What we do know is this. Today, everything we see is moving away from itself, and for reasons we don't quite yet understand, everything is moving away from itself faster and faster. Going back in time means that at some point, all the matter came from a single point. This single point of infinite density and infinitely small volume is called a singularity. We don't understand singularities very well or what they mean for physics, but we think there is a singularity at the heart of every black hole as well. The big bang theory explains how all the matter in the universe expanded from that singularity, and accounts for practically all the evidence we have ([red-shifting]( and [blue-shifting]( as well as the [cosmic background radiation]( The big bang theory does not say where all matter came from or how it got to our universe, it only described how matter then expanded into space, and later on formed stars, planets, asteroids, etc etc etc. Per having a clue, I would recommend reading astronomy books, they usually cover the subject very well. You can also read up a lot on the [wikipedia entry on the big bang theory]( or ask questions on /r/askscience. You'll find most atheists default to whatever is the scientific consensus, and that atheist laymen obviously cannot explain what the scientific consensus is as well as scientists themselves. TL;DR I think what you know of the big bang theory is almost certainly wrong, and was probably given to you from a person in a position of religious authority, who made the big bang theory sound dumb to make it easier to believe in religious stories rather than scientific theories. Please please please ask questions and learn about the sciences.

atheism

t5_2qh2p

ce99k95

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any creation stories of any kind from any religion, there is simply religious re-interpretation of facts we have learned in the last 50 years (thanks to science) to fit their religious books. What we do know is this. Today, everything we see is moving away from itself, and for reasons we don't quite yet understand, everything is moving away from itself faster and faster. Going back in time means that at some point, all the matter came from a single point. This single point of infinite density and infinitely small volume is called a singularity. We don't understand singularities very well or what they mean for physics, but we think there is a singularity at the heart of every black hole as well. The big bang theory explains how all the matter in the universe expanded from that singularity, and accounts for practically all the evidence we have ([red-shifting]( and [blue-shifting]( as well as the [cosmic background radiation]( The big bang theory does not say where all matter came from or how it got to our universe, it only described how matter then expanded into space, and later on formed stars, planets, asteroids, etc etc etc. Per having a clue, I would recommend reading astronomy books, they usually cover the subject very well. You can also read up a lot on the [wikipedia entry on the big bang theory]( or ask questions on /r/askscience. You'll find most atheists default to whatever is the scientific consensus, and that atheist laymen obviously cannot explain what the scientific consensus is as well as scientists themselves.

I think what you know of the big bang theory is almost certainly wrong, and was probably given to you from a person in a position of religious authority, who made the big bang theory sound dumb to make it easier to believe in religious stories rather than scientific theories. Please please please ask questions and learn about the sciences.

kelny

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation spreading around out there, so let me try and drop some science on this. Hangovers are caused my a combination of a number of factors: * Dehydration. Alcohol inhibits ADH, a hormone responsible maintaining water levels. While consumption of water and electrolytes will somewhat mitigate these effects, there is no magical treatment that will prevent this, and the effect is independent of the type of alcohol consumed. * Aldehyde toxicity. Alcohol is processed in two steps. Alcohol -> Acetaldehyde -> Acetic Acid (vinegar) through alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase. The acetaldehyde is toxic and irreverisbly binds to proteins, which will need to be recycled. This leads to inflammation and is notably responsible for the "asian glow." Many asians inherit a less effective aldehyde dehydrogenase, causing flushing, inflammation, headaches, and increased risk for stomach and esophageal cancers. This effect is completely independent of the type of alcohol consumed. * Glutamine Rebound. Neural activity is inhibited and excited by GABA and glutamine respectively. Alcohol binds to GABA receptors, so to maintain balance the body produces more glutamine. Once the alcohol is eliminated, there is still too much glutamine, leading to anxiety, increased heart rate and blood pressure, and restlessness. Typically a drinker will experience this as waking up in the middle of the night. This is also independent of the type of alcohol consumed. * Low Blood Sugar. To process the extra calories from alcohol the body produces high levels of insulin. This leads to a rise and subsequent crash in blood sugar following a binge and causes fatigue and irritability. Drinks with high sugar content exacerbate this. * Congeners. Congeners are trace other alcohols, aldehydes, and esters produced during fermentation. Some of these may have toxic effects and are present in higher amounts in dark liquors and red wine. TL;DR: For the most part, **there is nothing you can do to prevent a hangover besides drinking less**. Some small part of a hangovers effects may be due to compounds present in higher amounts in dark liquor. PS: The quality of vodka makes no difference and it is a myth that the more pure vodkas are better vodkas. The perceived quality of vodka is typically due to the presence of the right impurities, not the absence of impurity. Making pure ethyl alcohol is quite cheap and straightforward, but makes a rather unpalatable drink.

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation spreading around out there, so let me try and drop some science on this. Hangovers are caused my a combination of a number of factors: Dehydration. Alcohol inhibits ADH, a hormone responsible maintaining water levels. While consumption of water and electrolytes will somewhat mitigate these effects, there is no magical treatment that will prevent this, and the effect is independent of the type of alcohol consumed. Aldehyde toxicity. Alcohol is processed in two steps. Alcohol -> Acetaldehyde -> Acetic Acid (vinegar) through alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase. The acetaldehyde is toxic and irreverisbly binds to proteins, which will need to be recycled. This leads to inflammation and is notably responsible for the "asian glow." Many asians inherit a less effective aldehyde dehydrogenase, causing flushing, inflammation, headaches, and increased risk for stomach and esophageal cancers. This effect is completely independent of the type of alcohol consumed. Glutamine Rebound. Neural activity is inhibited and excited by GABA and glutamine respectively. Alcohol binds to GABA receptors, so to maintain balance the body produces more glutamine. Once the alcohol is eliminated, there is still too much glutamine, leading to anxiety, increased heart rate and blood pressure, and restlessness. Typically a drinker will experience this as waking up in the middle of the night. This is also independent of the type of alcohol consumed. Low Blood Sugar. To process the extra calories from alcohol the body produces high levels of insulin. This leads to a rise and subsequent crash in blood sugar following a binge and causes fatigue and irritability. Drinks with high sugar content exacerbate this. Congeners. Congeners are trace other alcohols, aldehydes, and esters produced during fermentation. Some of these may have toxic effects and are present in higher amounts in dark liquors and red wine. TL;DR: For the most part, there is nothing you can do to prevent a hangover besides drinking less . Some small part of a hangovers effects may be due to compounds present in higher amounts in dark liquor. PS: The quality of vodka makes no difference and it is a myth that the more pure vodkas are better vodkas. The perceived quality of vodka is typically due to the presence of the right impurities, not the absence of impurity. Making pure ethyl alcohol is quite cheap and straightforward, but makes a rather unpalatable drink.

NoStupidQuestions

t5_2w844

ce9fok3

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation spreading around out there, so let me try and drop some science on this. Hangovers are caused my a combination of a number of factors: Dehydration. Alcohol inhibits ADH, a hormone responsible maintaining water levels. While consumption of water and electrolytes will somewhat mitigate these effects, there is no magical treatment that will prevent this, and the effect is independent of the type of alcohol consumed. Aldehyde toxicity. Alcohol is processed in two steps. Alcohol -> Acetaldehyde -> Acetic Acid (vinegar) through alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase. The acetaldehyde is toxic and irreverisbly binds to proteins, which will need to be recycled. This leads to inflammation and is notably responsible for the "asian glow." Many asians inherit a less effective aldehyde dehydrogenase, causing flushing, inflammation, headaches, and increased risk for stomach and esophageal cancers. This effect is completely independent of the type of alcohol consumed. Glutamine Rebound. Neural activity is inhibited and excited by GABA and glutamine respectively. Alcohol binds to GABA receptors, so to maintain balance the body produces more glutamine. Once the alcohol is eliminated, there is still too much glutamine, leading to anxiety, increased heart rate and blood pressure, and restlessness. Typically a drinker will experience this as waking up in the middle of the night. This is also independent of the type of alcohol consumed. Low Blood Sugar. To process the extra calories from alcohol the body produces high levels of insulin. This leads to a rise and subsequent crash in blood sugar following a binge and causes fatigue and irritability. Drinks with high sugar content exacerbate this. Congeners. Congeners are trace other alcohols, aldehydes, and esters produced during fermentation. Some of these may have toxic effects and are present in higher amounts in dark liquors and red wine.

For the most part, there is nothing you can do to prevent a hangover besides drinking less . Some small part of a hangovers effects may be due to compounds present in higher amounts in dark liquor. PS: The quality of vodka makes no difference and it is a myth that the more pure vodkas are better vodkas. The perceived quality of vodka is typically due to the presence of the right impurities, not the absence of impurity. Making pure ethyl alcohol is quite cheap and straightforward, but makes a rather unpalatable drink.

onewatt

I think this is a great question, and hits on some very interesting subjects such as omniscience vs. free will and the like. I think, and it's just my opinion, that there are a few keys to understand these promises made by prophets. The first is given by Elder Anderson where he says that "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many." This is not, by any means, an effort to say that this teaching is not true, but to point out that we may safely assume it's not as certain as other doctrines which are frequently taught such as the resurrection, etc. Having said that, I *do* feel that this is true, that wayward children will return to their parents. As to how this is accomplished without violating free agency, well, that gets into thoughts about free will vs determinism. To clarify: if truly "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" how does that make room for those who don't want to bow or confess? How is their agency intact? I believe the solution to this logical problem is to never go into it in the first place. Our decision to have our knee bowed and our tongue confessing was made before we came to earth. We agreed then to be subject to certain things, including a plan which would of necessity involve bowing knees and confessing tongues. *That* is when we exercised our agency for this particular event. That leads us into the reunion aspect of this question and the implied complication: How can it be, and if all children will return to their parents, what's the point of being righteous now? I think that the parable of the prodigal son symbolically reveals some of the answers to this. The prodigal son eventually reaches the point of realization where he knows he was wrong and he wants to go home, even to just be a servant there. Instead he is greeted and ushered *into the home.* Literally into the very presence of his father. The more righteous son returns and is dismayed. In essence, he asks "What's the point of my lifetime of diligent service if this wicked brother gets celebrated?" The father gives this answer: "I am ever with thee, and all I have is thine." This is further clarified by D&C 76:76, wherein those who are not valiant are described as "they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness." In other words, while they do *come home* they don't receive "All that the father hath." tl;dr: this wasn't too detailed because I'm going caroling. Sorry if I left gaps or didn't refine it too well.

I think this is a great question, and hits on some very interesting subjects such as omniscience vs. free will and the like. I think, and it's just my opinion, that there are a few keys to understand these promises made by prophets. The first is given by Elder Anderson where he says that "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many." This is not, by any means, an effort to say that this teaching is not true, but to point out that we may safely assume it's not as certain as other doctrines which are frequently taught such as the resurrection, etc. Having said that, I do feel that this is true, that wayward children will return to their parents. As to how this is accomplished without violating free agency, well, that gets into thoughts about free will vs determinism. To clarify: if truly "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" how does that make room for those who don't want to bow or confess? How is their agency intact? I believe the solution to this logical problem is to never go into it in the first place. Our decision to have our knee bowed and our tongue confessing was made before we came to earth. We agreed then to be subject to certain things, including a plan which would of necessity involve bowing knees and confessing tongues. That is when we exercised our agency for this particular event. That leads us into the reunion aspect of this question and the implied complication: How can it be, and if all children will return to their parents, what's the point of being righteous now? I think that the parable of the prodigal son symbolically reveals some of the answers to this. The prodigal son eventually reaches the point of realization where he knows he was wrong and he wants to go home, even to just be a servant there. Instead he is greeted and ushered into the home. Literally into the very presence of his father. The more righteous son returns and is dismayed. In essence, he asks "What's the point of my lifetime of diligent service if this wicked brother gets celebrated?" The father gives this answer: "I am ever with thee, and all I have is thine." This is further clarified by D&C 76:76, wherein those who are not valiant are described as "they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness." In other words, while they do come home they don't receive "All that the father hath." tl;dr: this wasn't too detailed because I'm going caroling. Sorry if I left gaps or didn't refine it too well.

latterdaysaints

t5_2uas2

ce9ld7y

I think this is a great question, and hits on some very interesting subjects such as omniscience vs. free will and the like. I think, and it's just my opinion, that there are a few keys to understand these promises made by prophets. The first is given by Elder Anderson where he says that "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many." This is not, by any means, an effort to say that this teaching is not true, but to point out that we may safely assume it's not as certain as other doctrines which are frequently taught such as the resurrection, etc. Having said that, I do feel that this is true, that wayward children will return to their parents. As to how this is accomplished without violating free agency, well, that gets into thoughts about free will vs determinism. To clarify: if truly "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" how does that make room for those who don't want to bow or confess? How is their agency intact? I believe the solution to this logical problem is to never go into it in the first place. Our decision to have our knee bowed and our tongue confessing was made before we came to earth. We agreed then to be subject to certain things, including a plan which would of necessity involve bowing knees and confessing tongues. That is when we exercised our agency for this particular event. That leads us into the reunion aspect of this question and the implied complication: How can it be, and if all children will return to their parents, what's the point of being righteous now? I think that the parable of the prodigal son symbolically reveals some of the answers to this. The prodigal son eventually reaches the point of realization where he knows he was wrong and he wants to go home, even to just be a servant there. Instead he is greeted and ushered into the home. Literally into the very presence of his father. The more righteous son returns and is dismayed. In essence, he asks "What's the point of my lifetime of diligent service if this wicked brother gets celebrated?" The father gives this answer: "I am ever with thee, and all I have is thine." This is further clarified by D&C 76:76, wherein those who are not valiant are described as "they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness." In other words, while they do come home they don't receive "All that the father hath."

this wasn't too detailed because I'm going caroling. Sorry if I left gaps or didn't refine it too well.

ExtraPlus

Donating, huh? Story time. Let's clock back three years ago. My friend's big brother began a minecraft server. I just started to play minecraft too. It was a relatively busy server with some nice builds, and that was about it. A few weeks later, the owner started to ask for donations from people. Being the naive son-of-a-bitch I was, I thought that real life money= donation for the server. Every week, I handed my friend $5 to give to his brother to put into the server, and I would receive goodies in return. I kept this up for approximately 2 months ($40). I'm in class one day and my friend approaches me and shows me a twitter update. It's his brother (the server owner). "$40 from server funds... wonder what to spend it on :P maybe I should save up lol" I was pretty pissed. I got my friend to pay me back and I left the server for good. Besides, donating is useless. You pay $5 for what, a title and some pretty armor? You can get a bunch of GOOD games on steam for $5. **TL;DR: FRIEND'S BROTHER USED MY DONATION MONEY FOR HIMSELF.**

Donating, huh? Story time. Let's clock back three years ago. My friend's big brother began a minecraft server. I just started to play minecraft too. It was a relatively busy server with some nice builds, and that was about it. A few weeks later, the owner started to ask for donations from people. Being the naive son-of-a-bitch I was, I thought that real life money= donation for the server. Every week, I handed my friend $5 to give to his brother to put into the server, and I would receive goodies in return. I kept this up for approximately 2 months ($40). I'm in class one day and my friend approaches me and shows me a twitter update. It's his brother (the server owner). "$40 from server funds... wonder what to spend it on :P maybe I should save up lol" I was pretty pissed. I got my friend to pay me back and I left the server for good. Besides, donating is useless. You pay $5 for what, a title and some pretty armor? You can get a bunch of GOOD games on steam for $5. TL;DR: FRIEND'S BROTHER USED MY DONATION MONEY FOR HIMSELF.

gaming

t5_2qh03

ce9vau0

Donating, huh? Story time. Let's clock back three years ago. My friend's big brother began a minecraft server. I just started to play minecraft too. It was a relatively busy server with some nice builds, and that was about it. A few weeks later, the owner started to ask for donations from people. Being the naive son-of-a-bitch I was, I thought that real life money= donation for the server. Every week, I handed my friend $5 to give to his brother to put into the server, and I would receive goodies in return. I kept this up for approximately 2 months ($40). I'm in class one day and my friend approaches me and shows me a twitter update. It's his brother (the server owner). "$40 from server funds... wonder what to spend it on :P maybe I should save up lol" I was pretty pissed. I got my friend to pay me back and I left the server for good. Besides, donating is useless. You pay $5 for what, a title and some pretty armor? You can get a bunch of GOOD games on steam for $5.

FRIEND'S BROTHER USED MY DONATION MONEY FOR HIMSELF.

MrxxNinja

This may be with contact, but the first time I had sex with my then girlfriend on lsd, the only contact we made was insertion. We lost ourselves once they connected, and laid there for a few minutes. Next thing I knew she was moaning wild and I had cum. There was literally no movement or anything, just penetration. It was unexplainable and felt like nothing on this earth. Tl:dr only penetrated and my gf & I's minds fucked each other until we both came

This may be with contact, but the first time I had sex with my then girlfriend on lsd, the only contact we made was insertion. We lost ourselves once they connected, and laid there for a few minutes. Next thing I knew she was moaning wild and I had cum. There was literally no movement or anything, just penetration. It was unexplainable and felt like nothing on this earth. Tl:dr only penetrated and my gf & I's minds fucked each other until we both came

Drugs

t5_2qh7l

ceaa6hp

This may be with contact, but the first time I had sex with my then girlfriend on lsd, the only contact we made was insertion. We lost ourselves once they connected, and laid there for a few minutes. Next thing I knew she was moaning wild and I had cum. There was literally no movement or anything, just penetration. It was unexplainable and felt like nothing on this earth.

only penetrated and my gf & I's minds fucked each other until we both came

onandonandonandon

A trading card game that desires growth is a terrible thing to collect. You want to collect classic cars, that's cool - they will never make a 67 Shelby again because you can't time travel. The however many that are remaining are literally the most that there will be from this point on, stock can only go down. They can reproduce the car, but nothing will match an actual 1967 Shelby. But cards? Cards that many many people will actually need access to if they wish to play the game? Fetches are expensive not only because they're (comparatively) rare, they're expensive because they're super necessary for most modern decks. If you want more people to play your game, you're going to have to give them access to the top items for that game. In some games, you access top tier items by grinding, or by luck (rare drops etc). Or you could pay for them. Since Magic is limited (paper) supply, the cards *need* to be reprinted if the game wants to expand. tl;dr collectors can fuck right off with whining about reprints of necessary cards

A trading card game that desires growth is a terrible thing to collect. You want to collect classic cars, that's cool - they will never make a 67 Shelby again because you can't time travel. The however many that are remaining are literally the most that there will be from this point on, stock can only go down. They can reproduce the car, but nothing will match an actual 1967 Shelby. But cards? Cards that many many people will actually need access to if they wish to play the game? Fetches are expensive not only because they're (comparatively) rare, they're expensive because they're super necessary for most modern decks. If you want more people to play your game, you're going to have to give them access to the top items for that game. In some games, you access top tier items by grinding, or by luck (rare drops etc). Or you could pay for them. Since Magic is limited (paper) supply, the cards need to be reprinted if the game wants to expand. tl;dr collectors can fuck right off with whining about reprints of necessary cards

magicTCG

t5_2qn5f

ceauf41

A trading card game that desires growth is a terrible thing to collect. You want to collect classic cars, that's cool - they will never make a 67 Shelby again because you can't time travel. The however many that are remaining are literally the most that there will be from this point on, stock can only go down. They can reproduce the car, but nothing will match an actual 1967 Shelby. But cards? Cards that many many people will actually need access to if they wish to play the game? Fetches are expensive not only because they're (comparatively) rare, they're expensive because they're super necessary for most modern decks. If you want more people to play your game, you're going to have to give them access to the top items for that game. In some games, you access top tier items by grinding, or by luck (rare drops etc). Or you could pay for them. Since Magic is limited (paper) supply, the cards need to be reprinted if the game wants to expand.

collectors can fuck right off with whining about reprints of necessary cards

Montastic

Haha you're not alone! i think by the end there were like 35 people in the class. Well. Hm. I have a bit of an unorthodox studying method, but it's worked really well for me (A+ in that biochem class :p) Basically my first round of studying is transcribing notes from the textbook into a notebook. This first bit is really important because you're writing, reading, and reciting at the same time. Makes it way easier to study later on. Then I go back and try to memorize each individual bit into a long narrative. This is awesome because it's working on the basis of Hebb's theory of plastic synapses. If you remembered a grouping of info as a whole, then when you remember one piece of that info, or if you recognize one bit, then the rest of the information will come with it. tl;dr Memorize everything as a whole.

Haha you're not alone! i think by the end there were like 35 people in the class. Well. Hm. I have a bit of an unorthodox studying method, but it's worked really well for me (A+ in that biochem class :p) Basically my first round of studying is transcribing notes from the textbook into a notebook. This first bit is really important because you're writing, reading, and reciting at the same time. Makes it way easier to study later on. Then I go back and try to memorize each individual bit into a long narrative. This is awesome because it's working on the basis of Hebb's theory of plastic synapses. If you remembered a grouping of info as a whole, then when you remember one piece of that info, or if you recognize one bit, then the rest of the information will come with it. tl;dr Memorize everything as a whole.

Concordia

t5_2rsnl

censse9

Haha you're not alone! i think by the end there were like 35 people in the class. Well. Hm. I have a bit of an unorthodox studying method, but it's worked really well for me (A+ in that biochem class :p) Basically my first round of studying is transcribing notes from the textbook into a notebook. This first bit is really important because you're writing, reading, and reciting at the same time. Makes it way easier to study later on. Then I go back and try to memorize each individual bit into a long narrative. This is awesome because it's working on the basis of Hebb's theory of plastic synapses. If you remembered a grouping of info as a whole, then when you remember one piece of that info, or if you recognize one bit, then the rest of the information will come with it.

Memorize everything as a whole.

rmw132

I have to say, I got seats at Citizens Bank Park near what would be the third base, but down low as in, as close to the field as possible. Our seats were positioned right behind what would be the goalie on ice. I thought this would be the perfect vantage point. I was wrong. The actual ice rink was so far out from where we were sitting (even though we had seats just a few rows back from the field) and so we really couldn't ever see a damn thing. If someone scored we only would know by the goal horn, or the crowd going nuts. The cold weather was really not that big of a deal to me. We were dressed warm and felt comfortable the whole game. Seeing it just start to barely snow around the second or third period was awesome too. But yeah, we couldn't see a damn thing. You're actually better off getting seats in the upper deck so you can actually see everything and follow along. As for the price...yeah we went through StubHub and I think we paid about $700 for two seats. Not nearly worth what we paid. TLDR: Our seats were perfect for baseball, not an outdoor NHL game. Cold was no big deal. Amazing experience but if I had to do it again, sit up higher. Also paid way too much.

I have to say, I got seats at Citizens Bank Park near what would be the third base, but down low as in, as close to the field as possible. Our seats were positioned right behind what would be the goalie on ice. I thought this would be the perfect vantage point. I was wrong. The actual ice rink was so far out from where we were sitting (even though we had seats just a few rows back from the field) and so we really couldn't ever see a damn thing. If someone scored we only would know by the goal horn, or the crowd going nuts. The cold weather was really not that big of a deal to me. We were dressed warm and felt comfortable the whole game. Seeing it just start to barely snow around the second or third period was awesome too. But yeah, we couldn't see a damn thing. You're actually better off getting seats in the upper deck so you can actually see everything and follow along. As for the price...yeah we went through StubHub and I think we paid about $700 for two seats. Not nearly worth what we paid. TLDR: Our seats were perfect for baseball, not an outdoor NHL game. Cold was no big deal. Amazing experience but if I had to do it again, sit up higher. Also paid way too much.

rangers

t5_2rnpb

ceaiibn

I have to say, I got seats at Citizens Bank Park near what would be the third base, but down low as in, as close to the field as possible. Our seats were positioned right behind what would be the goalie on ice. I thought this would be the perfect vantage point. I was wrong. The actual ice rink was so far out from where we were sitting (even though we had seats just a few rows back from the field) and so we really couldn't ever see a damn thing. If someone scored we only would know by the goal horn, or the crowd going nuts. The cold weather was really not that big of a deal to me. We were dressed warm and felt comfortable the whole game. Seeing it just start to barely snow around the second or third period was awesome too. But yeah, we couldn't see a damn thing. You're actually better off getting seats in the upper deck so you can actually see everything and follow along. As for the price...yeah we went through StubHub and I think we paid about $700 for two seats. Not nearly worth what we paid.

Our seats were perfect for baseball, not an outdoor NHL game. Cold was no big deal. Amazing experience but if I had to do it again, sit up higher. Also paid way too much.

hidinfromem

This could so be me, except in my case it's a N-mom. As LC and distance work their magic, I start thinking maybe it will be better this time. And, like you, I can't remember the day-to-day minor harassment so I think 'maybe it wasn't that bad.' What helps me is I actually did break LC to go to a family vacation a few years ago. Took my mom less than a week to drive me into tears. On top of that, she went into one of her arm-flailing rants about how horrible I was and how I was ruining the trip. How did I ruin it? We were having a private chef come in for dinner. Mom wanted to take us all to private chef's restaurant during the trip. But the only day that made sense for the trip was the same day he was coming. I had the audacity to ask if we were still going to the restaurant the same day he came. The drama. I ruined EVERYTHING. The Whole TRIP! by asking that question. That was a few years ago and the distance has once again got me to the point where I have to wonder if maybe it was just me. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything about the restaurant (seriously, I feel silly typing it here because I'm sure someone is going to say I shouldn't have brought it up…). Maybe it all is my fault and maybe if I was a better person she wouldn't have to yell. Then I remember the reality. It's not about me, it's about her. And even if I am responsible for some parts of the relationship being fail that doesn't mean I have to tolerate her toxicity. Even if I am totally wrong, she is not someone I want to spend time with - if only because I turn into a person I don't like when I'm around her. If I can't stand myself around her, I'm pretty sure that I shouldn't be around her. TL;DR: You can trust your instincts. It really was that bad.

This could so be me, except in my case it's a N-mom. As LC and distance work their magic, I start thinking maybe it will be better this time. And, like you, I can't remember the day-to-day minor harassment so I think 'maybe it wasn't that bad.' What helps me is I actually did break LC to go to a family vacation a few years ago. Took my mom less than a week to drive me into tears. On top of that, she went into one of her arm-flailing rants about how horrible I was and how I was ruining the trip. How did I ruin it? We were having a private chef come in for dinner. Mom wanted to take us all to private chef's restaurant during the trip. But the only day that made sense for the trip was the same day he was coming. I had the audacity to ask if we were still going to the restaurant the same day he came. The drama. I ruined EVERYTHING. The Whole TRIP! by asking that question. That was a few years ago and the distance has once again got me to the point where I have to wonder if maybe it was just me. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything about the restaurant (seriously, I feel silly typing it here because I'm sure someone is going to say I shouldn't have brought it up…). Maybe it all is my fault and maybe if I was a better person she wouldn't have to yell. Then I remember the reality. It's not about me, it's about her. And even if I am responsible for some parts of the relationship being fail that doesn't mean I have to tolerate her toxicity. Even if I am totally wrong, she is not someone I want to spend time with - if only because I turn into a person I don't like when I'm around her. If I can't stand myself around her, I'm pretty sure that I shouldn't be around her. TL;DR: You can trust your instincts. It really was that bad.

raisedbynarcissists

t5_2we9n

ceao2i0

This could so be me, except in my case it's a N-mom. As LC and distance work their magic, I start thinking maybe it will be better this time. And, like you, I can't remember the day-to-day minor harassment so I think 'maybe it wasn't that bad.' What helps me is I actually did break LC to go to a family vacation a few years ago. Took my mom less than a week to drive me into tears. On top of that, she went into one of her arm-flailing rants about how horrible I was and how I was ruining the trip. How did I ruin it? We were having a private chef come in for dinner. Mom wanted to take us all to private chef's restaurant during the trip. But the only day that made sense for the trip was the same day he was coming. I had the audacity to ask if we were still going to the restaurant the same day he came. The drama. I ruined EVERYTHING. The Whole TRIP! by asking that question. That was a few years ago and the distance has once again got me to the point where I have to wonder if maybe it was just me. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything about the restaurant (seriously, I feel silly typing it here because I'm sure someone is going to say I shouldn't have brought it up…). Maybe it all is my fault and maybe if I was a better person she wouldn't have to yell. Then I remember the reality. It's not about me, it's about her. And even if I am responsible for some parts of the relationship being fail that doesn't mean I have to tolerate her toxicity. Even if I am totally wrong, she is not someone I want to spend time with - if only because I turn into a person I don't like when I'm around her. If I can't stand myself around her, I'm pretty sure that I shouldn't be around her.

You can trust your instincts. It really was that bad.

radaway

Pelo mesmo motivo que as miúdas querem iphones, as amigas também têm e não se calam com essa merda. TLDR status.

Pelo mesmo motivo que as miúdas querem iphones, as amigas também têm e não se calam com essa merda. TLDR status.

portugal

t5_2qmie

ceaftep

Pelo mesmo motivo que as miúdas querem iphones, as amigas também têm e não se calam com essa merda.

status.

Lorheim

> Isto ajuda a corroborar a ideia aparente de que muitas famílias podem ter as prioridades trocadas e não estejam a gerir os rendimentos da melhor forma, principalmente quando a empresa responsável diz que uma grande parte da compras são a crédito. Seriam bem mais prudente poupar antes e comprar depois sem recorrer ao crédito de consumo numa altura em que há tanta instabilidade no mercado de trabalho. De um ponto de vista económico isto é errado, senão nunca ninguém comprava nada a crédito. Comprar a crédito traz vantagens ao vendedor de duas formas: obtém um excedente correspondente ao juro (se este existir) e efectua uma venda que podia não acontecer de outra forma, e que lhe trás lucro. Ao comprador, comparando com a situação em que poupa para adquirir mais tarde, traz uma principal vantagem: poder usufruir do bem durante o tempo que pouparia. Claro que isto pressupõe que se poderá pagar, o que pode nem sempre acontecer nestes tempos (nem em nenhuns para ser honesto, há sempre quem não planeia como deve ser). Mas seja em que altura for, se houver planeamento e não houver poupanças, um comprador deve sempre adquirir se o benefício que retira da utilização até ter o dinheiro tem um valor superior ao juro, se este existir. Se não há juro, qualquer comprador deve comprar a prestações porque lucra com isso, assumindo que existe inflação (e contemporâneamente ela tem sempre existido). A não ser que o dinheiro no banco ou na banca rendesse mais. TL;DR se juro =0 e inflação >0, não comprar a crédito é pouco inteligente.

> Isto ajuda a corroborar a ideia aparente de que muitas famílias podem ter as prioridades trocadas e não estejam a gerir os rendimentos da melhor forma, principalmente quando a empresa responsável diz que uma grande parte da compras são a crédito. Seriam bem mais prudente poupar antes e comprar depois sem recorrer ao crédito de consumo numa altura em que há tanta instabilidade no mercado de trabalho. De um ponto de vista económico isto é errado, senão nunca ninguém comprava nada a crédito. Comprar a crédito traz vantagens ao vendedor de duas formas: obtém um excedente correspondente ao juro (se este existir) e efectua uma venda que podia não acontecer de outra forma, e que lhe trás lucro. Ao comprador, comparando com a situação em que poupa para adquirir mais tarde, traz uma principal vantagem: poder usufruir do bem durante o tempo que pouparia. Claro que isto pressupõe que se poderá pagar, o que pode nem sempre acontecer nestes tempos (nem em nenhuns para ser honesto, há sempre quem não planeia como deve ser). Mas seja em que altura for, se houver planeamento e não houver poupanças, um comprador deve sempre adquirir se o benefício que retira da utilização até ter o dinheiro tem um valor superior ao juro, se este existir. Se não há juro, qualquer comprador deve comprar a prestações porque lucra com isso, assumindo que existe inflação (e contemporâneamente ela tem sempre existido). A não ser que o dinheiro no banco ou na banca rendesse mais. TL;DR se juro =0 e inflação >0, não comprar a crédito é pouco inteligente.

portugal

t5_2qmie

ceaho4j

Isto ajuda a corroborar a ideia aparente de que muitas famílias podem ter as prioridades trocadas e não estejam a gerir os rendimentos da melhor forma, principalmente quando a empresa responsável diz que uma grande parte da compras são a crédito. Seriam bem mais prudente poupar antes e comprar depois sem recorrer ao crédito de consumo numa altura em que há tanta instabilidade no mercado de trabalho. De um ponto de vista económico isto é errado, senão nunca ninguém comprava nada a crédito. Comprar a crédito traz vantagens ao vendedor de duas formas: obtém um excedente correspondente ao juro (se este existir) e efectua uma venda que podia não acontecer de outra forma, e que lhe trás lucro. Ao comprador, comparando com a situação em que poupa para adquirir mais tarde, traz uma principal vantagem: poder usufruir do bem durante o tempo que pouparia. Claro que isto pressupõe que se poderá pagar, o que pode nem sempre acontecer nestes tempos (nem em nenhuns para ser honesto, há sempre quem não planeia como deve ser). Mas seja em que altura for, se houver planeamento e não houver poupanças, um comprador deve sempre adquirir se o benefício que retira da utilização até ter o dinheiro tem um valor superior ao juro, se este existir. Se não há juro, qualquer comprador deve comprar a prestações porque lucra com isso, assumindo que existe inflação (e contemporâneamente ela tem sempre existido). A não ser que o dinheiro no banco ou na banca rendesse mais.

se juro =0 e inflação >0, não comprar a crédito é pouco inteligente.

B4DILLAC

Skill is by far the most pointless statistic in this game. If you go if you go 11-12 K/D it calculates the same as if you went 0-20 and you lose up to 25 skill - even when PTFO. If you join a game that is ending and go 0-0 you lose an instant 31 skill. If you leave a game (REGARDLESS if it is a crash/sever crash or you simply d/c you also lose up to 30 skill. The only way I've seen it go up is to constantly kill someone with a higher spm/skill level. Which is also ridiculous because of the XP boosts that shoots everyone's spm way up. My solution is to just ignore it. It literally plays no factor and I don't think should have been put into the game when it seems what makes it go up and go down do not make any real sense. **TL:DR** Skill is pointless, block it from your perspective of how you play the game and just enjoy.

Skill is by far the most pointless statistic in this game. If you go if you go 11-12 K/D it calculates the same as if you went 0-20 and you lose up to 25 skill - even when PTFO. If you join a game that is ending and go 0-0 you lose an instant 31 skill. If you leave a game (REGARDLESS if it is a crash/sever crash or you simply d/c you also lose up to 30 skill. The only way I've seen it go up is to constantly kill someone with a higher spm/skill level. Which is also ridiculous because of the XP boosts that shoots everyone's spm way up. My solution is to just ignore it. It literally plays no factor and I don't think should have been put into the game when it seems what makes it go up and go down do not make any real sense. TL:DR Skill is pointless, block it from your perspective of how you play the game and just enjoy.

battlefield_4

t5_2uie9

ceaoo6x

Skill is by far the most pointless statistic in this game. If you go if you go 11-12 K/D it calculates the same as if you went 0-20 and you lose up to 25 skill - even when PTFO. If you join a game that is ending and go 0-0 you lose an instant 31 skill. If you leave a game (REGARDLESS if it is a crash/sever crash or you simply d/c you also lose up to 30 skill. The only way I've seen it go up is to constantly kill someone with a higher spm/skill level. Which is also ridiculous because of the XP boosts that shoots everyone's spm way up. My solution is to just ignore it. It literally plays no factor and I don't think should have been put into the game when it seems what makes it go up and go down do not make any real sense.

Skill is pointless, block it from your perspective of how you play the game and just enjoy.

toxicity69

You have a couple options, then: -Post discussion threads and stop bitching, -Comment on existing discussion threads and stop bitching. -Leave the subreddit and bitch all you want cause no one's listening then. I've seen plenty of legitimate discussion about this game throughout this subreddit, and while I don't have BF4 yet, I like to keep up with the game. I agree that there have been some useless posts, but get over it. You don't *have* to view those posts. TL;DR: Quit yer bitchin'.

You have a couple options, then: -Post discussion threads and stop bitching, -Comment on existing discussion threads and stop bitching. -Leave the subreddit and bitch all you want cause no one's listening then. I've seen plenty of legitimate discussion about this game throughout this subreddit, and while I don't have BF4 yet, I like to keep up with the game. I agree that there have been some useless posts, but get over it. You don't have to view those posts. TL;DR: Quit yer bitchin'.

battlefield_4

t5_2uie9

ceb6uhv

You have a couple options, then: -Post discussion threads and stop bitching, -Comment on existing discussion threads and stop bitching. -Leave the subreddit and bitch all you want cause no one's listening then. I've seen plenty of legitimate discussion about this game throughout this subreddit, and while I don't have BF4 yet, I like to keep up with the game. I agree that there have been some useless posts, but get over it. You don't have to view those posts.

Quit yer bitchin'.

antisyzygy

I've seen this thrown around a lot. I agree that robots will take over more tasks, but robots are still actually pretty inefficient for general purpose labor. For example, picking oranges. Send one human up into a tree and they can pick the ripest, best oranges more rapidly than any robot. We have superior pattern recognition and our limbs are more efficient, and more agile than a robots. You can actually get a human worker for much less than buying a robot to do the same thing. All a human needs to work is a roof, some water and 3 square meals a day, all costing less than a single robot. A human is also faster than most robots at doing more complicated things. Doing the same thing over and over like assembly line work? Not so much. Robots are very good at repetitive tasks where they don't need to "think" too much. We are better at complicated tasks that require reaction time and higher level thought processes. Robots need to be maintained far more frequently than humans. Robots need to have someone design them in the first place. Robots need programmers to give them their operating logic. Robots need a power source that is less efficient than our metabolism (overall, I mean you can eat some potatoes made from soil nutrients and solar energy and have enough energy to work for a day). Another thing about robots, they are far dumber than we are. We are far, far away from real AI that can think and process information like a human, diagnose issues like a human, and then also go out and grab the right tool to accomplish complicated tasks. E.g. a human might have a fleet of robots they direct around, but the human is needed to resolve edge cases the robots encounter or to diagnose the problem and think up a solution in the first place. For your example of building a house, I doubt just because a robot can 3D print a house that it's able to fix it. If you have a small crack in the foundation leaking water, you would probably save time and money just sending a human to find and repair it. I think robots will take over repetitive, menial tasks (as they have) to start and then later more manual labor jobs that are also on the menial/repetitive side (i.e. nailing boards together for the frame of a house, or laying cable under the ground). I don't think they will be replacing humans for a very long time. If you are concerned for your children, make them be software developers. Robots can't program themselves. Another point, already we see the shift away from factory work to services and skilled labor (like software developers) in the USA. Some people are behind the curve and haven't adapted to this, they still want their factory job or their construction job--jobs that are ripe for replacement by robots. You now need to train your brain with some skill-set like accounting or engineering to find work. I suspect that will be come more common, and likely will be the only jobs that exist if robots take over all the lower-skilled work. However, we will need more of those people to manage/design/program the robots. **TL;DR**; In the event of a robot take over of unskilled labor, new jobs will be created, like *Robot Fleet Logistics Manager*, *Robot Communications Engineer*, *Data Analyst* or *Robot Maintenance Supervisor*. We will also need mathematicians, statisticians, scientists, etc. to do research to discover new materials, new manufacturing processes, new optimization methods, and new algorithms for our robots. Education in STEM is far more important than holding onto outdated jobs or a livable income IMHO.

I've seen this thrown around a lot. I agree that robots will take over more tasks, but robots are still actually pretty inefficient for general purpose labor. For example, picking oranges. Send one human up into a tree and they can pick the ripest, best oranges more rapidly than any robot. We have superior pattern recognition and our limbs are more efficient, and more agile than a robots. You can actually get a human worker for much less than buying a robot to do the same thing. All a human needs to work is a roof, some water and 3 square meals a day, all costing less than a single robot. A human is also faster than most robots at doing more complicated things. Doing the same thing over and over like assembly line work? Not so much. Robots are very good at repetitive tasks where they don't need to "think" too much. We are better at complicated tasks that require reaction time and higher level thought processes. Robots need to be maintained far more frequently than humans. Robots need to have someone design them in the first place. Robots need programmers to give them their operating logic. Robots need a power source that is less efficient than our metabolism (overall, I mean you can eat some potatoes made from soil nutrients and solar energy and have enough energy to work for a day). Another thing about robots, they are far dumber than we are. We are far, far away from real AI that can think and process information like a human, diagnose issues like a human, and then also go out and grab the right tool to accomplish complicated tasks. E.g. a human might have a fleet of robots they direct around, but the human is needed to resolve edge cases the robots encounter or to diagnose the problem and think up a solution in the first place. For your example of building a house, I doubt just because a robot can 3D print a house that it's able to fix it. If you have a small crack in the foundation leaking water, you would probably save time and money just sending a human to find and repair it. I think robots will take over repetitive, menial tasks (as they have) to start and then later more manual labor jobs that are also on the menial/repetitive side (i.e. nailing boards together for the frame of a house, or laying cable under the ground). I don't think they will be replacing humans for a very long time. If you are concerned for your children, make them be software developers. Robots can't program themselves. Another point, already we see the shift away from factory work to services and skilled labor (like software developers) in the USA. Some people are behind the curve and haven't adapted to this, they still want their factory job or their construction job--jobs that are ripe for replacement by robots. You now need to train your brain with some skill-set like accounting or engineering to find work. I suspect that will be come more common, and likely will be the only jobs that exist if robots take over all the lower-skilled work. However, we will need more of those people to manage/design/program the robots. TL;DR ; In the event of a robot take over of unskilled labor, new jobs will be created, like Robot Fleet Logistics Manager , Robot Communications Engineer , Data Analyst or Robot Maintenance Supervisor . We will also need mathematicians, statisticians, scientists, etc. to do research to discover new materials, new manufacturing processes, new optimization methods, and new algorithms for our robots. Education in STEM is far more important than holding onto outdated jobs or a livable income IMHO.

politics

t5_2cneq

ceayi35

I've seen this thrown around a lot. I agree that robots will take over more tasks, but robots are still actually pretty inefficient for general purpose labor. For example, picking oranges. Send one human up into a tree and they can pick the ripest, best oranges more rapidly than any robot. We have superior pattern recognition and our limbs are more efficient, and more agile than a robots. You can actually get a human worker for much less than buying a robot to do the same thing. All a human needs to work is a roof, some water and 3 square meals a day, all costing less than a single robot. A human is also faster than most robots at doing more complicated things. Doing the same thing over and over like assembly line work? Not so much. Robots are very good at repetitive tasks where they don't need to "think" too much. We are better at complicated tasks that require reaction time and higher level thought processes. Robots need to be maintained far more frequently than humans. Robots need to have someone design them in the first place. Robots need programmers to give them their operating logic. Robots need a power source that is less efficient than our metabolism (overall, I mean you can eat some potatoes made from soil nutrients and solar energy and have enough energy to work for a day). Another thing about robots, they are far dumber than we are. We are far, far away from real AI that can think and process information like a human, diagnose issues like a human, and then also go out and grab the right tool to accomplish complicated tasks. E.g. a human might have a fleet of robots they direct around, but the human is needed to resolve edge cases the robots encounter or to diagnose the problem and think up a solution in the first place. For your example of building a house, I doubt just because a robot can 3D print a house that it's able to fix it. If you have a small crack in the foundation leaking water, you would probably save time and money just sending a human to find and repair it. I think robots will take over repetitive, menial tasks (as they have) to start and then later more manual labor jobs that are also on the menial/repetitive side (i.e. nailing boards together for the frame of a house, or laying cable under the ground). I don't think they will be replacing humans for a very long time. If you are concerned for your children, make them be software developers. Robots can't program themselves. Another point, already we see the shift away from factory work to services and skilled labor (like software developers) in the USA. Some people are behind the curve and haven't adapted to this, they still want their factory job or their construction job--jobs that are ripe for replacement by robots. You now need to train your brain with some skill-set like accounting or engineering to find work. I suspect that will be come more common, and likely will be the only jobs that exist if robots take over all the lower-skilled work. However, we will need more of those people to manage/design/program the robots.

In the event of a robot take over of unskilled labor, new jobs will be created, like Robot Fleet Logistics Manager , Robot Communications Engineer , Data Analyst or Robot Maintenance Supervisor . We will also need mathematicians, statisticians, scientists, etc. to do research to discover new materials, new manufacturing processes, new optimization methods, and new algorithms for our robots. Education in STEM is far more important than holding onto outdated jobs or a livable income IMHO.

Euphemism

>You make it sound so easy. - It isn't easy, but it is necessary isn't it? Not to mention, nothing worthwhile in life is ever "easy". >I think you are trying to convince yourself. - Nope, lived it. It is a solid theory, and works in practice too. But you have to be motivated to do it, and that motivation is gone if someone is going to pay you for not working. How can you(and this sub) not see that? >Nobody else is buying it - Correction, no one in this sub is buying it. Which, doesn't surprise me, but every worker out there that is barely hanging on to house and home and keeping their family's running and have no interest in paying for others to live off of their avails - they do buy it, they live it, and they actually earn it. >I hope you don't loose your job in this economy, and i wish you luck if you do. - Thanks, but too late. Right at the crash I did. Heck, it happened while I was taking care of a grandmother as well. How did I turn it around? By accepting it wasn't going to be, as you put it, "easy". I went out and tried a lot of places, I wore out two pairs of shoes - that is how much street walking I did. I applied everywhere. I spoke to everyone I knew, asked them if they knew anyone. Eventually I got a job at bestbuy, making barely more than minimum wage. Again, I networked with everyone that came in to the store - this too wasn't "easy", but it was important to me(No one giving me free money) and I had too(I suspect you and everyone else would do the same if they had too - which is why not making people have too, is bad for the people). Eventually I met up with someone that knew someone, that gave me a chance in a mailroom. Over the course of the last 4 years I have worked my ass off to get back to relatively the same place I was then. TL:DR - No, it isn't easy, it is however simple. You work your arse off. You speak to everyone you know, everyone you come in contact with. You take whatever job(yes even McJobs) you can because that makes it easier for someone to hire you.... what you don't do is sit on your arse, check out Criagslist for 30 minutes and call it a day because "it is easy". Life isn't easy kiddo.

>You make it sound so easy. It isn't easy, but it is necessary isn't it? Not to mention, nothing worthwhile in life is ever "easy". >I think you are trying to convince yourself. Nope, lived it. It is a solid theory, and works in practice too. But you have to be motivated to do it, and that motivation is gone if someone is going to pay you for not working. How can you(and this sub) not see that? >Nobody else is buying it Correction, no one in this sub is buying it. Which, doesn't surprise me, but every worker out there that is barely hanging on to house and home and keeping their family's running and have no interest in paying for others to live off of their avails - they do buy it, they live it, and they actually earn it. >I hope you don't loose your job in this economy, and i wish you luck if you do. Thanks, but too late. Right at the crash I did. Heck, it happened while I was taking care of a grandmother as well. How did I turn it around? By accepting it wasn't going to be, as you put it, "easy". I went out and tried a lot of places, I wore out two pairs of shoes - that is how much street walking I did. I applied everywhere. I spoke to everyone I knew, asked them if they knew anyone. Eventually I got a job at bestbuy, making barely more than minimum wage. Again, I networked with everyone that came in to the store - this too wasn't "easy", but it was important to me(No one giving me free money) and I had too(I suspect you and everyone else would do the same if they had too - which is why not making people have too, is bad for the people). Eventually I met up with someone that knew someone, that gave me a chance in a mailroom. Over the course of the last 4 years I have worked my ass off to get back to relatively the same place I was then. TL:DR - No, it isn't easy, it is however simple. You work your arse off. You speak to everyone you know, everyone you come in contact with. You take whatever job(yes even McJobs) you can because that makes it easier for someone to hire you.... what you don't do is sit on your arse, check out Criagslist for 30 minutes and call it a day because "it is easy". Life isn't easy kiddo.

politics

t5_2cneq

ceanx60

You make it sound so easy. It isn't easy, but it is necessary isn't it? Not to mention, nothing worthwhile in life is ever "easy". >I think you are trying to convince yourself. Nope, lived it. It is a solid theory, and works in practice too. But you have to be motivated to do it, and that motivation is gone if someone is going to pay you for not working. How can you(and this sub) not see that? >Nobody else is buying it Correction, no one in this sub is buying it. Which, doesn't surprise me, but every worker out there that is barely hanging on to house and home and keeping their family's running and have no interest in paying for others to live off of their avails - they do buy it, they live it, and they actually earn it. >I hope you don't loose your job in this economy, and i wish you luck if you do. Thanks, but too late. Right at the crash I did. Heck, it happened while I was taking care of a grandmother as well. How did I turn it around? By accepting it wasn't going to be, as you put it, "easy". I went out and tried a lot of places, I wore out two pairs of shoes - that is how much street walking I did. I applied everywhere. I spoke to everyone I knew, asked them if they knew anyone. Eventually I got a job at bestbuy, making barely more than minimum wage. Again, I networked with everyone that came in to the store - this too wasn't "easy", but it was important to me(No one giving me free money) and I had too(I suspect you and everyone else would do the same if they had too - which is why not making people have too, is bad for the people). Eventually I met up with someone that knew someone, that gave me a chance in a mailroom. Over the course of the last 4 years I have worked my ass off to get back to relatively the same place I was then.

No, it isn't easy, it is however simple. You work your arse off. You speak to everyone you know, everyone you come in contact with. You take whatever job(yes even McJobs) you can because that makes it easier for someone to hire you.... what you don't do is sit on your arse, check out Criagslist for 30 minutes and call it a day because "it is easy". Life isn't easy kiddo.

Kellybob117

For all drug users, there are levels of reliance/addiction - It doesn't matter what the substance is, everyone has their "drug of choice" be it anything from pot (mine), booze, coke, to chocolate, video games, even work or sex - I see within all these forms a scale and pattern of reliance. Each distraction/enhancement/altered state has it's own unique benefits and drawbacks: One may try various things and decide to continue the activity if their enjoyment of the benefit outweighs the stress of the drawback. This is the threshold between curiosity and habit. When habit is reached, one's awareness of the drawbacks is muffled (intentionally or subconsciously) and the benefit is viewed as progressively more rewarding, though more activity/dosage may be required, it's consequent comparison to a regular state is improved through meaning: Magick. When the magic of the altered state begins to wear off, (when the drawbacks become increasingly apparent and amplified through increased dosage, and simultaneously the high is less meaningful as it becomes a reality) one has reached another threshold, this one is between habit and addiction. If one quits/slows down/modifies their behavior at this point dependence on the altered state may be avoided, though this is rarely the case, as many find this threshold imperceptible. If one continues at this point (it's never too late to turn back, but...) it becomes very difficult to reverse the behavior. One's reality has been nearly replaced with the chosen altered state, spending more time there than otherwise. The regular world in comparison feels impossible, even unbearable, "if only I could alter it to be more akin to my favorite altered state/ one drink would improve this situation!" is the sort of thought that arises as a moment to moment justification for one's dependence on a substance or activity. Once you have arrived at this state of dependence your former joy is no longer pursued for it's good, but because reality otherwise is lacking. It becomes escapism rather than exploration. TL/DR: Everything in moderation won't harm you, if you want to play around with more, pay attention to how much "more" is and how quickly that internal definition changes.

For all drug users, there are levels of reliance/addiction - It doesn't matter what the substance is, everyone has their "drug of choice" be it anything from pot (mine), booze, coke, to chocolate, video games, even work or sex - I see within all these forms a scale and pattern of reliance. Each distraction/enhancement/altered state has it's own unique benefits and drawbacks: One may try various things and decide to continue the activity if their enjoyment of the benefit outweighs the stress of the drawback. This is the threshold between curiosity and habit. When habit is reached, one's awareness of the drawbacks is muffled (intentionally or subconsciously) and the benefit is viewed as progressively more rewarding, though more activity/dosage may be required, it's consequent comparison to a regular state is improved through meaning: Magick. When the magic of the altered state begins to wear off, (when the drawbacks become increasingly apparent and amplified through increased dosage, and simultaneously the high is less meaningful as it becomes a reality) one has reached another threshold, this one is between habit and addiction. If one quits/slows down/modifies their behavior at this point dependence on the altered state may be avoided, though this is rarely the case, as many find this threshold imperceptible. If one continues at this point (it's never too late to turn back, but...) it becomes very difficult to reverse the behavior. One's reality has been nearly replaced with the chosen altered state, spending more time there than otherwise. The regular world in comparison feels impossible, even unbearable, "if only I could alter it to be more akin to my favorite altered state/ one drink would improve this situation!" is the sort of thought that arises as a moment to moment justification for one's dependence on a substance or activity. Once you have arrived at this state of dependence your former joy is no longer pursued for it's good, but because reality otherwise is lacking. It becomes escapism rather than exploration. TL/DR: Everything in moderation won't harm you, if you want to play around with more, pay attention to how much "more" is and how quickly that internal definition changes.

occult

t5_2qhmc

ceanxiy

For all drug users, there are levels of reliance/addiction - It doesn't matter what the substance is, everyone has their "drug of choice" be it anything from pot (mine), booze, coke, to chocolate, video games, even work or sex - I see within all these forms a scale and pattern of reliance. Each distraction/enhancement/altered state has it's own unique benefits and drawbacks: One may try various things and decide to continue the activity if their enjoyment of the benefit outweighs the stress of the drawback. This is the threshold between curiosity and habit. When habit is reached, one's awareness of the drawbacks is muffled (intentionally or subconsciously) and the benefit is viewed as progressively more rewarding, though more activity/dosage may be required, it's consequent comparison to a regular state is improved through meaning: Magick. When the magic of the altered state begins to wear off, (when the drawbacks become increasingly apparent and amplified through increased dosage, and simultaneously the high is less meaningful as it becomes a reality) one has reached another threshold, this one is between habit and addiction. If one quits/slows down/modifies their behavior at this point dependence on the altered state may be avoided, though this is rarely the case, as many find this threshold imperceptible. If one continues at this point (it's never too late to turn back, but...) it becomes very difficult to reverse the behavior. One's reality has been nearly replaced with the chosen altered state, spending more time there than otherwise. The regular world in comparison feels impossible, even unbearable, "if only I could alter it to be more akin to my favorite altered state/ one drink would improve this situation!" is the sort of thought that arises as a moment to moment justification for one's dependence on a substance or activity. Once you have arrived at this state of dependence your former joy is no longer pursued for it's good, but because reality otherwise is lacking. It becomes escapism rather than exploration.

Everything in moderation won't harm you, if you want to play around with more, pay attention to how much "more" is and how quickly that internal definition changes.

poringo

Toda la temática del juego es bastante obscura, por ejemplo debes decidir entre comprar medicinas para alguien enfermo de tu familia o comprar comida. Para tener dinero tienes que checar a los migrantes rápido, entre más sean correctos, es decir que cumplen con los requisitos para pasar, más te pagan. Pero además cada vez te introducen más elementos para verificar por cada migrante, además de los básicos, y se pone cada vez más complejo de checar. Súmale que tienes que tomar decisiones morales, como por ejemplo, pasa el esposo, pero la esposa tiene incorrecto un dato, entonces lo correcto es que no pase. Pero moralmente, la dejas pasar? Solo es una fecha mal escrita en el pasaporte, es decir, un error tipográfico, pero al hacer tu chamba vas a separar a los esposos quizá para siempre. TL,DR; Papers please es básicamente un burócrata simulator.

Toda la temática del juego es bastante obscura, por ejemplo debes decidir entre comprar medicinas para alguien enfermo de tu familia o comprar comida. Para tener dinero tienes que checar a los migrantes rápido, entre más sean correctos, es decir que cumplen con los requisitos para pasar, más te pagan. Pero además cada vez te introducen más elementos para verificar por cada migrante, además de los básicos, y se pone cada vez más complejo de checar. Súmale que tienes que tomar decisiones morales, como por ejemplo, pasa el esposo, pero la esposa tiene incorrecto un dato, entonces lo correcto es que no pase. Pero moralmente, la dejas pasar? Solo es una fecha mal escrita en el pasaporte, es decir, un error tipográfico, pero al hacer tu chamba vas a separar a los esposos quizá para siempre. TL,DR; Papers please es básicamente un burócrata simulator.

mexico

t5_2qhv7

ceb6jp9

Toda la temática del juego es bastante obscura, por ejemplo debes decidir entre comprar medicinas para alguien enfermo de tu familia o comprar comida. Para tener dinero tienes que checar a los migrantes rápido, entre más sean correctos, es decir que cumplen con los requisitos para pasar, más te pagan. Pero además cada vez te introducen más elementos para verificar por cada migrante, además de los básicos, y se pone cada vez más complejo de checar. Súmale que tienes que tomar decisiones morales, como por ejemplo, pasa el esposo, pero la esposa tiene incorrecto un dato, entonces lo correcto es que no pase. Pero moralmente, la dejas pasar? Solo es una fecha mal escrita en el pasaporte, es decir, un error tipográfico, pero al hacer tu chamba vas a separar a los esposos quizá para siempre.

Papers please es básicamente un burócrata simulator.

mountainunicycler

My opinion is that Nikon/Cannon is the better route. I'm a nikon person so I'll use nikon examples. Camera bodies show their age really quickly, whereas lenses, if cared for, hardly show age at all. Some new technologies come along, like VR, and the improvements do help with shooting in difficult light (though VR on basic lenses is usually just added as a cheaper way to improve low light performance than by using larger elements) but when shot at a good aperture in good light, there is little difference between old and new. With bodies you're looking at massive depreciation over the course of just a few years, whereas good lenses, once past the original new-to-used depreciation, will hold value really well. All my lenses are many versions out of date but I see absolutely no reason I'd replace them even if I could afford to. Also, good lenses for general shooting don't need to be ultra expensive, for how well they'll last. The 18-55mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 AF-S VR lens that comes on most entry-level Nikons is actually surprisingly good. It's designed for fairly good light at medium apertures with medium to huge DOF (largest DOF at 18mm hyperfocal is 4' to infinity!), and it does that well. At this point I have mine taped at 18mm and focused 8' away because that combination, at f/11, is where it seems to be happiest. Lenses like the $90 - $125 AF-D 50mm f1.8 will work with every DSLR you could ever own from nikon (though with an entry level camera with no focus motor you'd have to spend nearly twice that on the AF-S version if you want autofocus). It's not expensive, but it is sharper, faster, and has better bokeh texture than the kit lens or other zooms. It's better than the $1,500 f/2.8 17-55mm zoom, which is a DX only lens! (Though that zoom is really good at covering 75% of what three primes would do) Even though it's pretty cheap for a lens, it'll be sharp and useful and convenient on any camera from a DX with a focus motor to a FX pro camera. Because lenses don't go out of date or need to be replaced for higher resolution, you can slowly collect focal lengths (I prefer primes over zooms because they perform drastically better at massively lower prices and I don't often shoot in situations where my movement is restricted) as your budget allows. Realistically though, the 18-55mm covers general shooting, so you won't need to upgrade until you have a good feel for what focal lengths you like and can make a very educated decision. More expensive cameras do nothing to help composition, they speed up technical accuracy, (but do not magically improve the user's knowledge; all things held equal, a $150 used 6.1 mp D50 at f/8 is sharper than a $1,200 24.3 mp D7000 at f/22 through the same lens), and they do improve resolution for printing (but not much for Facebook/blogging/reddit). However, since sensor resolution only matters if the technical skill is there, and technical skill only matters when composition is there, the cost of the camera body matters a lot less than the photographer's skill and a lot of people underestimate what's possible with basic cameras and basic lenses. ...sorry, I seem to have gone way off topic. I'm sorry if there are any mistakes in this, I'm on my phone so I didn't look up any numbers on anything. TL;DR: I think it's a good idea to get on one system and stick to it because the lenses won't go out of date and you can build a collection slowly as budget allows. I'd love to see the sony or Pentax argument from someone who knows those cameras though!

My opinion is that Nikon/Cannon is the better route. I'm a nikon person so I'll use nikon examples. Camera bodies show their age really quickly, whereas lenses, if cared for, hardly show age at all. Some new technologies come along, like VR, and the improvements do help with shooting in difficult light (though VR on basic lenses is usually just added as a cheaper way to improve low light performance than by using larger elements) but when shot at a good aperture in good light, there is little difference between old and new. With bodies you're looking at massive depreciation over the course of just a few years, whereas good lenses, once past the original new-to-used depreciation, will hold value really well. All my lenses are many versions out of date but I see absolutely no reason I'd replace them even if I could afford to. Also, good lenses for general shooting don't need to be ultra expensive, for how well they'll last. The 18-55mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 AF-S VR lens that comes on most entry-level Nikons is actually surprisingly good. It's designed for fairly good light at medium apertures with medium to huge DOF (largest DOF at 18mm hyperfocal is 4' to infinity!), and it does that well. At this point I have mine taped at 18mm and focused 8' away because that combination, at f/11, is where it seems to be happiest. Lenses like the $90 - $125 AF-D 50mm f1.8 will work with every DSLR you could ever own from nikon (though with an entry level camera with no focus motor you'd have to spend nearly twice that on the AF-S version if you want autofocus). It's not expensive, but it is sharper, faster, and has better bokeh texture than the kit lens or other zooms. It's better than the $1,500 f/2.8 17-55mm zoom, which is a DX only lens! (Though that zoom is really good at covering 75% of what three primes would do) Even though it's pretty cheap for a lens, it'll be sharp and useful and convenient on any camera from a DX with a focus motor to a FX pro camera. Because lenses don't go out of date or need to be replaced for higher resolution, you can slowly collect focal lengths (I prefer primes over zooms because they perform drastically better at massively lower prices and I don't often shoot in situations where my movement is restricted) as your budget allows. Realistically though, the 18-55mm covers general shooting, so you won't need to upgrade until you have a good feel for what focal lengths you like and can make a very educated decision. More expensive cameras do nothing to help composition, they speed up technical accuracy, (but do not magically improve the user's knowledge; all things held equal, a $150 used 6.1 mp D50 at f/8 is sharper than a $1,200 24.3 mp D7000 at f/22 through the same lens), and they do improve resolution for printing (but not much for Facebook/blogging/reddit). However, since sensor resolution only matters if the technical skill is there, and technical skill only matters when composition is there, the cost of the camera body matters a lot less than the photographer's skill and a lot of people underestimate what's possible with basic cameras and basic lenses. ...sorry, I seem to have gone way off topic. I'm sorry if there are any mistakes in this, I'm on my phone so I didn't look up any numbers on anything. TL;DR: I think it's a good idea to get on one system and stick to it because the lenses won't go out of date and you can build a collection slowly as budget allows. I'd love to see the sony or Pentax argument from someone who knows those cameras though!

photography

t5_2qh2a

ceb35cl

My opinion is that Nikon/Cannon is the better route. I'm a nikon person so I'll use nikon examples. Camera bodies show their age really quickly, whereas lenses, if cared for, hardly show age at all. Some new technologies come along, like VR, and the improvements do help with shooting in difficult light (though VR on basic lenses is usually just added as a cheaper way to improve low light performance than by using larger elements) but when shot at a good aperture in good light, there is little difference between old and new. With bodies you're looking at massive depreciation over the course of just a few years, whereas good lenses, once past the original new-to-used depreciation, will hold value really well. All my lenses are many versions out of date but I see absolutely no reason I'd replace them even if I could afford to. Also, good lenses for general shooting don't need to be ultra expensive, for how well they'll last. The 18-55mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 AF-S VR lens that comes on most entry-level Nikons is actually surprisingly good. It's designed for fairly good light at medium apertures with medium to huge DOF (largest DOF at 18mm hyperfocal is 4' to infinity!), and it does that well. At this point I have mine taped at 18mm and focused 8' away because that combination, at f/11, is where it seems to be happiest. Lenses like the $90 - $125 AF-D 50mm f1.8 will work with every DSLR you could ever own from nikon (though with an entry level camera with no focus motor you'd have to spend nearly twice that on the AF-S version if you want autofocus). It's not expensive, but it is sharper, faster, and has better bokeh texture than the kit lens or other zooms. It's better than the $1,500 f/2.8 17-55mm zoom, which is a DX only lens! (Though that zoom is really good at covering 75% of what three primes would do) Even though it's pretty cheap for a lens, it'll be sharp and useful and convenient on any camera from a DX with a focus motor to a FX pro camera. Because lenses don't go out of date or need to be replaced for higher resolution, you can slowly collect focal lengths (I prefer primes over zooms because they perform drastically better at massively lower prices and I don't often shoot in situations where my movement is restricted) as your budget allows. Realistically though, the 18-55mm covers general shooting, so you won't need to upgrade until you have a good feel for what focal lengths you like and can make a very educated decision. More expensive cameras do nothing to help composition, they speed up technical accuracy, (but do not magically improve the user's knowledge; all things held equal, a $150 used 6.1 mp D50 at f/8 is sharper than a $1,200 24.3 mp D7000 at f/22 through the same lens), and they do improve resolution for printing (but not much for Facebook/blogging/reddit). However, since sensor resolution only matters if the technical skill is there, and technical skill only matters when composition is there, the cost of the camera body matters a lot less than the photographer's skill and a lot of people underestimate what's possible with basic cameras and basic lenses. ...sorry, I seem to have gone way off topic. I'm sorry if there are any mistakes in this, I'm on my phone so I didn't look up any numbers on anything.

I think it's a good idea to get on one system and stick to it because the lenses won't go out of date and you can build a collection slowly as budget allows. I'd love to see the sony or Pentax argument from someone who knows those cameras though!

trackpete

The trick with figuring out lighting on any sort of portrait/headshot like this is to example the catch lights - the reflection of light that is caught in the subject's eyes. In this case, if you stare at his eyes it looks like a single very large light source with the photographer standing in front of it. It's most likely something like a very large window or a garage door, with the subject positioned just a bit to the side (hence the light being slightly to one side, with a bit more shadow on the other). With a mostly darkish background or plenty of space behind the subject, expose for the subject and you're good. The second image looks to have a similar setup, however there's also a small softbox added below the subject. You can also see this by looking at the squarish reflection in the lower left of his eyes (photo's left, subject's right). This was probably set up as a "fill" light at very low power to prevent the shadow on the left side of the face from being too deep. **tl;dr:** Learn to look at the catch lights!

The trick with figuring out lighting on any sort of portrait/headshot like this is to example the catch lights - the reflection of light that is caught in the subject's eyes. In this case, if you stare at his eyes it looks like a single very large light source with the photographer standing in front of it. It's most likely something like a very large window or a garage door, with the subject positioned just a bit to the side (hence the light being slightly to one side, with a bit more shadow on the other). With a mostly darkish background or plenty of space behind the subject, expose for the subject and you're good. The second image looks to have a similar setup, however there's also a small softbox added below the subject. You can also see this by looking at the squarish reflection in the lower left of his eyes (photo's left, subject's right). This was probably set up as a "fill" light at very low power to prevent the shadow on the left side of the face from being too deep. tl;dr: Learn to look at the catch lights!

photography

t5_2qh2a

ceb6902

The trick with figuring out lighting on any sort of portrait/headshot like this is to example the catch lights - the reflection of light that is caught in the subject's eyes. In this case, if you stare at his eyes it looks like a single very large light source with the photographer standing in front of it. It's most likely something like a very large window or a garage door, with the subject positioned just a bit to the side (hence the light being slightly to one side, with a bit more shadow on the other). With a mostly darkish background or plenty of space behind the subject, expose for the subject and you're good. The second image looks to have a similar setup, however there's also a small softbox added below the subject. You can also see this by looking at the squarish reflection in the lower left of his eyes (photo's left, subject's right). This was probably set up as a "fill" light at very low power to prevent the shadow on the left side of the face from being too deep.

Learn to look at the catch lights!

wellguys-itsbeenfun

It's good, but the work experience section is a little underdeveloped. Try to relate those jobs to the one you are applying for. "Organizing books" is an understood responsibility when you work in a bookstore. How did your experience help prepare you to work in your desired field? TL;DR: Revamp the work experience to be more than a list of responsibilities, but overall really nice

It's good, but the work experience section is a little underdeveloped. Try to relate those jobs to the one you are applying for. "Organizing books" is an understood responsibility when you work in a bookstore. How did your experience help prepare you to work in your desired field? TL;DR: Revamp the work experience to be more than a list of responsibilities, but overall really nice

cscareerquestions

t5_2sdpm

cebrvwy

It's good, but the work experience section is a little underdeveloped. Try to relate those jobs to the one you are applying for. "Organizing books" is an understood responsibility when you work in a bookstore. How did your experience help prepare you to work in your desired field?

Revamp the work experience to be more than a list of responsibilities, but overall really nice

heknowswhat

The Foundation has experience facing these sorts of paranormal attacks. There are a lot, and I mean a *lot*, of electronic and internet based memetic hazards, which are arguably as bad as or worse than the effects of Weird Al's virus. Further, Al gives the foundation the containment measures in the song. It won't be easy. Part of their job is ensuring that the general public does not know about the Skips. The very nature of this virus (the fact it emails all of your contacts on it's own, and warps reality) means that the Foundation will have it's work cut out for it. But then again, they always do. There will also be a definite containment breech. And it'll probably be huge. But if they could handle the reality warping best selling self help book, they can take this. Tldr: At the end of the day, it's just another Skip. Little more dangerous than most, but not even close to the hardest for them to contain on the electronic front. Foundation Wins.

The Foundation has experience facing these sorts of paranormal attacks. There are a lot, and I mean a lot , of electronic and internet based memetic hazards, which are arguably as bad as or worse than the effects of Weird Al's virus. Further, Al gives the foundation the containment measures in the song. It won't be easy. Part of their job is ensuring that the general public does not know about the Skips. The very nature of this virus (the fact it emails all of your contacts on it's own, and warps reality) means that the Foundation will have it's work cut out for it. But then again, they always do. There will also be a definite containment breech. And it'll probably be huge. But if they could handle the reality warping best selling self help book, they can take this. Tldr: At the end of the day, it's just another Skip. Little more dangerous than most, but not even close to the hardest for them to contain on the electronic front. Foundation Wins.

whowouldwin

t5_2s599

ceblesm

The Foundation has experience facing these sorts of paranormal attacks. There are a lot, and I mean a lot , of electronic and internet based memetic hazards, which are arguably as bad as or worse than the effects of Weird Al's virus. Further, Al gives the foundation the containment measures in the song. It won't be easy. Part of their job is ensuring that the general public does not know about the Skips. The very nature of this virus (the fact it emails all of your contacts on it's own, and warps reality) means that the Foundation will have it's work cut out for it. But then again, they always do. There will also be a definite containment breech. And it'll probably be huge. But if they could handle the reality warping best selling self help book, they can take this.

At the end of the day, it's just another Skip. Little more dangerous than most, but not even close to the hardest for them to contain on the electronic front. Foundation Wins.

WillsMyth

They told me that the chamber is considered a consumable part with an expected life span of 3 to 4 weeks. They then tried to retract and say "well its really more like 30 to 90 days" but would make an exception and send me a new one. They then told me since I didn't have the receipt (Xmas present) and the warranty is only 7 FUCKING DAYS (it was older than that when I received it that they wouldn't send one now even though I'd already told them I didn't have the receipt before they offered the new one. I love the pen but Fuck the company. So I decided to do so I've tinkering and have started manufacturing my own replacement elements (just the element. Takes a screw driver and 2 minutes to replace) that I'm going to start selling shortly for around $5 to $10. I'll post here when they are ready. Tldr: awesome pen, Fuck French science, vindictive engineer creates better alternative. Lol

They told me that the chamber is considered a consumable part with an expected life span of 3 to 4 weeks. They then tried to retract and say "well its really more like 30 to 90 days" but would make an exception and send me a new one. They then told me since I didn't have the receipt (Xmas present) and the warranty is only 7 FUCKING DAYS (it was older than that when I received it that they wouldn't send one now even though I'd already told them I didn't have the receipt before they offered the new one. I love the pen but Fuck the company. So I decided to do so I've tinkering and have started manufacturing my own replacement elements (just the element. Takes a screw driver and 2 minutes to replace) that I'm going to start selling shortly for around $5 to $10. I'll post here when they are ready. Tldr: awesome pen, Fuck French science, vindictive engineer creates better alternative. Lol

GPen

t5_2zk6s

cfd8hbq

They told me that the chamber is considered a consumable part with an expected life span of 3 to 4 weeks. They then tried to retract and say "well its really more like 30 to 90 days" but would make an exception and send me a new one. They then told me since I didn't have the receipt (Xmas present) and the warranty is only 7 FUCKING DAYS (it was older than that when I received it that they wouldn't send one now even though I'd already told them I didn't have the receipt before they offered the new one. I love the pen but Fuck the company. So I decided to do so I've tinkering and have started manufacturing my own replacement elements (just the element. Takes a screw driver and 2 minutes to replace) that I'm going to start selling shortly for around $5 to $10. I'll post here when they are ready.

awesome pen, Fuck French science, vindictive engineer creates better alternative. Lol

abcdthc

/u/cirespieler is correct, also with kratom less is more. The more you do the more of the opiate antagonists found in Kratom will have effects. Its about finding a sweet pot. Too little and you may get anxiety, and little to no effect, too much and the effects will get muddled and you may be left with a headache. The main issue I see on this sub is people trying to get "too high" You take some kratom, you feel great, and you think "If I do more, I'll feel even better" Well its a not full opiate, and it just doesnt work like that. It does hit the reward center of the brain though, so fact is, if youre feeling great, your brain is going to tell you to take more. When you feel a familiar opiate like buzz, thats the sweet spot. You migt nod a bit the first few times, but not down the road. Kratom still has great effects fo me 3 months in. However, I'm not trying to nod, or get really fucked up. It just doesnt work like that. TLDR: Kratom gives diminishing returns as you take more. If youre at the sweet spot, youll feel like you want more of what you have going, thats just your brain telling you "this feels nice" I likin it to alcohol. When you get a good buzz going, you feel like you should drink more, except it dont make that buzz better, it just makes you spinny and possibly black out. But its hard to stop at that sweet spot.

/u/cirespieler is correct, also with kratom less is more. The more you do the more of the opiate antagonists found in Kratom will have effects. Its about finding a sweet pot. Too little and you may get anxiety, and little to no effect, too much and the effects will get muddled and you may be left with a headache. The main issue I see on this sub is people trying to get "too high" You take some kratom, you feel great, and you think "If I do more, I'll feel even better" Well its a not full opiate, and it just doesnt work like that. It does hit the reward center of the brain though, so fact is, if youre feeling great, your brain is going to tell you to take more. When you feel a familiar opiate like buzz, thats the sweet spot. You migt nod a bit the first few times, but not down the road. Kratom still has great effects fo me 3 months in. However, I'm not trying to nod, or get really fucked up. It just doesnt work like that. TLDR: Kratom gives diminishing returns as you take more. If youre at the sweet spot, youll feel like you want more of what you have going, thats just your brain telling you "this feels nice" I likin it to alcohol. When you get a good buzz going, you feel like you should drink more, except it dont make that buzz better, it just makes you spinny and possibly black out. But its hard to stop at that sweet spot.

kratom

t5_2qx0h

cebwk00

u/cirespieler is correct, also with kratom less is more. The more you do the more of the opiate antagonists found in Kratom will have effects. Its about finding a sweet pot. Too little and you may get anxiety, and little to no effect, too much and the effects will get muddled and you may be left with a headache. The main issue I see on this sub is people trying to get "too high" You take some kratom, you feel great, and you think "If I do more, I'll feel even better" Well its a not full opiate, and it just doesnt work like that. It does hit the reward center of the brain though, so fact is, if youre feeling great, your brain is going to tell you to take more. When you feel a familiar opiate like buzz, thats the sweet spot. You migt nod a bit the first few times, but not down the road. Kratom still has great effects fo me 3 months in. However, I'm not trying to nod, or get really fucked up. It just doesnt work like that.

Kratom gives diminishing returns as you take more. If youre at the sweet spot, youll feel like you want more of what you have going, thats just your brain telling you "this feels nice" I likin it to alcohol. When you get a good buzz going, you feel like you should drink more, except it dont make that buzz better, it just makes you spinny and possibly black out. But its hard to stop at that sweet spot.

TimTravel

At what point in Death Note? I'm assuming after Kira's experiments, so he knows fully how it works. Correspondingly assuming Batman is fully-trained and has decent experience fighting supervillains. Both have impressive strategic ability, but as far as I've seen, Batman is usually up against opponents who are a lot less intelligent than he is. Kira has more experience in that department, but does make critical mistakes and isn't able to lose a battle to win the war. When L sent the detectives to investigate Kira suspects, all Kira had to do was wait. The detectives didn't find anything, and by attacking them, he proved that there was physical evidence to be found, and that he was among the suspects. This is an exploitable weakness. Batman is all about exploiting personality stuff (see tvtropes "Batman Gambit"). Batman wins. On the other hand I'm not familiar with the list of people who have discovered Wayne's identity and how they did it. A better Batmanigan will have to fill us in on how plausible it is that Kira could find his name and face. edit: TL;DR: Batman could certainly find out who Kira is and take him out, but I'm not completely certain who could find who faster. I'm leaning toward Batman, though.

At what point in Death Note? I'm assuming after Kira's experiments, so he knows fully how it works. Correspondingly assuming Batman is fully-trained and has decent experience fighting supervillains. Both have impressive strategic ability, but as far as I've seen, Batman is usually up against opponents who are a lot less intelligent than he is. Kira has more experience in that department, but does make critical mistakes and isn't able to lose a battle to win the war. When L sent the detectives to investigate Kira suspects, all Kira had to do was wait. The detectives didn't find anything, and by attacking them, he proved that there was physical evidence to be found, and that he was among the suspects. This is an exploitable weakness. Batman is all about exploiting personality stuff (see tvtropes "Batman Gambit"). Batman wins. On the other hand I'm not familiar with the list of people who have discovered Wayne's identity and how they did it. A better Batmanigan will have to fill us in on how plausible it is that Kira could find his name and face. edit: TL;DR: Batman could certainly find out who Kira is and take him out, but I'm not completely certain who could find who faster. I'm leaning toward Batman, though.

whowouldwin

t5_2s599

cebxs1g

At what point in Death Note? I'm assuming after Kira's experiments, so he knows fully how it works. Correspondingly assuming Batman is fully-trained and has decent experience fighting supervillains. Both have impressive strategic ability, but as far as I've seen, Batman is usually up against opponents who are a lot less intelligent than he is. Kira has more experience in that department, but does make critical mistakes and isn't able to lose a battle to win the war. When L sent the detectives to investigate Kira suspects, all Kira had to do was wait. The detectives didn't find anything, and by attacking them, he proved that there was physical evidence to be found, and that he was among the suspects. This is an exploitable weakness. Batman is all about exploiting personality stuff (see tvtropes "Batman Gambit"). Batman wins. On the other hand I'm not familiar with the list of people who have discovered Wayne's identity and how they did it. A better Batmanigan will have to fill us in on how plausible it is that Kira could find his name and face. edit:

Batman could certainly find out who Kira is and take him out, but I'm not completely certain who could find who faster. I'm leaning toward Batman, though.

hesham8

This might be an unpopular opinion, but: You don't need most supplements. All you need is protein powder, flax seed or fish oil, green tea (the real brewed stuff - not pills), maybe a multivitamin, and maybe creatine if it fits into your goals. Everything else is garbage. Here's why: 1. Most supplements have little-to-no real effect. Sorry proponents of supplements. 2. Supplements are very poorly regulated. They have little to no quality control and inspection, and supplements are often contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, or prescription drugs. 3. China is a major supplier of raw supplement ingredients. Many, but not all, of their raw ingredients have been contaminated. 4. The only independent supplement testing and regulating agency I'm aware of is USP. How many of your supplements are USP Verified? 5. Some of the largest supplement manufacturers cannot control their quality. If HydroxyCut - which is a multi-billion dollar entity - cannot control their own products, whose to say that MegaLift9001 can? 6. Neither GNC nor BodyBuilding.com are willing to post test results for banned substances, testing methodology, who does the testing and where, and so on. In fact, BodyBuilding.com was fined $7,000,000 a few years back because they didn't test their products for illegal substances - i.e., steroids. If they aren't testing for steroids, they aren't testing for more harmful substances like lead or arsenic. 7. Pre-workouts are often highly unsafe. Back in the day, they were ephedrine-based and athletes were dropping dead in the middle of their game or workout. Then, they were DMAA and people still died (albeit fewer). 8. If at this point you're not convinced, buy yourself some C4 or Jack3d or something. TLDR: You don't need a pre-workout beyond a cup (or two) of coffee. Keep your supplementation to a minimum.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but: You don't need most supplements. All you need is protein powder, flax seed or fish oil, green tea (the real brewed stuff - not pills), maybe a multivitamin, and maybe creatine if it fits into your goals. Everything else is garbage. Here's why: Most supplements have little-to-no real effect. Sorry proponents of supplements. Supplements are very poorly regulated. They have little to no quality control and inspection, and supplements are often contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, or prescription drugs. China is a major supplier of raw supplement ingredients. Many, but not all, of their raw ingredients have been contaminated. The only independent supplement testing and regulating agency I'm aware of is USP. How many of your supplements are USP Verified? Some of the largest supplement manufacturers cannot control their quality. If HydroxyCut - which is a multi-billion dollar entity - cannot control their own products, whose to say that MegaLift9001 can? Neither GNC nor BodyBuilding.com are willing to post test results for banned substances, testing methodology, who does the testing and where, and so on. In fact, BodyBuilding.com was fined $7,000,000 a few years back because they didn't test their products for illegal substances - i.e., steroids. If they aren't testing for steroids, they aren't testing for more harmful substances like lead or arsenic. Pre-workouts are often highly unsafe. Back in the day, they were ephedrine-based and athletes were dropping dead in the middle of their game or workout. Then, they were DMAA and people still died (albeit fewer). If at this point you're not convinced, buy yourself some C4 or Jack3d or something. TLDR: You don't need a pre-workout beyond a cup (or two) of coffee. Keep your supplementation to a minimum.

Fitness

t5_2qhx4

cec60jj

This might be an unpopular opinion, but: You don't need most supplements. All you need is protein powder, flax seed or fish oil, green tea (the real brewed stuff - not pills), maybe a multivitamin, and maybe creatine if it fits into your goals. Everything else is garbage. Here's why: Most supplements have little-to-no real effect. Sorry proponents of supplements. Supplements are very poorly regulated. They have little to no quality control and inspection, and supplements are often contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, or prescription drugs. China is a major supplier of raw supplement ingredients. Many, but not all, of their raw ingredients have been contaminated. The only independent supplement testing and regulating agency I'm aware of is USP. How many of your supplements are USP Verified? Some of the largest supplement manufacturers cannot control their quality. If HydroxyCut - which is a multi-billion dollar entity - cannot control their own products, whose to say that MegaLift9001 can? Neither GNC nor BodyBuilding.com are willing to post test results for banned substances, testing methodology, who does the testing and where, and so on. In fact, BodyBuilding.com was fined $7,000,000 a few years back because they didn't test their products for illegal substances - i.e., steroids. If they aren't testing for steroids, they aren't testing for more harmful substances like lead or arsenic. Pre-workouts are often highly unsafe. Back in the day, they were ephedrine-based and athletes were dropping dead in the middle of their game or workout. Then, they were DMAA and people still died (albeit fewer). If at this point you're not convinced, buy yourself some C4 or Jack3d or something.

You don't need a pre-workout beyond a cup (or two) of coffee. Keep your supplementation to a minimum.

Apfelhaus

I like the idea of creating a complex construct to build an elevator. You would need an hoistway and doors and an engine etc. I didn't really like better than wolves. It was with very much wood and not enough tech-stuff. It should be kinda expensive but especially an engineering challenge. Applied Energistics is one of my favourite mods. But when i think back to the time where only BC was available, everything took longer to build and set up. The new IC is going the right way: more expensive recipes, more machines needed..... **tl;dr** Everything is just getting to simple. Builds need to be more challenging.

I like the idea of creating a complex construct to build an elevator. You would need an hoistway and doors and an engine etc. I didn't really like better than wolves. It was with very much wood and not enough tech-stuff. It should be kinda expensive but especially an engineering challenge. Applied Energistics is one of my favourite mods. But when i think back to the time where only BC was available, everything took longer to build and set up. The new IC is going the right way: more expensive recipes, more machines needed..... tl;dr Everything is just getting to simple. Builds need to be more challenging.

feedthebeast

t5_2v620

cec6s2c

I like the idea of creating a complex construct to build an elevator. You would need an hoistway and doors and an engine etc. I didn't really like better than wolves. It was with very much wood and not enough tech-stuff. It should be kinda expensive but especially an engineering challenge. Applied Energistics is one of my favourite mods. But when i think back to the time where only BC was available, everything took longer to build and set up. The new IC is going the right way: more expensive recipes, more machines needed.....

Everything is just getting to simple. Builds need to be more challenging.

mercurious

Collection Commentary: A well-rounded contemporary hot sauce collection should include exemplary specimens of an habanero, scotch bonnet, “sriracha” and a specialty pepper sauces like a naga jolokia. With these three pepper categories in your pantry, you can cover a broad base of spicy flavor profiles into your daily cuisines, including Pan-Asian, Pan-American, and Indo-Carribean. Marie Sharp’s of Belize is arguably the world’s best habanero sauce. I've visited her factory and fields. Her varieties are world-class, the prickly pear version (not pictured) being the pinnacle of unique flavor-heat balance. Did you know Melissa’s is the spiteful imitation version of Marie Sharp’s, as a Costa Rican businessman attempted and failed to obtain Marie Sharp’s secret recipe? He knowingly peddles an inferior sauce in retribution of Marie Sharp’s cunning ability to maintain her trade secret. This is the myth and lore you gather at the factory. Matouk’s Calypso Hot Hot Hot of Trinidad & Tobago must be the world’s best scotch bonnet sauce. Try it on BBQ chicken on the beach and you’ll understand. My third time with Matouk’s involved a life changing colon cleanse. Ever since, with my tolerance established it remains my goto sauce when I’m seeking a robust enhancement of just about any meal. Turn rice and beans into a conflagration with Matouk’s. Given that the hometown of Huy Fong Food’s original Sriricha “rooster sauce,” Rosemead, California has mounted a legal attack on the company for health nuisances during production of its famous red jalapeño sauce, the threat of local residents jeopardizing future production is troubling for rooster sauce lovers like myself. I’ll take no chances in the meantime and stock up while searching for superior small batch sources to tide me over while Huy Fong vs. NIMBY plays out in the courts. Note the Brooklyn small batch Jojo’s Sriracha on the far right in the small jar, batch no. 05003. Obviously I haven't tried my specialty sauces yet, including the Iguana En Fuego, a habanero shade by Half Moon Bay Trading Co, and Ghost in the Darkness, a naga jolokia and peri-peri blend from the Pepper Palace. Both sauces originate from Florida. The Queen Majesty is my specialty scotch bonnet sauce to contrast Matouk’s strength with the small Brooklyn batch artisanal quality from 11/13/13. TL:DR; all you need is Marie Sharp’s, Matouk’s Calypso and Huy Fong Sriracha and you’re set.

Collection Commentary: A well-rounded contemporary hot sauce collection should include exemplary specimens of an habanero, scotch bonnet, “sriracha” and a specialty pepper sauces like a naga jolokia. With these three pepper categories in your pantry, you can cover a broad base of spicy flavor profiles into your daily cuisines, including Pan-Asian, Pan-American, and Indo-Carribean. Marie Sharp’s of Belize is arguably the world’s best habanero sauce. I've visited her factory and fields. Her varieties are world-class, the prickly pear version (not pictured) being the pinnacle of unique flavor-heat balance. Did you know Melissa’s is the spiteful imitation version of Marie Sharp’s, as a Costa Rican businessman attempted and failed to obtain Marie Sharp’s secret recipe? He knowingly peddles an inferior sauce in retribution of Marie Sharp’s cunning ability to maintain her trade secret. This is the myth and lore you gather at the factory. Matouk’s Calypso Hot Hot Hot of Trinidad & Tobago must be the world’s best scotch bonnet sauce. Try it on BBQ chicken on the beach and you’ll understand. My third time with Matouk’s involved a life changing colon cleanse. Ever since, with my tolerance established it remains my goto sauce when I’m seeking a robust enhancement of just about any meal. Turn rice and beans into a conflagration with Matouk’s. Given that the hometown of Huy Fong Food’s original Sriricha “rooster sauce,” Rosemead, California has mounted a legal attack on the company for health nuisances during production of its famous red jalapeño sauce, the threat of local residents jeopardizing future production is troubling for rooster sauce lovers like myself. I’ll take no chances in the meantime and stock up while searching for superior small batch sources to tide me over while Huy Fong vs. NIMBY plays out in the courts. Note the Brooklyn small batch Jojo’s Sriracha on the far right in the small jar, batch no. 05003. Obviously I haven't tried my specialty sauces yet, including the Iguana En Fuego, a habanero shade by Half Moon Bay Trading Co, and Ghost in the Darkness, a naga jolokia and peri-peri blend from the Pepper Palace. Both sauces originate from Florida. The Queen Majesty is my specialty scotch bonnet sauce to contrast Matouk’s strength with the small Brooklyn batch artisanal quality from 11/13/13. TL:DR; all you need is Marie Sharp’s, Matouk’s Calypso and Huy Fong Sriracha and you’re set.

spicy

t5_2s1qd

ceca44v

Collection Commentary: A well-rounded contemporary hot sauce collection should include exemplary specimens of an habanero, scotch bonnet, “sriracha” and a specialty pepper sauces like a naga jolokia. With these three pepper categories in your pantry, you can cover a broad base of spicy flavor profiles into your daily cuisines, including Pan-Asian, Pan-American, and Indo-Carribean. Marie Sharp’s of Belize is arguably the world’s best habanero sauce. I've visited her factory and fields. Her varieties are world-class, the prickly pear version (not pictured) being the pinnacle of unique flavor-heat balance. Did you know Melissa’s is the spiteful imitation version of Marie Sharp’s, as a Costa Rican businessman attempted and failed to obtain Marie Sharp’s secret recipe? He knowingly peddles an inferior sauce in retribution of Marie Sharp’s cunning ability to maintain her trade secret. This is the myth and lore you gather at the factory. Matouk’s Calypso Hot Hot Hot of Trinidad & Tobago must be the world’s best scotch bonnet sauce. Try it on BBQ chicken on the beach and you’ll understand. My third time with Matouk’s involved a life changing colon cleanse. Ever since, with my tolerance established it remains my goto sauce when I’m seeking a robust enhancement of just about any meal. Turn rice and beans into a conflagration with Matouk’s. Given that the hometown of Huy Fong Food’s original Sriricha “rooster sauce,” Rosemead, California has mounted a legal attack on the company for health nuisances during production of its famous red jalapeño sauce, the threat of local residents jeopardizing future production is troubling for rooster sauce lovers like myself. I’ll take no chances in the meantime and stock up while searching for superior small batch sources to tide me over while Huy Fong vs. NIMBY plays out in the courts. Note the Brooklyn small batch Jojo’s Sriracha on the far right in the small jar, batch no. 05003. Obviously I haven't tried my specialty sauces yet, including the Iguana En Fuego, a habanero shade by Half Moon Bay Trading Co, and Ghost in the Darkness, a naga jolokia and peri-peri blend from the Pepper Palace. Both sauces originate from Florida. The Queen Majesty is my specialty scotch bonnet sauce to contrast Matouk’s strength with the small Brooklyn batch artisanal quality from 11/13/13.

all you need is Marie Sharp’s, Matouk’s Calypso and Huy Fong Sriracha and you’re set.

SwisschaletDipSauce

My brother was seeing a real winner one time. One summer I moved in with my brother to save for College. She was "nice" but she was very annoying. She would ask for money which I gave her a few bucks the first time. Then it became a weekly thing and I said no. (I didn't tell my brother out of respect.) Then she was using other things like my blank dvds I use for projects, I was happy to lend them out because we all enjoyed movies... but they would go missing. I asked about this, and she said she sold the movies she burnt on them to her friends. (This pissed me off because thy were mine and I was pretty poor at the time. I loved seeing movies, but I don't think it was fair that she was using my dvds to sell off. This seems so petish now that I do ok, but understand then I was barely getting by with my summer job.) So i was sitting there playing a videogame, (At this point I didn't trust her.) she was sending out "resumes". What she was really doing was sending an email off to her lover. I don't think she realized I have very good eyes, and I could read half her email, baffles me further that she had to balls to be doing this in front of me because the computer was next to the tv and I could just maneuver to read over her shoulder. (And believe me, I did.) I was so angry, it was so hard for me to not boot her ass out right then and there. I went for a walk to calm down and think about what I should do. They had been together for about a year. I decided to tell my brother even though he might kick me out and take her side. She never left that evening, so I told him when she went off to bed. First I hugged him and then I told him what I saw and everything she had been doing. I told him she is a leech, and basically he deserved better than this. He was quite upset and I felt horrible but I wanted him going in the right direction. I was nervous, but I guess this is when I knew he really trusted and respected me. (And vice versa.) He kicked her out the next morning. She came back to pack her stuff up, she brought a friend...it was VERY awkward. This was 3-4 years ago. Now he recently proposed to a woman he used to know growing up over the holidays, and she is just terrific! I'm so happy how his life has went a complete 180 and has a loving family. I really think brother or not, if you respect or trust that person, you should tell them. It's the right thing to do. TL/DR- Caught Brothers girlfriend a few years ago sending email to lover. Told Brother, he kicked her ass out. Years later, he is now marrying someone awesome. :)

My brother was seeing a real winner one time. One summer I moved in with my brother to save for College. She was "nice" but she was very annoying. She would ask for money which I gave her a few bucks the first time. Then it became a weekly thing and I said no. (I didn't tell my brother out of respect.) Then she was using other things like my blank dvds I use for projects, I was happy to lend them out because we all enjoyed movies... but they would go missing. I asked about this, and she said she sold the movies she burnt on them to her friends. (This pissed me off because thy were mine and I was pretty poor at the time. I loved seeing movies, but I don't think it was fair that she was using my dvds to sell off. This seems so petish now that I do ok, but understand then I was barely getting by with my summer job.) So i was sitting there playing a videogame, (At this point I didn't trust her.) she was sending out "resumes". What she was really doing was sending an email off to her lover. I don't think she realized I have very good eyes, and I could read half her email, baffles me further that she had to balls to be doing this in front of me because the computer was next to the tv and I could just maneuver to read over her shoulder. (And believe me, I did.) I was so angry, it was so hard for me to not boot her ass out right then and there. I went for a walk to calm down and think about what I should do. They had been together for about a year. I decided to tell my brother even though he might kick me out and take her side. She never left that evening, so I told him when she went off to bed. First I hugged him and then I told him what I saw and everything she had been doing. I told him she is a leech, and basically he deserved better than this. He was quite upset and I felt horrible but I wanted him going in the right direction. I was nervous, but I guess this is when I knew he really trusted and respected me. (And vice versa.) He kicked her out the next morning. She came back to pack her stuff up, she brought a friend...it was VERY awkward. This was 3-4 years ago. Now he recently proposed to a woman he used to know growing up over the holidays, and she is just terrific! I'm so happy how his life has went a complete 180 and has a loving family. I really think brother or not, if you respect or trust that person, you should tell them. It's the right thing to do. TL/DR- Caught Brothers girlfriend a few years ago sending email to lover. Told Brother, he kicked her ass out. Years later, he is now marrying someone awesome. :)

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

ceccoa2

My brother was seeing a real winner one time. One summer I moved in with my brother to save for College. She was "nice" but she was very annoying. She would ask for money which I gave her a few bucks the first time. Then it became a weekly thing and I said no. (I didn't tell my brother out of respect.) Then she was using other things like my blank dvds I use for projects, I was happy to lend them out because we all enjoyed movies... but they would go missing. I asked about this, and she said she sold the movies she burnt on them to her friends. (This pissed me off because thy were mine and I was pretty poor at the time. I loved seeing movies, but I don't think it was fair that she was using my dvds to sell off. This seems so petish now that I do ok, but understand then I was barely getting by with my summer job.) So i was sitting there playing a videogame, (At this point I didn't trust her.) she was sending out "resumes". What she was really doing was sending an email off to her lover. I don't think she realized I have very good eyes, and I could read half her email, baffles me further that she had to balls to be doing this in front of me because the computer was next to the tv and I could just maneuver to read over her shoulder. (And believe me, I did.) I was so angry, it was so hard for me to not boot her ass out right then and there. I went for a walk to calm down and think about what I should do. They had been together for about a year. I decided to tell my brother even though he might kick me out and take her side. She never left that evening, so I told him when she went off to bed. First I hugged him and then I told him what I saw and everything she had been doing. I told him she is a leech, and basically he deserved better than this. He was quite upset and I felt horrible but I wanted him going in the right direction. I was nervous, but I guess this is when I knew he really trusted and respected me. (And vice versa.) He kicked her out the next morning. She came back to pack her stuff up, she brought a friend...it was VERY awkward. This was 3-4 years ago. Now he recently proposed to a woman he used to know growing up over the holidays, and she is just terrific! I'm so happy how his life has went a complete 180 and has a loving family. I really think brother or not, if you respect or trust that person, you should tell them. It's the right thing to do.

Caught Brothers girlfriend a few years ago sending email to lover. Told Brother, he kicked her ass out. Years later, he is now marrying someone awesome. :)

Jinsei_Ubuntu

I used to hang out with this girl all the time, we had been best friends in highschool but she had always been dating someone or another, and I never got the chance to ask her out. fastforward to 4 years after highschool, she contacts me and starts wanting to hang out. We become close friends again, and she's extremely introverted so all we ever do is hang out in her room watching shit she likes. Months later, out of the blue, she completely stops all contact with me. After a month or so, I finally catch up and ask her what her problem was.. and it came out as " I felt like you were looking for a way to hit on me ". I was mind blown. This "Woman" had completely destroyed an innocent relationship over that fact she "THOUGHT" I wanted to hit on her... without ever having made a single move on her. EDIT: Best part is, we stayed internet friends and when she moved away, she ended up getting a marine boyfriend. While the marine was deployed in japan, she told me a hot guy in her Co-Ed housing was trying real hard. She ended up giving him a blowjob and telling me about "How crazy it was" because she had only been there for a couple of days. Needless to say, I messaged her boyfriend within minutes to copy/paste everything she sent to me.. to him. FeltGoodMan.JPG TL;DR Women have the deep habit of over analyzing everyone around them, and destroying their own friends. One destroyed mine so I destroyed her.

I used to hang out with this girl all the time, we had been best friends in highschool but she had always been dating someone or another, and I never got the chance to ask her out. fastforward to 4 years after highschool, she contacts me and starts wanting to hang out. We become close friends again, and she's extremely introverted so all we ever do is hang out in her room watching shit she likes. Months later, out of the blue, she completely stops all contact with me. After a month or so, I finally catch up and ask her what her problem was.. and it came out as " I felt like you were looking for a way to hit on me ". I was mind blown. This "Woman" had completely destroyed an innocent relationship over that fact she "THOUGHT" I wanted to hit on her... without ever having made a single move on her. EDIT: Best part is, we stayed internet friends and when she moved away, she ended up getting a marine boyfriend. While the marine was deployed in japan, she told me a hot guy in her Co-Ed housing was trying real hard. She ended up giving him a blowjob and telling me about "How crazy it was" because she had only been there for a couple of days. Needless to say, I messaged her boyfriend within minutes to copy/paste everything she sent to me.. to him. FeltGoodMan.JPG TL;DR Women have the deep habit of over analyzing everyone around them, and destroying their own friends. One destroyed mine so I destroyed her.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cecjld2

I used to hang out with this girl all the time, we had been best friends in highschool but she had always been dating someone or another, and I never got the chance to ask her out. fastforward to 4 years after highschool, she contacts me and starts wanting to hang out. We become close friends again, and she's extremely introverted so all we ever do is hang out in her room watching shit she likes. Months later, out of the blue, she completely stops all contact with me. After a month or so, I finally catch up and ask her what her problem was.. and it came out as " I felt like you were looking for a way to hit on me ". I was mind blown. This "Woman" had completely destroyed an innocent relationship over that fact she "THOUGHT" I wanted to hit on her... without ever having made a single move on her. EDIT: Best part is, we stayed internet friends and when she moved away, she ended up getting a marine boyfriend. While the marine was deployed in japan, she told me a hot guy in her Co-Ed housing was trying real hard. She ended up giving him a blowjob and telling me about "How crazy it was" because she had only been there for a couple of days. Needless to say, I messaged her boyfriend within minutes to copy/paste everything she sent to me.. to him. FeltGoodMan.JPG

Women have the deep habit of over analyzing everyone around them, and destroying their own friends. One destroyed mine so I destroyed her.

DonkeyDingleBerry

Start with the sensitivity set low, get used to things, then start winding it up. I tried with hyper sensitive from the get go, and spent more time trying to correct myself then actually being able to see anything. It really does become natural. Deadzones help when you have the sensitivity turned up. how big of a dead zone is a personal preference. Zooming can be interesting at first, but im getting used to it. May still switch to mouse. TLDR: Start off with factory settings, then after two or so weeks start playing with things.

Start with the sensitivity set low, get used to things, then start winding it up. I tried with hyper sensitive from the get go, and spent more time trying to correct myself then actually being able to see anything. It really does become natural. Deadzones help when you have the sensitivity turned up. how big of a dead zone is a personal preference. Zooming can be interesting at first, but im getting used to it. May still switch to mouse. TLDR: Start off with factory settings, then after two or so weeks start playing with things.

Warthunder

t5_2uc6j

cecgexl

Start with the sensitivity set low, get used to things, then start winding it up. I tried with hyper sensitive from the get go, and spent more time trying to correct myself then actually being able to see anything. It really does become natural. Deadzones help when you have the sensitivity turned up. how big of a dead zone is a personal preference. Zooming can be interesting at first, but im getting used to it. May still switch to mouse.

Start off with factory settings, then after two or so weeks start playing with things.

thisisarecountry

That's an interesting viewpoint. I've known people of greater privilege than myself who are allies to the underprivileged, while I know a lot of working class, underclass, and even homeless people who adore the ownership class and their propaganda. Part of the problem of privilege, I think, is that it allows people with greater privilege to be more aware of the reality of their situation. A lot of people are not privileged enough to analyze their situation because their struggle is all-consuming. All they have to work with, with the little free time they have, is the propaganda that demonizes them. I once ran into a homeless woman who decried herself and her comrades as "lazy." She backed up the pigs in ousting them from the safe place they had found to sleep. I tried explaining to her that there was nothing wrong with her, that she deserved the ability to sleep in a safe place, but she wouldn't hear it. It broke my heart. I, myself, struggled with this sort of shit for years. It can destroy you if you don't have the tools to fight it. It took me a long time to overcome the hate that I had internalized. It's very hard to overcome this shit when it hits you from every angle, and when the tools to fight it are dangled outside of your reach. We have to realize that there are a lot of people who are told they aren't human and who don't have the tools to counter. They live in a world that attacks them so ceaselessly that the only real defense they have is to internalize it and to separate themselves from overwhelming guilt by siding with the scum who attack them. I think that one of the best things a privileged person can do is to provide an alternative voice to these attacks, and to try to help the underprivileged realize that they *are* human, that they deserve to live a fulfilling life, and that the leeches at the top have actively created a system that not only destroys them but demonizes them in the process. tl;dr Burn this motherfucker down

That's an interesting viewpoint. I've known people of greater privilege than myself who are allies to the underprivileged, while I know a lot of working class, underclass, and even homeless people who adore the ownership class and their propaganda. Part of the problem of privilege, I think, is that it allows people with greater privilege to be more aware of the reality of their situation. A lot of people are not privileged enough to analyze their situation because their struggle is all-consuming. All they have to work with, with the little free time they have, is the propaganda that demonizes them. I once ran into a homeless woman who decried herself and her comrades as "lazy." She backed up the pigs in ousting them from the safe place they had found to sleep. I tried explaining to her that there was nothing wrong with her, that she deserved the ability to sleep in a safe place, but she wouldn't hear it. It broke my heart. I, myself, struggled with this sort of shit for years. It can destroy you if you don't have the tools to fight it. It took me a long time to overcome the hate that I had internalized. It's very hard to overcome this shit when it hits you from every angle, and when the tools to fight it are dangled outside of your reach. We have to realize that there are a lot of people who are told they aren't human and who don't have the tools to counter. They live in a world that attacks them so ceaselessly that the only real defense they have is to internalize it and to separate themselves from overwhelming guilt by siding with the scum who attack them. I think that one of the best things a privileged person can do is to provide an alternative voice to these attacks, and to try to help the underprivileged realize that they are human, that they deserve to live a fulfilling life, and that the leeches at the top have actively created a system that not only destroys them but demonizes them in the process. tl;dr Burn this motherfucker down

Anarchy101

t5_2s960

ceci2lh

That's an interesting viewpoint. I've known people of greater privilege than myself who are allies to the underprivileged, while I know a lot of working class, underclass, and even homeless people who adore the ownership class and their propaganda. Part of the problem of privilege, I think, is that it allows people with greater privilege to be more aware of the reality of their situation. A lot of people are not privileged enough to analyze their situation because their struggle is all-consuming. All they have to work with, with the little free time they have, is the propaganda that demonizes them. I once ran into a homeless woman who decried herself and her comrades as "lazy." She backed up the pigs in ousting them from the safe place they had found to sleep. I tried explaining to her that there was nothing wrong with her, that she deserved the ability to sleep in a safe place, but she wouldn't hear it. It broke my heart. I, myself, struggled with this sort of shit for years. It can destroy you if you don't have the tools to fight it. It took me a long time to overcome the hate that I had internalized. It's very hard to overcome this shit when it hits you from every angle, and when the tools to fight it are dangled outside of your reach. We have to realize that there are a lot of people who are told they aren't human and who don't have the tools to counter. They live in a world that attacks them so ceaselessly that the only real defense they have is to internalize it and to separate themselves from overwhelming guilt by siding with the scum who attack them. I think that one of the best things a privileged person can do is to provide an alternative voice to these attacks, and to try to help the underprivileged realize that they are human, that they deserve to live a fulfilling life, and that the leeches at the top have actively created a system that not only destroys them but demonizes them in the process.

Burn this motherfucker down

JohnRoars

Doesn't matter if he's joking. That headline hurts the pace of adoption. Now a whole bunch of people who follow Krugman and happened to have TL;DR'd his article think Bitcoin = Evil.

Doesn't matter if he's joking. That headline hurts the pace of adoption. Now a whole bunch of people who follow Krugman and happened to have TL;DR'd his article think Bitcoin = Evil.

Bitcoin

t5_2s3qj

cecilvt

Doesn't matter if he's joking. That headline hurts the pace of adoption. Now a whole bunch of people who follow Krugman and happened to have

d his article think Bitcoin = Evil.

herps

Well there is evidence that we generate during the act which is impossible to fake. Plus we arent as good at faking that sort of thing, especially when we are expected to do most of the work. Also as a man who has on occasion faked it, getting caught is much more devastating for the other party. Society expects woman to fake it, but if a man does it then its big deal, he must not be attracted anymore to his SO or hes cheating etc. etc. Never do they consider that maybe he had some bad sushi and is suffering from some nasty food poisoning while on a once in a lifetime expensive romantic vacation with his SO, so he can't back out of sex without upsetting her even more. TL:DR: If a man catches a woman faking it its "Ohhh well I got mine, they do that once in a while, time for sleepy time." But if a woman catches a man faking it its "He must not want me anymore and he's going to leave me for his hot ex NBA cheerleader coworker who I secretly hate but act super nice to her face everytime I see her."

Well there is evidence that we generate during the act which is impossible to fake. Plus we arent as good at faking that sort of thing, especially when we are expected to do most of the work. Also as a man who has on occasion faked it, getting caught is much more devastating for the other party. Society expects woman to fake it, but if a man does it then its big deal, he must not be attracted anymore to his SO or hes cheating etc. etc. Never do they consider that maybe he had some bad sushi and is suffering from some nasty food poisoning while on a once in a lifetime expensive romantic vacation with his SO, so he can't back out of sex without upsetting her even more. TL:DR: If a man catches a woman faking it its "Ohhh well I got mine, they do that once in a while, time for sleepy time." But if a woman catches a man faking it its "He must not want me anymore and he's going to leave me for his hot ex NBA cheerleader coworker who I secretly hate but act super nice to her face everytime I see her."

TrollXChromosomes

t5_2sekm

ced4baq

Well there is evidence that we generate during the act which is impossible to fake. Plus we arent as good at faking that sort of thing, especially when we are expected to do most of the work. Also as a man who has on occasion faked it, getting caught is much more devastating for the other party. Society expects woman to fake it, but if a man does it then its big deal, he must not be attracted anymore to his SO or hes cheating etc. etc. Never do they consider that maybe he had some bad sushi and is suffering from some nasty food poisoning while on a once in a lifetime expensive romantic vacation with his SO, so he can't back out of sex without upsetting her even more.

If a man catches a woman faking it its "Ohhh well I got mine, they do that once in a while, time for sleepy time." But if a woman catches a man faking it its "He must not want me anymore and he's going to leave me for his hot ex NBA cheerleader coworker who I secretly hate but act super nice to her face everytime I see her."

dodeca_negative

> The cost to business has already been hundreds of millions of dollars in excess development and maintenance costs That's amazing. I'd love to examine the research behind this claim. EDIT: Put on sunglasses, then visit the letter author's [glorious web zone]( EDIT 2: tl;dr "'Goto considered harmful' considered harmful' considered harmful

> The cost to business has already been hundreds of millions of dollars in excess development and maintenance costs That's amazing. I'd love to examine the research behind this claim. EDIT: Put on sunglasses, then visit the letter author's [glorious web zone]( EDIT 2: tl;dr "'Goto considered harmful' considered harmful' considered harmful

technology

t5_2qh16

ced0g56

The cost to business has already been hundreds of millions of dollars in excess development and maintenance costs That's amazing. I'd love to examine the research behind this claim. EDIT: Put on sunglasses, then visit the letter author's [glorious web zone]( EDIT 2:

Goto considered harmful' considered harmful' considered harmful

Tannandler

looking back, i should have, but i was a really shy kid and all this happened when i was a freshman in high school. tl;dr stupid kids doing stupid things.

looking back, i should have, but i was a really shy kid and all this happened when i was a freshman in high school. tl;dr stupid kids doing stupid things.

movies

t5_2qh3s

ced0aia

looking back, i should have, but i was a really shy kid and all this happened when i was a freshman in high school.

stupid kids doing stupid things.

crstanier

You're so right about the slaves. I started a new campaign on VH and was really struggling with PO early game. It all just seemed to collapse around me. It took me a few turns to realise that I was screwing myself with slaves. Took me a lot more turns to fix the mess I caused and really slowed down my expansion. Initially I was getting irritated but looking back on it I enjoyed how the mechanic worked. tl;dr Don't enslave too much, causes massive PO problems.

You're so right about the slaves. I started a new campaign on VH and was really struggling with PO early game. It all just seemed to collapse around me. It took me a few turns to realise that I was screwing myself with slaves. Took me a lot more turns to fix the mess I caused and really slowed down my expansion. Initially I was getting irritated but looking back on it I enjoyed how the mechanic worked. tl;dr Don't enslave too much, causes massive PO problems.

totalwar

t5_2rq9c

cedewj5

You're so right about the slaves. I started a new campaign on VH and was really struggling with PO early game. It all just seemed to collapse around me. It took me a few turns to realise that I was screwing myself with slaves. Took me a lot more turns to fix the mess I caused and really slowed down my expansion. Initially I was getting irritated but looking back on it I enjoyed how the mechanic worked.

Don't enslave too much, causes massive PO problems.

RyanDwyer

The guy needs to learn how to talk to managers. If you only approach them with problems then they'll think you're the problem, especially if the previous guy never approached them with problems. He said he had to move the equipment one floor in the first week. He should have made a list of things that need to be checked and organised (eg. connect phone line, run and test cat5 cable, suggestion to buy new rack) and presented it to management for their review. If they questioned anything on the list he can then explain why he included it (eg. should buy rack otherwise there'll be more downtime). This gives management the feeling that they're "managing" it. If they make a poor decision, make sure they're aware of the risks and consequences then just do it. Don't argue. They're the managers, not you. Once the urgency of the move is over, he should have run an audit/investigation and made a report for management giving the state of the systems and his recommendations. Eg. backups are only done locally and there's risk that a hardware failure could cause irrepairable damage to the business, possibly creating unhappy customers or forcing its closure. Cost to fix = X. The phone system is end of life and its failure could cause several days of no sales. Cost to fix = Y. It should also include minor things like cables being unlabelled. The report should also include good things so you don't appear pessimistic. Find something that's done well and include it. For example, choice of server OS or the fact that some hardware is not overloaded. Management can then review the report and decide which ones to implement and in what priority. The guy said he came from a bigger company who did things properly. Well, newsflash: Not every company is in the position to do that. I once worked for a manager who refused to replace a $60 UPS for our office server. They were aware of the risks and I accepted their decision. We ran it off mains power for several months afterwards. In my case the company was not profitable. Running the server with battery backup and surge protection was less important than their financial obligations. I'm not saying the video guy's company is unprofitable, but they might have strict budgets or might have made promises to investors that they really don't want to break. You don't know their situation it's not your job to know. TL;DR: The guy should have presented his findings to his managers along with risks, suggestions and costs, then not question their decision once they've made it.

The guy needs to learn how to talk to managers. If you only approach them with problems then they'll think you're the problem, especially if the previous guy never approached them with problems. He said he had to move the equipment one floor in the first week. He should have made a list of things that need to be checked and organised (eg. connect phone line, run and test cat5 cable, suggestion to buy new rack) and presented it to management for their review. If they questioned anything on the list he can then explain why he included it (eg. should buy rack otherwise there'll be more downtime). This gives management the feeling that they're "managing" it. If they make a poor decision, make sure they're aware of the risks and consequences then just do it. Don't argue. They're the managers, not you. Once the urgency of the move is over, he should have run an audit/investigation and made a report for management giving the state of the systems and his recommendations. Eg. backups are only done locally and there's risk that a hardware failure could cause irrepairable damage to the business, possibly creating unhappy customers or forcing its closure. Cost to fix = X. The phone system is end of life and its failure could cause several days of no sales. Cost to fix = Y. It should also include minor things like cables being unlabelled. The report should also include good things so you don't appear pessimistic. Find something that's done well and include it. For example, choice of server OS or the fact that some hardware is not overloaded. Management can then review the report and decide which ones to implement and in what priority. The guy said he came from a bigger company who did things properly. Well, newsflash: Not every company is in the position to do that. I once worked for a manager who refused to replace a $60 UPS for our office server. They were aware of the risks and I accepted their decision. We ran it off mains power for several months afterwards. In my case the company was not profitable. Running the server with battery backup and surge protection was less important than their financial obligations. I'm not saying the video guy's company is unprofitable, but they might have strict budgets or might have made promises to investors that they really don't want to break. You don't know their situation it's not your job to know. TL;DR: The guy should have presented his findings to his managers along with risks, suggestions and costs, then not question their decision once they've made it.

sysadmin

t5_2qnp7

ced8m6v

The guy needs to learn how to talk to managers. If you only approach them with problems then they'll think you're the problem, especially if the previous guy never approached them with problems. He said he had to move the equipment one floor in the first week. He should have made a list of things that need to be checked and organised (eg. connect phone line, run and test cat5 cable, suggestion to buy new rack) and presented it to management for their review. If they questioned anything on the list he can then explain why he included it (eg. should buy rack otherwise there'll be more downtime). This gives management the feeling that they're "managing" it. If they make a poor decision, make sure they're aware of the risks and consequences then just do it. Don't argue. They're the managers, not you. Once the urgency of the move is over, he should have run an audit/investigation and made a report for management giving the state of the systems and his recommendations. Eg. backups are only done locally and there's risk that a hardware failure could cause irrepairable damage to the business, possibly creating unhappy customers or forcing its closure. Cost to fix = X. The phone system is end of life and its failure could cause several days of no sales. Cost to fix = Y. It should also include minor things like cables being unlabelled. The report should also include good things so you don't appear pessimistic. Find something that's done well and include it. For example, choice of server OS or the fact that some hardware is not overloaded. Management can then review the report and decide which ones to implement and in what priority. The guy said he came from a bigger company who did things properly. Well, newsflash: Not every company is in the position to do that. I once worked for a manager who refused to replace a $60 UPS for our office server. They were aware of the risks and I accepted their decision. We ran it off mains power for several months afterwards. In my case the company was not profitable. Running the server with battery backup and surge protection was less important than their financial obligations. I'm not saying the video guy's company is unprofitable, but they might have strict budgets or might have made promises to investors that they really don't want to break. You don't know their situation it's not your job to know.

The guy should have presented his findings to his managers along with risks, suggestions and costs, then not question their decision once they've made it.

gallonsofgourp

I was at the movie theatre with my cousin seeing the Avengers when it first came out. Right in the middle of the huge battle scene where the aliens are coming down she starts freaking out because she can't breathe. So we walk out of the movie and grab a cab home. She thinks her throat is closing up. I give her some benadryl because she is allergic to everything and it was probably a reaction but she is still panicking and insists I call 911. By the time they get there the medicine has kicked in and she is fine. TL;DR My cousin panicked that her throat was closing up and I missed the best part of the movie.

I was at the movie theatre with my cousin seeing the Avengers when it first came out. Right in the middle of the huge battle scene where the aliens are coming down she starts freaking out because she can't breathe. So we walk out of the movie and grab a cab home. She thinks her throat is closing up. I give her some benadryl because she is allergic to everything and it was probably a reaction but she is still panicking and insists I call 911. By the time they get there the medicine has kicked in and she is fine. TL;DR My cousin panicked that her throat was closing up and I missed the best part of the movie.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cedf0b2

I was at the movie theatre with my cousin seeing the Avengers when it first came out. Right in the middle of the huge battle scene where the aliens are coming down she starts freaking out because she can't breathe. So we walk out of the movie and grab a cab home. She thinks her throat is closing up. I give her some benadryl because she is allergic to everything and it was probably a reaction but she is still panicking and insists I call 911. By the time they get there the medicine has kicked in and she is fine.

My cousin panicked that her throat was closing up and I missed the best part of the movie.

beefcakez

Aww, crap. I'll try to put up at tl;dr soon (I'm at work too).

Aww, crap. I'll try to put up at tl;dr soon (I'm at work too).

naturalbodybuilding

t5_2vx10

cedlgcr

Aww, crap. I'll try to put up at

soon (I'm at work too).

soggyindo

That would be a reassuring, neat idea of history from an American perspective, but unfortunately it's not true. The American Revolutionary War had no great impact on public opinion in Britain on the issue. Slavery was found to be illegal in England in 1569, and was publicly and legally contested throughout the 1600s, until finally upheld in 1701, when a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England. In the period around 1700 "agitation saw a series of judgments repulse the tide of slavery" - all of this at considerable effort against significant commercial interests. By 1772 even conservative judges were saying of slavery in judgements: "It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it." TL:DR; There was a public mood against slavery before the American Revolutionary War. It took longer to enact in, and for this mood to carry over to, the colonies such as those in North America.

That would be a reassuring, neat idea of history from an American perspective, but unfortunately it's not true. The American Revolutionary War had no great impact on public opinion in Britain on the issue. Slavery was found to be illegal in England in 1569, and was publicly and legally contested throughout the 1600s, until finally upheld in 1701, when a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England. In the period around 1700 "agitation saw a series of judgments repulse the tide of slavery" - all of this at considerable effort against significant commercial interests. By 1772 even conservative judges were saying of slavery in judgements: "It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it." TL:DR; There was a public mood against slavery before the American Revolutionary War. It took longer to enact in, and for this mood to carry over to, the colonies such as those in North America.

todayilearned

t5_2qqjc

ceelb4z

That would be a reassuring, neat idea of history from an American perspective, but unfortunately it's not true. The American Revolutionary War had no great impact on public opinion in Britain on the issue. Slavery was found to be illegal in England in 1569, and was publicly and legally contested throughout the 1600s, until finally upheld in 1701, when a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England. In the period around 1700 "agitation saw a series of judgments repulse the tide of slavery" - all of this at considerable effort against significant commercial interests. By 1772 even conservative judges were saying of slavery in judgements: "It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it."

There was a public mood against slavery before the American Revolutionary War. It took longer to enact in, and for this mood to carry over to, the colonies such as those in North America.

mojojj31

The 350D really only supports a slim radiator up top, like Corsair's line of H1XX AIOs. I'm using a 30mm rad that's already thinner than most radiators, and I already have trouble making clearances. With a standard 25mm fan, the unit smacks right into my motherboard's 8-pin CPU power connector. If I had to do this all over again, I wouldn't choose the 350D for watercooling. Instead, I'd go for the Fractal Arc Mini R2. The Mini R2 supports so much more rad space, including a super thick 360mm rad up top. TLDR; top rad mount won't support rads+fan thicker than 55-60mm. If you don't have the 350D yet, then consider the Arc Mini R2 which has better watercooling support.

The 350D really only supports a slim radiator up top, like Corsair's line of H1XX AIOs. I'm using a 30mm rad that's already thinner than most radiators, and I already have trouble making clearances. With a standard 25mm fan, the unit smacks right into my motherboard's 8-pin CPU power connector. If I had to do this all over again, I wouldn't choose the 350D for watercooling. Instead, I'd go for the Fractal Arc Mini R2. The Mini R2 supports so much more rad space, including a super thick 360mm rad up top. TLDR; top rad mount won't support rads+fan thicker than 55-60mm. If you don't have the 350D yet, then consider the Arc Mini R2 which has better watercooling support.

watercooling

t5_2r01v

cedufwt

The 350D really only supports a slim radiator up top, like Corsair's line of H1XX AIOs. I'm using a 30mm rad that's already thinner than most radiators, and I already have trouble making clearances. With a standard 25mm fan, the unit smacks right into my motherboard's 8-pin CPU power connector. If I had to do this all over again, I wouldn't choose the 350D for watercooling. Instead, I'd go for the Fractal Arc Mini R2. The Mini R2 supports so much more rad space, including a super thick 360mm rad up top.

top rad mount won't support rads+fan thicker than 55-60mm. If you don't have the 350D yet, then consider the Arc Mini R2 which has better watercooling support.

badlife

I'm new, so take what I say with a gain of salt, but I've done both sonic cleaning (using the Hornady sonic cleaner) and wet tumbling (with the Thumbler Model B and stainless media). In my (limited) experience, the sonic cleaner was much faster (20 minutes vs. 3 hours) but simply didn't get the brass as clean as the tumbler. And I'm not talking about 'like new' shine, which is fairly important to me but not critical. The primer pockets and the case interiors didn't come out as nicely in the sonic cleaner as in the tumbler, and both of those are important to me because my ultimate goal is to produce accurate, repeatable, loads. Some other things to think about: * Wet tumbling is louder (but not as loud as vibratory tumblers) * Wet tumbling requires far more handling to get the pins out of the tumbler and separated from the brass without them going all over the place. They are super small, so it's kind of a pain in the ass to deal with them and get them clean after a tumbling session without them going all over the place. If you go this route, do yourself a favour and get pins that can be picked up with a magnet, then get a few rare-earth magnets from the local hardware store. I have one on the end of a telescoping rod that's perfect for picking them up from the kitchen floor. You'll also need a media separator. I live in a small apartment without a separate laundry or utility sink, so I have to do this in the kitchen. It's a lot of futzing around to make sure pins get decently cleaned after a large batch but don't wind up going down the drain. * As mentioned above, if you go the wet tumbling route, get stainless media that can be picked up by a magnet and then buy some very strong (rare earth) magnets. Part of my workflow is to pass each tumbled cartridge over a magnet that I pulled out of an old hard drive I was scrapping, moving the cartridge with the mouth trailing. Every time I work on a batch I will usually find several pins *inside* a cartridge even after media separation. The magnet is strong enough to pull them out as I swipe the case across it. I also inspect the primer pockets at this point, as on more than one occasion I've found several pins jammed together in the flash hole * Wet tumbling also does a way better job of getting brass shavings and tiny bits of brass out of the cases and smoothing off any super sharp edges if you tumble after you trim/chamfer/deburr. TLDR: wet tumbling, in my limited experience, produces inarguably better results. But involves way more work and mess

I'm new, so take what I say with a gain of salt, but I've done both sonic cleaning (using the Hornady sonic cleaner) and wet tumbling (with the Thumbler Model B and stainless media). In my (limited) experience, the sonic cleaner was much faster (20 minutes vs. 3 hours) but simply didn't get the brass as clean as the tumbler. And I'm not talking about 'like new' shine, which is fairly important to me but not critical. The primer pockets and the case interiors didn't come out as nicely in the sonic cleaner as in the tumbler, and both of those are important to me because my ultimate goal is to produce accurate, repeatable, loads. Some other things to think about: Wet tumbling is louder (but not as loud as vibratory tumblers) Wet tumbling requires far more handling to get the pins out of the tumbler and separated from the brass without them going all over the place. They are super small, so it's kind of a pain in the ass to deal with them and get them clean after a tumbling session without them going all over the place. If you go this route, do yourself a favour and get pins that can be picked up with a magnet, then get a few rare-earth magnets from the local hardware store. I have one on the end of a telescoping rod that's perfect for picking them up from the kitchen floor. You'll also need a media separator. I live in a small apartment without a separate laundry or utility sink, so I have to do this in the kitchen. It's a lot of futzing around to make sure pins get decently cleaned after a large batch but don't wind up going down the drain. As mentioned above, if you go the wet tumbling route, get stainless media that can be picked up by a magnet and then buy some very strong (rare earth) magnets. Part of my workflow is to pass each tumbled cartridge over a magnet that I pulled out of an old hard drive I was scrapping, moving the cartridge with the mouth trailing. Every time I work on a batch I will usually find several pins inside a cartridge even after media separation. The magnet is strong enough to pull them out as I swipe the case across it. I also inspect the primer pockets at this point, as on more than one occasion I've found several pins jammed together in the flash hole Wet tumbling also does a way better job of getting brass shavings and tiny bits of brass out of the cases and smoothing off any super sharp edges if you tumble after you trim/chamfer/deburr. TLDR: wet tumbling, in my limited experience, produces inarguably better results. But involves way more work and mess

reloading

t5_2rloq

ceeblbt

I'm new, so take what I say with a gain of salt, but I've done both sonic cleaning (using the Hornady sonic cleaner) and wet tumbling (with the Thumbler Model B and stainless media). In my (limited) experience, the sonic cleaner was much faster (20 minutes vs. 3 hours) but simply didn't get the brass as clean as the tumbler. And I'm not talking about 'like new' shine, which is fairly important to me but not critical. The primer pockets and the case interiors didn't come out as nicely in the sonic cleaner as in the tumbler, and both of those are important to me because my ultimate goal is to produce accurate, repeatable, loads. Some other things to think about: Wet tumbling is louder (but not as loud as vibratory tumblers) Wet tumbling requires far more handling to get the pins out of the tumbler and separated from the brass without them going all over the place. They are super small, so it's kind of a pain in the ass to deal with them and get them clean after a tumbling session without them going all over the place. If you go this route, do yourself a favour and get pins that can be picked up with a magnet, then get a few rare-earth magnets from the local hardware store. I have one on the end of a telescoping rod that's perfect for picking them up from the kitchen floor. You'll also need a media separator. I live in a small apartment without a separate laundry or utility sink, so I have to do this in the kitchen. It's a lot of futzing around to make sure pins get decently cleaned after a large batch but don't wind up going down the drain. As mentioned above, if you go the wet tumbling route, get stainless media that can be picked up by a magnet and then buy some very strong (rare earth) magnets. Part of my workflow is to pass each tumbled cartridge over a magnet that I pulled out of an old hard drive I was scrapping, moving the cartridge with the mouth trailing. Every time I work on a batch I will usually find several pins inside a cartridge even after media separation. The magnet is strong enough to pull them out as I swipe the case across it. I also inspect the primer pockets at this point, as on more than one occasion I've found several pins jammed together in the flash hole Wet tumbling also does a way better job of getting brass shavings and tiny bits of brass out of the cases and smoothing off any super sharp edges if you tumble after you trim/chamfer/deburr.

wet tumbling, in my limited experience, produces inarguably better results. But involves way more work and mess

Unrelated_Incident

This part of it is *fascinating*. It's my favorite part. There are two major things that disrupt this proportionality. First, there are increases in productivity, making each product require less labor, and, if each person desires the same amount of products, reducing the demand of labor in proportion to the population. The other one, which is pretty interesting, has to do with the distribution of wealth. Changes in income of poor people have huge impacts on how much they spend on commodities. If you give someone on minimum wage $100, they will spend it right away because they are already spending basically all their money and still not getting all the "essentials" that middle class people take for granted (like soft toilet paper, or new socks). So the poor person gets $100 and immediate goes and buys new socks or some fancy toilet paper. Likewise if you take $100 from a poor person, that's $100 that would definitely have been spent that won't be spent now. When you contrast that with a middle class person, you see that giving them $100 has less of an impact on demand for goods. If someone gives me $100, I'll just put it into savings and probably not change my buying habits at all. I can already afford everything that I really want and still save some for retirement. And if you give $100 to someone making $1million/year, they won't even notice. What I'm getting to is that high levels of inequality play a significant role in disrupting what would otherwise be a pretty nice proportionality between demand and population. If you have high inequality, there are a lot of poor people that are spending much less than they want to spend and a lot of rich people who aren't really spending more to make up for what the poor people can't spend. If there were low inequality, the demand for goods would be higher as a ratio of population because more people could afford to buy more things. Sorry I kind of rambled on forever there. **TL;DR** The proportionality between population and demand for commodities is affected by inequality. High inequality reduces demand.

This part of it is fascinating . It's my favorite part. There are two major things that disrupt this proportionality. First, there are increases in productivity, making each product require less labor, and, if each person desires the same amount of products, reducing the demand of labor in proportion to the population. The other one, which is pretty interesting, has to do with the distribution of wealth. Changes in income of poor people have huge impacts on how much they spend on commodities. If you give someone on minimum wage $100, they will spend it right away because they are already spending basically all their money and still not getting all the "essentials" that middle class people take for granted (like soft toilet paper, or new socks). So the poor person gets $100 and immediate goes and buys new socks or some fancy toilet paper. Likewise if you take $100 from a poor person, that's $100 that would definitely have been spent that won't be spent now. When you contrast that with a middle class person, you see that giving them $100 has less of an impact on demand for goods. If someone gives me $100, I'll just put it into savings and probably not change my buying habits at all. I can already afford everything that I really want and still save some for retirement. And if you give $100 to someone making $1million/year, they won't even notice. What I'm getting to is that high levels of inequality play a significant role in disrupting what would otherwise be a pretty nice proportionality between demand and population. If you have high inequality, there are a lot of poor people that are spending much less than they want to spend and a lot of rich people who aren't really spending more to make up for what the poor people can't spend. If there were low inequality, the demand for goods would be higher as a ratio of population because more people could afford to buy more things. Sorry I kind of rambled on forever there. TL;DR The proportionality between population and demand for commodities is affected by inequality. High inequality reduces demand.

changemyview

t5_2w2s8

ceedkn8

This part of it is fascinating . It's my favorite part. There are two major things that disrupt this proportionality. First, there are increases in productivity, making each product require less labor, and, if each person desires the same amount of products, reducing the demand of labor in proportion to the population. The other one, which is pretty interesting, has to do with the distribution of wealth. Changes in income of poor people have huge impacts on how much they spend on commodities. If you give someone on minimum wage $100, they will spend it right away because they are already spending basically all their money and still not getting all the "essentials" that middle class people take for granted (like soft toilet paper, or new socks). So the poor person gets $100 and immediate goes and buys new socks or some fancy toilet paper. Likewise if you take $100 from a poor person, that's $100 that would definitely have been spent that won't be spent now. When you contrast that with a middle class person, you see that giving them $100 has less of an impact on demand for goods. If someone gives me $100, I'll just put it into savings and probably not change my buying habits at all. I can already afford everything that I really want and still save some for retirement. And if you give $100 to someone making $1million/year, they won't even notice. What I'm getting to is that high levels of inequality play a significant role in disrupting what would otherwise be a pretty nice proportionality between demand and population. If you have high inequality, there are a lot of poor people that are spending much less than they want to spend and a lot of rich people who aren't really spending more to make up for what the poor people can't spend. If there were low inequality, the demand for goods would be higher as a ratio of population because more people could afford to buy more things. Sorry I kind of rambled on forever there.

The proportionality between population and demand for commodities is affected by inequality. High inequality reduces demand.

MusicalXena

I taught for two years while in graduate school. The courses I taught were basically in my subject area, but I hadn't taken those exact courses myself as an undergraduate. I relied heavily on two sources for course design: 1) Department/peer resources 2) The textbook(s) I used for the course As it sounds like you don't have a lot of mandated curricula to cover, I'd recommend finding an extremely good H.S. Sociology textbook and structuring your course around it (1 chapter per week with extra time built in for tests, review, projects, etc.). Many textbooks will even have built-in assignments and projects that you could adapt to your purposes. This suggestion is not based on my knowledge of sociology so much as on the survival skills I picked up while teaching. You could, of course, decide which parts of the book you're most interested in covering during the semester. TL;DR: If you can find a good H.S.-level Sociology textbook, let that book do a lot of your course planning for you. (I'll leave it to the Sociology experts to recommend any specific textbooks/authors.) Good luck!

I taught for two years while in graduate school. The courses I taught were basically in my subject area, but I hadn't taken those exact courses myself as an undergraduate. I relied heavily on two sources for course design: 1) Department/peer resources 2) The textbook(s) I used for the course As it sounds like you don't have a lot of mandated curricula to cover, I'd recommend finding an extremely good H.S. Sociology textbook and structuring your course around it (1 chapter per week with extra time built in for tests, review, projects, etc.). Many textbooks will even have built-in assignments and projects that you could adapt to your purposes. This suggestion is not based on my knowledge of sociology so much as on the survival skills I picked up while teaching. You could, of course, decide which parts of the book you're most interested in covering during the semester. TL;DR: If you can find a good H.S.-level Sociology textbook, let that book do a lot of your course planning for you. (I'll leave it to the Sociology experts to recommend any specific textbooks/authors.) Good luck!

AskSocialScience

t5_2sml9

ceefcxv

I taught for two years while in graduate school. The courses I taught were basically in my subject area, but I hadn't taken those exact courses myself as an undergraduate. I relied heavily on two sources for course design: 1) Department/peer resources 2) The textbook(s) I used for the course As it sounds like you don't have a lot of mandated curricula to cover, I'd recommend finding an extremely good H.S. Sociology textbook and structuring your course around it (1 chapter per week with extra time built in for tests, review, projects, etc.). Many textbooks will even have built-in assignments and projects that you could adapt to your purposes. This suggestion is not based on my knowledge of sociology so much as on the survival skills I picked up while teaching. You could, of course, decide which parts of the book you're most interested in covering during the semester.

If you can find a good H.S.-level Sociology textbook, let that book do a lot of your course planning for you. (I'll leave it to the Sociology experts to recommend any specific textbooks/authors.) Good luck!

Pocahontas_Spaceman

Obama never said he would 'not target dispensaries'. That's a terribly misleading simplification of a very long, nuanced statement the government made. In part: >[T]he previous guidance drew a distinction between the serious ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above. >As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system and an operation’s compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operations’s size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, **prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases and on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system.** tl:dr, just because you run a dispensary does not mean you are complaint wiht state law.

Obama never said he would 'not target dispensaries'. That's a terribly misleading simplification of a very long, nuanced statement the government made. In part: >[T]he previous guidance drew a distinction between the serious ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above. >As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system and an operation’s compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operations’s size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases and on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system. tl:dr, just because you run a dispensary does not mean you are complaint wiht state law.

Marijuana

t5_2qhhn

cef0bxi

Obama never said he would 'not target dispensaries'. That's a terribly misleading simplification of a very long, nuanced statement the government made. In part: >[T]he previous guidance drew a distinction between the serious ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above. >As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system and an operation’s compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operations’s size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases and on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system.

just because you run a dispensary does not mean you are complaint wiht state law.

tunzoffun

The well could offer an 'examine' option. The player would splash some water on the ground and lean down to smell it. You could be prompted with; "it smells odd." "it's clean drinking water." "I notice a foul odour." In my opinion this offers an extra caution barrier and prevents players doing quick and rushed spam clicking on the fountain. TL;DR simple 'examine' option.

The well could offer an 'examine' option. The player would splash some water on the ground and lean down to smell it. You could be prompted with; "it smells odd." "it's clean drinking water." "I notice a foul odour." In my opinion this offers an extra caution barrier and prevents players doing quick and rushed spam clicking on the fountain. TL;DR simple 'examine' option.

dayz

t5_2ty3s

ceemf5i

The well could offer an 'examine' option. The player would splash some water on the ground and lean down to smell it. You could be prompted with; "it smells odd." "it's clean drinking water." "I notice a foul odour." In my opinion this offers an extra caution barrier and prevents players doing quick and rushed spam clicking on the fountain.

simple 'examine' option.

LostInTheMaze

DO NOT CALL CHARTER TO COMPLAIN. COMPLAIN TO WSOC. I'm not privvy to the details of this negotiation, but basically TV stations get on cable operators one of two ways: 1. Must Carry. This basically means that the TV station demands the cable opeators in their market carry them. No compensation takes place. The cable operator is legally required to carry them if the station makes a request under Must Carry. 2. Negotiated contract. Instead of invoking Must Carry, a TV station can choose to negotiate with a cable operator to cary them. Financial compensation is usually involved. If this happens, the cable operator is free to reject the offer and not carry the station. What is going on here is basically (2), but they can't reach an agreement on pricing. Keep in mind that WSOC is demanding Charter pay (more) to re-transmit a signal which is broadcast over the air for free. This is the same signal that WSOC puts out over the air for free, and makes its money off advertisements. The problem is when these disputes come up, if the operators pay more money, ultimately your cable bill goes up. This is why you should call WSOC to complain that they are unavailable and not charter. Just to be clear, I do not work for either Charter or WSOC, so I have no vested interest in this other than not wanting my cable bill to go up. **tl;dr** This is a result of WSOC being a little bitch. Complain to WSOC, not Charter.

DO NOT CALL CHARTER TO COMPLAIN. COMPLAIN TO WSOC. I'm not privvy to the details of this negotiation, but basically TV stations get on cable operators one of two ways: Must Carry. This basically means that the TV station demands the cable opeators in their market carry them. No compensation takes place. The cable operator is legally required to carry them if the station makes a request under Must Carry. Negotiated contract. Instead of invoking Must Carry, a TV station can choose to negotiate with a cable operator to cary them. Financial compensation is usually involved. If this happens, the cable operator is free to reject the offer and not carry the station. What is going on here is basically (2), but they can't reach an agreement on pricing. Keep in mind that WSOC is demanding Charter pay (more) to re-transmit a signal which is broadcast over the air for free. This is the same signal that WSOC puts out over the air for free, and makes its money off advertisements. The problem is when these disputes come up, if the operators pay more money, ultimately your cable bill goes up. This is why you should call WSOC to complain that they are unavailable and not charter. Just to be clear, I do not work for either Charter or WSOC, so I have no vested interest in this other than not wanting my cable bill to go up. tl;dr This is a result of WSOC being a little bitch. Complain to WSOC, not Charter.

Charlotte

t5_2qo2j

ceew8gg

DO NOT CALL CHARTER TO COMPLAIN. COMPLAIN TO WSOC. I'm not privvy to the details of this negotiation, but basically TV stations get on cable operators one of two ways: Must Carry. This basically means that the TV station demands the cable opeators in their market carry them. No compensation takes place. The cable operator is legally required to carry them if the station makes a request under Must Carry. Negotiated contract. Instead of invoking Must Carry, a TV station can choose to negotiate with a cable operator to cary them. Financial compensation is usually involved. If this happens, the cable operator is free to reject the offer and not carry the station. What is going on here is basically (2), but they can't reach an agreement on pricing. Keep in mind that WSOC is demanding Charter pay (more) to re-transmit a signal which is broadcast over the air for free. This is the same signal that WSOC puts out over the air for free, and makes its money off advertisements. The problem is when these disputes come up, if the operators pay more money, ultimately your cable bill goes up. This is why you should call WSOC to complain that they are unavailable and not charter. Just to be clear, I do not work for either Charter or WSOC, so I have no vested interest in this other than not wanting my cable bill to go up.

This is a result of WSOC being a little bitch. Complain to WSOC, not Charter.

Gemmellness

The 'skipping spots' you describe could either be a glitch causing workers not to complete jobs (needing you to reassign the jobs), the workers skipping them because there is no access to the spot where the job needs doing, or, more likely, just the natural fact that workers don't often go along and complete pipe jobs in order. I'm fairly sure this was implemented manually to make the workers look more natural and random, and less like they're controlled by a perfect computer. Note that long fences and some other jobs do get completed in order (although often 2 groups of workers often start, one at each end) due to the horrible inefficiencies that would occur with the larger scale jobs. **tl;dr**, the 'inefficiency' is intended to make staff look more natural and imperfect, and not the result of the jobs of other staff.

The 'skipping spots' you describe could either be a glitch causing workers not to complete jobs (needing you to reassign the jobs), the workers skipping them because there is no access to the spot where the job needs doing, or, more likely, just the natural fact that workers don't often go along and complete pipe jobs in order. I'm fairly sure this was implemented manually to make the workers look more natural and random, and less like they're controlled by a perfect computer. Note that long fences and some other jobs do get completed in order (although often 2 groups of workers often start, one at each end) due to the horrible inefficiencies that would occur with the larger scale jobs. tl;dr , the 'inefficiency' is intended to make staff look more natural and imperfect, and not the result of the jobs of other staff.

prisonarchitect

t5_2tk55

cefg267

The 'skipping spots' you describe could either be a glitch causing workers not to complete jobs (needing you to reassign the jobs), the workers skipping them because there is no access to the spot where the job needs doing, or, more likely, just the natural fact that workers don't often go along and complete pipe jobs in order. I'm fairly sure this was implemented manually to make the workers look more natural and random, and less like they're controlled by a perfect computer. Note that long fences and some other jobs do get completed in order (although often 2 groups of workers often start, one at each end) due to the horrible inefficiencies that would occur with the larger scale jobs.

the 'inefficiency' is intended to make staff look more natural and imperfect, and not the result of the jobs of other staff.

KittenAnne

Minor rant: So my partners mom lives with us - I am in school full time and my partner works- so she watches the girls for us. She also has taken over the basic every day chores - cooking , dishes, laundry - the kitchen is her main domain. So with all of us home during the holidays - the kids and me mainly - and a few extra days with my partner - (as an aside, I hear her tell people on the phone while I am doing homework or what not about how she does ALL the work around the house ) So I thought I would be helpful and do the laundry - and I got yelled at that it is what keeps her busy and keeps her from smoking .... So TL;DR - I tried to help and got yelled at for it :(

Minor rant: So my partners mom lives with us - I am in school full time and my partner works- so she watches the girls for us. She also has taken over the basic every day chores - cooking , dishes, laundry - the kitchen is her main domain. So with all of us home during the holidays - the kids and me mainly - and a few extra days with my partner - (as an aside, I hear her tell people on the phone while I am doing homework or what not about how she does ALL the work around the house ) So I thought I would be helpful and do the laundry - and I got yelled at that it is what keeps her busy and keeps her from smoking .... So TL;DR - I tried to help and got yelled at for it :(

Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

t5_2tx47

cef81sv

Minor rant: So my partners mom lives with us - I am in school full time and my partner works- so she watches the girls for us. She also has taken over the basic every day chores - cooking , dishes, laundry - the kitchen is her main domain. So with all of us home during the holidays - the kids and me mainly - and a few extra days with my partner - (as an aside, I hear her tell people on the phone while I am doing homework or what not about how she does ALL the work around the house ) So I thought I would be helpful and do the laundry - and I got yelled at that it is what keeps her busy and keeps her from smoking .... So

I tried to help and got yelled at for it :(

standish_

Disclaimer: I light up several times a day and I have driven high. It is much safer than drinking and driving, but you are definitely still not at peak performance. Your reaction time is slower. I will not do it again. >You people must not drink very often, my tolerance is such that I can drink more than one rum & coke and be more than fine to drive. It's not irresponsible in the sense that I fully 100% will back that I can drive just as good after having a drink or two as I am w/o having any. If anyone wanted to ever do a scientific experiment to back my claims I'd be super happy to volunteer. Do you see how that sounds to me? I don't care if you deem yourself "good enough" to drive, you are still driving under the influence. You are making the choice to drive while intoxicated, which endangers others, not to mention yourself. If you are driving, you can go without drugs for the duration of the trip. That's not an unreasonable demand, and it's called being responsible. When you are driving a car, you need to be able to react to any situation as quickly as possible, because the fact remains that driving is still extremely dangerous, and we don't need to do anything to increase the danger. In the OP's picture, he is driving while smoking. That's an additional level of irresponsibility because it means his attention is split between getting high and staying on the road. In a vast majority of cases, nothing will happen. Everyone will get to the destination safely and alive. However, I'm focusing on the rarities, where an accident is worsened or caused by someone focusing on smoking, or being high. TL;DR Driving is dangerous. Focus on driving.

Disclaimer: I light up several times a day and I have driven high. It is much safer than drinking and driving, but you are definitely still not at peak performance. Your reaction time is slower. I will not do it again. >You people must not drink very often, my tolerance is such that I can drink more than one rum & coke and be more than fine to drive. It's not irresponsible in the sense that I fully 100% will back that I can drive just as good after having a drink or two as I am w/o having any. If anyone wanted to ever do a scientific experiment to back my claims I'd be super happy to volunteer. Do you see how that sounds to me? I don't care if you deem yourself "good enough" to drive, you are still driving under the influence. You are making the choice to drive while intoxicated, which endangers others, not to mention yourself. If you are driving, you can go without drugs for the duration of the trip. That's not an unreasonable demand, and it's called being responsible. When you are driving a car, you need to be able to react to any situation as quickly as possible, because the fact remains that driving is still extremely dangerous, and we don't need to do anything to increase the danger. In the OP's picture, he is driving while smoking. That's an additional level of irresponsibility because it means his attention is split between getting high and staying on the road. In a vast majority of cases, nothing will happen. Everyone will get to the destination safely and alive. However, I'm focusing on the rarities, where an accident is worsened or caused by someone focusing on smoking, or being high. TL;DR Driving is dangerous. Focus on driving.

trees

t5_2r9vp

ceezwp4

Disclaimer: I light up several times a day and I have driven high. It is much safer than drinking and driving, but you are definitely still not at peak performance. Your reaction time is slower. I will not do it again. >You people must not drink very often, my tolerance is such that I can drink more than one rum & coke and be more than fine to drive. It's not irresponsible in the sense that I fully 100% will back that I can drive just as good after having a drink or two as I am w/o having any. If anyone wanted to ever do a scientific experiment to back my claims I'd be super happy to volunteer. Do you see how that sounds to me? I don't care if you deem yourself "good enough" to drive, you are still driving under the influence. You are making the choice to drive while intoxicated, which endangers others, not to mention yourself. If you are driving, you can go without drugs for the duration of the trip. That's not an unreasonable demand, and it's called being responsible. When you are driving a car, you need to be able to react to any situation as quickly as possible, because the fact remains that driving is still extremely dangerous, and we don't need to do anything to increase the danger. In the OP's picture, he is driving while smoking. That's an additional level of irresponsibility because it means his attention is split between getting high and staying on the road. In a vast majority of cases, nothing will happen. Everyone will get to the destination safely and alive. However, I'm focusing on the rarities, where an accident is worsened or caused by someone focusing on smoking, or being high.

Driving is dangerous. Focus on driving.

Chusuf

That's not what he means... I think Jdbee is a wonderful example of this comment. With the exception of a small percentage of his fits (see the one with like 5 colors and the indys), how inspired are you by his fits? Obviously this is subjective, and what it means to be inspired differs for everyone. So for the purpose of this comment, I will assume someone who has been into fashion (/fa, sufu, mfa, styleforum etc.) for a few months - someone who has the basics down. Jdbee's fits, for me at least, serve as inspiration for basic fits. But that's not what *I* want. Jdbee fits are a really good example of *basic* but *good*. The reason urection says 80 percent of fits are uninspiring is because they're composed of what? The basic checklist - leather shoes/chinos or jeans/collared shirt. The only inspiration is to read all the stickies more and execute them better. Those three pieces represents like literally 80 percent of all fits on the album. This is represented by someone like Jdbee because, although he literally executes them perfectly, they're not too different. Obviously there is nothing inherently wrong with this seeing as a good portion of the population will consider you well dressed if you put on a well fitting oxford shirt. But for someone who has been into fashion for a decent amount of time, they might learn more about what they want to dress like to express themselves. There have been a billion posts on individualism/expression/differing from the herd so I don't need to do that analysis. With the exception of a decent amount of people who's aesthetic *is* that thing chorused by MFA (thenicolai comes to mind with his really good americana stuff), most people don't seem too unique wearing that oh-so-trite combination I wrote earlier. > giraffe heads and marmot hides Obviously that's not what he means, I'll assume your talking about people like soundclip and triggerdisk - people who *really* differ from the norm. Obviously mfa wont' turn into a rick owens forum in 10 years, but what urection means is that we should break from the rationale of mfa more often - do things more "dangerous" (what does that even mean). Fashion is about expression; although blunt, wearing uniform 1.0 doesn't express *too* much. It'd be a lie to say that isn't the aesthetic a lot of people go for, it probably says a lot of things about a person though. > Every subgenre of style only has so much you can do with it. I think this album really refutes this - look at the tons of diversity in this album! Many posters have shifted to monochrome, we're seeing black jeans - something the hivemind (the homogenous/sterotype of mfa) might of hated earlier! I don't think it really matters so much about diversity, but more about depth. I'll bring up jdbee one more time for this - his fits have so much *depth* to them. The wonderful amounts of cohesion and synergy etc. We don't need *more* diversity, but *better* diversity. We need more fits that don't just act as choruses for the uniform, we need things that really execute the basics well while adding interesting and unique ideas. > there's a glass ceiling to looking good, and hitting it is actually a pretty good thing for most of us. I think this brings up an interesting debate with the community. Is there a glass ceiling? Is it enough to slap on some cdb's and call it a day? I don't have answer because this forum serves to provide advice! Obviously when the formerly-baggy-jeans dude wears an ocbd/levi 511/cbd, he's suddenly looking sharp. That's the glass ceiling I think you mean - a basic execution of the basics. But keep in mind, Flexappeal, this forum serves as a supplement for developing personal style. I think thousands of people have said this before - use mfa to find your personal style. It may be good thing for most of us, but for the posters who consistently hit the top of the month waywt, it's not! TLDR - We don't need *more* diversity, but *better* diversity. I brought up a few posters who execute this idea well - jdbee for example provides depth in his fits while still sticking to basic, non "nxtlvl" stuff. MFA should be a forum for developing personal style, not jeans/leather shoes/ocbd. Please don't downvote if you disagree -respond instead with your opinion!

That's not what he means... I think Jdbee is a wonderful example of this comment. With the exception of a small percentage of his fits (see the one with like 5 colors and the indys), how inspired are you by his fits? Obviously this is subjective, and what it means to be inspired differs for everyone. So for the purpose of this comment, I will assume someone who has been into fashion (/fa, sufu, mfa, styleforum etc.) for a few months - someone who has the basics down. Jdbee's fits, for me at least, serve as inspiration for basic fits. But that's not what I want. Jdbee fits are a really good example of basic but good . The reason urection says 80 percent of fits are uninspiring is because they're composed of what? The basic checklist - leather shoes/chinos or jeans/collared shirt. The only inspiration is to read all the stickies more and execute them better. Those three pieces represents like literally 80 percent of all fits on the album. This is represented by someone like Jdbee because, although he literally executes them perfectly, they're not too different. Obviously there is nothing inherently wrong with this seeing as a good portion of the population will consider you well dressed if you put on a well fitting oxford shirt. But for someone who has been into fashion for a decent amount of time, they might learn more about what they want to dress like to express themselves. There have been a billion posts on individualism/expression/differing from the herd so I don't need to do that analysis. With the exception of a decent amount of people who's aesthetic is that thing chorused by MFA (thenicolai comes to mind with his really good americana stuff), most people don't seem too unique wearing that oh-so-trite combination I wrote earlier. > giraffe heads and marmot hides Obviously that's not what he means, I'll assume your talking about people like soundclip and triggerdisk - people who really differ from the norm. Obviously mfa wont' turn into a rick owens forum in 10 years, but what urection means is that we should break from the rationale of mfa more often - do things more "dangerous" (what does that even mean). Fashion is about expression; although blunt, wearing uniform 1.0 doesn't express too much. It'd be a lie to say that isn't the aesthetic a lot of people go for, it probably says a lot of things about a person though. > Every subgenre of style only has so much you can do with it. I think this album really refutes this - look at the tons of diversity in this album! Many posters have shifted to monochrome, we're seeing black jeans - something the hivemind (the homogenous/sterotype of mfa) might of hated earlier! I don't think it really matters so much about diversity, but more about depth. I'll bring up jdbee one more time for this - his fits have so much depth to them. The wonderful amounts of cohesion and synergy etc. We don't need more diversity, but better diversity. We need more fits that don't just act as choruses for the uniform, we need things that really execute the basics well while adding interesting and unique ideas. > there's a glass ceiling to looking good, and hitting it is actually a pretty good thing for most of us. I think this brings up an interesting debate with the community. Is there a glass ceiling? Is it enough to slap on some cdb's and call it a day? I don't have answer because this forum serves to provide advice! Obviously when the formerly-baggy-jeans dude wears an ocbd/levi 511/cbd, he's suddenly looking sharp. That's the glass ceiling I think you mean - a basic execution of the basics. But keep in mind, Flexappeal, this forum serves as a supplement for developing personal style. I think thousands of people have said this before - use mfa to find your personal style. It may be good thing for most of us, but for the posters who consistently hit the top of the month waywt, it's not! TLDR - We don't need more diversity, but better diversity. I brought up a few posters who execute this idea well - jdbee for example provides depth in his fits while still sticking to basic, non "nxtlvl" stuff. MFA should be a forum for developing personal style, not jeans/leather shoes/ocbd. Please don't downvote if you disagree -respond instead with your opinion!

malefashionadvice

t5_2r65t

ceexdjr

That's not what he means... I think Jdbee is a wonderful example of this comment. With the exception of a small percentage of his fits (see the one with like 5 colors and the indys), how inspired are you by his fits? Obviously this is subjective, and what it means to be inspired differs for everyone. So for the purpose of this comment, I will assume someone who has been into fashion (/fa, sufu, mfa, styleforum etc.) for a few months - someone who has the basics down. Jdbee's fits, for me at least, serve as inspiration for basic fits. But that's not what I want. Jdbee fits are a really good example of basic but good . The reason urection says 80 percent of fits are uninspiring is because they're composed of what? The basic checklist - leather shoes/chinos or jeans/collared shirt. The only inspiration is to read all the stickies more and execute them better. Those three pieces represents like literally 80 percent of all fits on the album. This is represented by someone like Jdbee because, although he literally executes them perfectly, they're not too different. Obviously there is nothing inherently wrong with this seeing as a good portion of the population will consider you well dressed if you put on a well fitting oxford shirt. But for someone who has been into fashion for a decent amount of time, they might learn more about what they want to dress like to express themselves. There have been a billion posts on individualism/expression/differing from the herd so I don't need to do that analysis. With the exception of a decent amount of people who's aesthetic is that thing chorused by MFA (thenicolai comes to mind with his really good americana stuff), most people don't seem too unique wearing that oh-so-trite combination I wrote earlier. > giraffe heads and marmot hides Obviously that's not what he means, I'll assume your talking about people like soundclip and triggerdisk - people who really differ from the norm. Obviously mfa wont' turn into a rick owens forum in 10 years, but what urection means is that we should break from the rationale of mfa more often - do things more "dangerous" (what does that even mean). Fashion is about expression; although blunt, wearing uniform 1.0 doesn't express too much. It'd be a lie to say that isn't the aesthetic a lot of people go for, it probably says a lot of things about a person though. > Every subgenre of style only has so much you can do with it. I think this album really refutes this - look at the tons of diversity in this album! Many posters have shifted to monochrome, we're seeing black jeans - something the hivemind (the homogenous/sterotype of mfa) might of hated earlier! I don't think it really matters so much about diversity, but more about depth. I'll bring up jdbee one more time for this - his fits have so much depth to them. The wonderful amounts of cohesion and synergy etc. We don't need more diversity, but better diversity. We need more fits that don't just act as choruses for the uniform, we need things that really execute the basics well while adding interesting and unique ideas. > there's a glass ceiling to looking good, and hitting it is actually a pretty good thing for most of us. I think this brings up an interesting debate with the community. Is there a glass ceiling? Is it enough to slap on some cdb's and call it a day? I don't have answer because this forum serves to provide advice! Obviously when the formerly-baggy-jeans dude wears an ocbd/levi 511/cbd, he's suddenly looking sharp. That's the glass ceiling I think you mean - a basic execution of the basics. But keep in mind, Flexappeal, this forum serves as a supplement for developing personal style. I think thousands of people have said this before - use mfa to find your personal style. It may be good thing for most of us, but for the posters who consistently hit the top of the month waywt, it's not!

We don't need more diversity, but better diversity. I brought up a few posters who execute this idea well - jdbee for example provides depth in his fits while still sticking to basic, non "nxtlvl" stuff. MFA should be a forum for developing personal style, not jeans/leather shoes/ocbd. Please don't downvote if you disagree -respond instead with your opinion!

ThisIsNotAnAlias

"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority" is the first article of the German constitution. It is deemed more important than freedom of speech, religion and all the other things that are usually deemed human rights. There are demagogues and organizations that attract and exploit people who are down on their luck, who are caught in a crisis of faith, have lost a loved one, are mentally unstable/ill. It's the duty of the German government to protect its citizens from such exploitation in a way that restricts all of the other consitutional rights as little as possible. Anyone can join Scientology, talk about it, go and try to recruit new members. But society doesn't like Scientology, the members get lots of opposition. The state tries to use its bureaucratic freedom (i.e. granting tax benefits) to restrict growth of such a movement that runs contrary to the highest constitutional idea of article 1. Article 1 can be thought of as a self-defense mechanism of the German constitution, as it values the protection of a system of values higher than personal freedoms. I.e. making sure that no extremist and inhumane school of thought can hold foot without the state being unable to intervene because of personal freedoms. Tl;dr: Preventing the growth of another inhumane movement is more important to Germany than personal freedom.

"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority" is the first article of the German constitution. It is deemed more important than freedom of speech, religion and all the other things that are usually deemed human rights. There are demagogues and organizations that attract and exploit people who are down on their luck, who are caught in a crisis of faith, have lost a loved one, are mentally unstable/ill. It's the duty of the German government to protect its citizens from such exploitation in a way that restricts all of the other consitutional rights as little as possible. Anyone can join Scientology, talk about it, go and try to recruit new members. But society doesn't like Scientology, the members get lots of opposition. The state tries to use its bureaucratic freedom (i.e. granting tax benefits) to restrict growth of such a movement that runs contrary to the highest constitutional idea of article 1. Article 1 can be thought of as a self-defense mechanism of the German constitution, as it values the protection of a system of values higher than personal freedoms. I.e. making sure that no extremist and inhumane school of thought can hold foot without the state being unable to intervene because of personal freedoms. Tl;dr: Preventing the growth of another inhumane movement is more important to Germany than personal freedom.

todayilearned

t5_2qqjc

cef10yo

Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority" is the first article of the German constitution. It is deemed more important than freedom of speech, religion and all the other things that are usually deemed human rights. There are demagogues and organizations that attract and exploit people who are down on their luck, who are caught in a crisis of faith, have lost a loved one, are mentally unstable/ill. It's the duty of the German government to protect its citizens from such exploitation in a way that restricts all of the other consitutional rights as little as possible. Anyone can join Scientology, talk about it, go and try to recruit new members. But society doesn't like Scientology, the members get lots of opposition. The state tries to use its bureaucratic freedom (i.e. granting tax benefits) to restrict growth of such a movement that runs contrary to the highest constitutional idea of article 1. Article 1 can be thought of as a self-defense mechanism of the German constitution, as it values the protection of a system of values higher than personal freedoms. I.e. making sure that no extremist and inhumane school of thought can hold foot without the state being unable to intervene because of personal freedoms.

Preventing the growth of another inhumane movement is more important to Germany than personal freedom.

ManchurianCandycane

It may not be the textbook definition, but to me a cult is distinct from a religion, the main variable being openness. * A cult is a very insular thing, where average members are encouraged at minimum, but most often forced or coerced away from contact with non members. * They will also withhold most or all information about their general and specific teachings, ceremonies, and traditions from the outside world. And again, average members are told/forced to avoid interest in anything but the cult. * Cults almost invariably have a (living)leader who possesses more or less absolute authority both in teachings and often the specifics of day to day lives of members, and could change the teachings on a whim. *(And no the Pope doesn't count, as he has barely any practical authority over average members.)* * Ability to leave the faith is also greatly diminished or effectively nonexistant in cults, with closed compounds and designated guards that may beat, violate, mutilate, rape, or kill you if they catch you even considering it. * Lastly a sinister incongruousness between stated teachings/goals and practices, like members being raped, tortured, and robbed/defrauded by the leader or ranking members in an effort to "enlighten" them or "cleanse" their spirits, as a major or core tenet of the belief system. These speak clearly of exploitation and maintenance of these beliefs only as a means to satisfy the urges and greed of higherups. The world religions today contain some of these points to varying degrees, but all of them are pretty strictly open to any new members, and all points of their beliefs are available for anyone to read. They also practice their beliefs in a way that is highly consistent with stated goals and there are very few overt or covert sinister tones to what they wish to accomplish, at least intentionally in the practices and teachings. Anyone can pick up a Bible, Qur'an or other holy book and become a member of a religion with no single individual or organization being able to change them however they wish to suit their personal needs and desires. And while individual sects can have different specific interpretations, the books being so ubiquitous in all their various translations means it's easy for the average practitioner to call out anyone who claims to do something in the name of their faith that clearly goes against the teachings. Hell these days even non practitioners of a religion could point shit like that out in a second. Even my family which is strictly apathetic to any kind of religion probably has half a dozen or so bibles and probably a Qu'ran laying around somewhere. And the fact that their rules are clearly readable by anyone and open to interpretation means possibility AND actuality of compromise and adaption to social and cultural pressures and necessities of the time. Without willingness compromise you can't have much of a functioning society or civilization. Which I feel is evident in the state of many islamic countries, following a faith that has a stronger culture of strict adherence surrounding it than other most beliefs. TL;DR: In my view all religions are not equal to cults. ^^Sorry ^^for ^^the ^^wall ^^of ^^text, ^^I ^^really ^^didn't ^^think ^^I ^^had ^^this ^^much ^^to ^^say ^^on ^^the ^^subject.

It may not be the textbook definition, but to me a cult is distinct from a religion, the main variable being openness. A cult is a very insular thing, where average members are encouraged at minimum, but most often forced or coerced away from contact with non members. They will also withhold most or all information about their general and specific teachings, ceremonies, and traditions from the outside world. And again, average members are told/forced to avoid interest in anything but the cult. Cults almost invariably have a (living)leader who possesses more or less absolute authority both in teachings and often the specifics of day to day lives of members, and could change the teachings on a whim. (And no the Pope doesn't count, as he has barely any practical authority over average members.) Ability to leave the faith is also greatly diminished or effectively nonexistant in cults, with closed compounds and designated guards that may beat, violate, mutilate, rape, or kill you if they catch you even considering it. Lastly a sinister incongruousness between stated teachings/goals and practices, like members being raped, tortured, and robbed/defrauded by the leader or ranking members in an effort to "enlighten" them or "cleanse" their spirits, as a major or core tenet of the belief system. These speak clearly of exploitation and maintenance of these beliefs only as a means to satisfy the urges and greed of higherups. The world religions today contain some of these points to varying degrees, but all of them are pretty strictly open to any new members, and all points of their beliefs are available for anyone to read. They also practice their beliefs in a way that is highly consistent with stated goals and there are very few overt or covert sinister tones to what they wish to accomplish, at least intentionally in the practices and teachings. Anyone can pick up a Bible, Qur'an or other holy book and become a member of a religion with no single individual or organization being able to change them however they wish to suit their personal needs and desires. And while individual sects can have different specific interpretations, the books being so ubiquitous in all their various translations means it's easy for the average practitioner to call out anyone who claims to do something in the name of their faith that clearly goes against the teachings. Hell these days even non practitioners of a religion could point shit like that out in a second. Even my family which is strictly apathetic to any kind of religion probably has half a dozen or so bibles and probably a Qu'ran laying around somewhere. And the fact that their rules are clearly readable by anyone and open to interpretation means possibility AND actuality of compromise and adaption to social and cultural pressures and necessities of the time. Without willingness compromise you can't have much of a functioning society or civilization. Which I feel is evident in the state of many islamic countries, following a faith that has a stronger culture of strict adherence surrounding it than other most beliefs. TL;DR: In my view all religions are not equal to cults. ^^Sorry ^^for ^^the ^^wall ^^of ^^text, ^^I ^^really ^^didn't ^^think ^^I ^^had ^^this ^^much ^^to ^^say ^^on ^^the ^^subject.

todayilearned

t5_2qqjc

cef3z28

It may not be the textbook definition, but to me a cult is distinct from a religion, the main variable being openness. A cult is a very insular thing, where average members are encouraged at minimum, but most often forced or coerced away from contact with non members. They will also withhold most or all information about their general and specific teachings, ceremonies, and traditions from the outside world. And again, average members are told/forced to avoid interest in anything but the cult. Cults almost invariably have a (living)leader who possesses more or less absolute authority both in teachings and often the specifics of day to day lives of members, and could change the teachings on a whim. (And no the Pope doesn't count, as he has barely any practical authority over average members.) Ability to leave the faith is also greatly diminished or effectively nonexistant in cults, with closed compounds and designated guards that may beat, violate, mutilate, rape, or kill you if they catch you even considering it. Lastly a sinister incongruousness between stated teachings/goals and practices, like members being raped, tortured, and robbed/defrauded by the leader or ranking members in an effort to "enlighten" them or "cleanse" their spirits, as a major or core tenet of the belief system. These speak clearly of exploitation and maintenance of these beliefs only as a means to satisfy the urges and greed of higherups. The world religions today contain some of these points to varying degrees, but all of them are pretty strictly open to any new members, and all points of their beliefs are available for anyone to read. They also practice their beliefs in a way that is highly consistent with stated goals and there are very few overt or covert sinister tones to what they wish to accomplish, at least intentionally in the practices and teachings. Anyone can pick up a Bible, Qur'an or other holy book and become a member of a religion with no single individual or organization being able to change them however they wish to suit their personal needs and desires. And while individual sects can have different specific interpretations, the books being so ubiquitous in all their various translations means it's easy for the average practitioner to call out anyone who claims to do something in the name of their faith that clearly goes against the teachings. Hell these days even non practitioners of a religion could point shit like that out in a second. Even my family which is strictly apathetic to any kind of religion probably has half a dozen or so bibles and probably a Qu'ran laying around somewhere. And the fact that their rules are clearly readable by anyone and open to interpretation means possibility AND actuality of compromise and adaption to social and cultural pressures and necessities of the time. Without willingness compromise you can't have much of a functioning society or civilization. Which I feel is evident in the state of many islamic countries, following a faith that has a stronger culture of strict adherence surrounding it than other most beliefs.

In my view all religions are not equal to cults. ^^Sorry ^^for ^^the ^^wall ^^of ^^text, ^^I ^^really ^^didn't ^^think ^^I ^^had ^^this ^^much ^^to ^^say ^^on ^^the ^^subject.

josefx

> A status based on decades of federal subsudies in order to industrialize this formerly agrarian state. Compared to all the other German states that continue to use these subsidies to pay running costs instead of modernizing and fixing their problems. We now have decades of paying most of these subsidies for the other states. > For decades Bavaria used to be a massive winner of the Länderfinanzausgleich. For several decades it has been the biggest looser. > While Bavaria is extremely proud to have one of the hardest Abitur in Germany, allowing relatively few pupils to archive an academic education Abitur is only one of many ways to get the "Hochschulreife", you can get the "Fachhochschulreife" by getting a "Fachabitur" which is easier to get by being specific and limiting you to related areas of academia. You can also get the "Fachhochschulreife" as part of job specific education, afaik qualifying as "Meister" allows you to enter academia in related fields. TL:DR; The Bavarian school system is complex and the standard Abitur ("Allgemeine Hochschulreife") is not the only way to archive an academic education. The numbers getting into academic education aren't small either, even with the high Abitur standards and the work involved in getting accepted the popular subjects cull a lot of students within the first two semesters. Source: I got myself a Fachabitur (because I fail Latin) and went on to study Informatik in Munich.

> A status based on decades of federal subsudies in order to industrialize this formerly agrarian state. Compared to all the other German states that continue to use these subsidies to pay running costs instead of modernizing and fixing their problems. We now have decades of paying most of these subsidies for the other states. > For decades Bavaria used to be a massive winner of the Länderfinanzausgleich. For several decades it has been the biggest looser. > While Bavaria is extremely proud to have one of the hardest Abitur in Germany, allowing relatively few pupils to archive an academic education Abitur is only one of many ways to get the "Hochschulreife", you can get the "Fachhochschulreife" by getting a "Fachabitur" which is easier to get by being specific and limiting you to related areas of academia. You can also get the "Fachhochschulreife" as part of job specific education, afaik qualifying as "Meister" allows you to enter academia in related fields. TL:DR; The Bavarian school system is complex and the standard Abitur ("Allgemeine Hochschulreife") is not the only way to archive an academic education. The numbers getting into academic education aren't small either, even with the high Abitur standards and the work involved in getting accepted the popular subjects cull a lot of students within the first two semesters. Source: I got myself a Fachabitur (because I fail Latin) and went on to study Informatik in Munich.

todayilearned

t5_2qqjc

cefelyb

A status based on decades of federal subsudies in order to industrialize this formerly agrarian state. Compared to all the other German states that continue to use these subsidies to pay running costs instead of modernizing and fixing their problems. We now have decades of paying most of these subsidies for the other states. > For decades Bavaria used to be a massive winner of the Länderfinanzausgleich. For several decades it has been the biggest looser. > While Bavaria is extremely proud to have one of the hardest Abitur in Germany, allowing relatively few pupils to archive an academic education Abitur is only one of many ways to get the "Hochschulreife", you can get the "Fachhochschulreife" by getting a "Fachabitur" which is easier to get by being specific and limiting you to related areas of academia. You can also get the "Fachhochschulreife" as part of job specific education, afaik qualifying as "Meister" allows you to enter academia in related fields.

The Bavarian school system is complex and the standard Abitur ("Allgemeine Hochschulreife") is not the only way to archive an academic education. The numbers getting into academic education aren't small either, even with the high Abitur standards and the work involved in getting accepted the popular subjects cull a lot of students within the first two semesters. Source: I got myself a Fachabitur (because I fail Latin) and went on to study Informatik in Munich.

akatokuro

In three, they don't (visibly) discuss a plan to overthrow the Sith takeover. Yoda goes into exile following his failure to stop Palpatine, Obi-Wan takes Luke and watches over him, Leia adopted by the Organas. That way, each of the twins has someone who knows the whole story just in case. But that's it. The twins were hidden and protected, the last remaining Jedi living in solitary exile. When Bail calls upon Obi-wan to join the rebellion, that is the start of the plan to beat the Empire. Before that, the plan was merely 'survive.' If Luke had gone off to the Imperial Space Academy, chances are that would have ended Obi-Wan's vigilant watch. At that point, Luke would have grown up and able to make his own decisions in life. tl;dr: Yoda/Obi-wan were not grooming Luke/Leia as part of a master plan to defeating the Empire, they were keeping the surviving remnants of the Jedi Order alive.

In three, they don't (visibly) discuss a plan to overthrow the Sith takeover. Yoda goes into exile following his failure to stop Palpatine, Obi-Wan takes Luke and watches over him, Leia adopted by the Organas. That way, each of the twins has someone who knows the whole story just in case. But that's it. The twins were hidden and protected, the last remaining Jedi living in solitary exile. When Bail calls upon Obi-wan to join the rebellion, that is the start of the plan to beat the Empire. Before that, the plan was merely 'survive.' If Luke had gone off to the Imperial Space Academy, chances are that would have ended Obi-Wan's vigilant watch. At that point, Luke would have grown up and able to make his own decisions in life. tl;dr: Yoda/Obi-wan were not grooming Luke/Leia as part of a master plan to defeating the Empire, they were keeping the surviving remnants of the Jedi Order alive.

StarWars

t5_2qi4s

cef6gub

In three, they don't (visibly) discuss a plan to overthrow the Sith takeover. Yoda goes into exile following his failure to stop Palpatine, Obi-Wan takes Luke and watches over him, Leia adopted by the Organas. That way, each of the twins has someone who knows the whole story just in case. But that's it. The twins were hidden and protected, the last remaining Jedi living in solitary exile. When Bail calls upon Obi-wan to join the rebellion, that is the start of the plan to beat the Empire. Before that, the plan was merely 'survive.' If Luke had gone off to the Imperial Space Academy, chances are that would have ended Obi-Wan's vigilant watch. At that point, Luke would have grown up and able to make his own decisions in life.

Yoda/Obi-wan were not grooming Luke/Leia as part of a master plan to defeating the Empire, they were keeping the surviving remnants of the Jedi Order alive.

Sanjispride

PrincessHovercraft, I love you and your excellent drawing of me! I really like that you were able to capture the way the light glints off of my oiled 6-pack abs. TL;DR - PrincessHovercraft, I love you.

PrincessHovercraft, I love you and your excellent drawing of me! I really like that you were able to capture the way the light glints off of my oiled 6-pack abs. TL;DR - PrincessHovercraft, I love you.

OnePieceCircleJerk

t5_2vqia

cefb5j8

PrincessHovercraft, I love you and your excellent drawing of me! I really like that you were able to capture the way the light glints off of my oiled 6-pack abs.

PrincessHovercraft, I love you.

Lithobrake

The fun part, of course, is that a Caldari station is one of the better choices of stations when renting out 669-IX. People pay much more for a Caldari station, and the kickout is not as much as a disadvantage for the turbojews that would inhabit the system. Couple this with the research slots and it's actually a decent choice for a system that has virtually no intrinsic value. It's a huge PITA to go to timers to flip a useless station, but it's a free station that will more than double that system's rental income in the future. The downsides of caldari outposts are irrelevant when you're renting out an otherwise worthless system. tl;dr Caldari 669-IX Outpost ~~best~~ good 669-IX Outpost

The fun part, of course, is that a Caldari station is one of the better choices of stations when renting out 669-IX. People pay much more for a Caldari station, and the kickout is not as much as a disadvantage for the turbojews that would inhabit the system. Couple this with the research slots and it's actually a decent choice for a system that has virtually no intrinsic value. It's a huge PITA to go to timers to flip a useless station, but it's a free station that will more than double that system's rental income in the future. The downsides of caldari outposts are irrelevant when you're renting out an otherwise worthless system. tl;dr Caldari 669-IX Outpost best good 669-IX Outpost

Eve

t5_2qil9

cefavbk

The fun part, of course, is that a Caldari station is one of the better choices of stations when renting out 669-IX. People pay much more for a Caldari station, and the kickout is not as much as a disadvantage for the turbojews that would inhabit the system. Couple this with the research slots and it's actually a decent choice for a system that has virtually no intrinsic value. It's a huge PITA to go to timers to flip a useless station, but it's a free station that will more than double that system's rental income in the future. The downsides of caldari outposts are irrelevant when you're renting out an otherwise worthless system.

Caldari 669-IX Outpost best good 669-IX Outpost

c2k1

Personally, I think you SHOULD GAF bout other people's feelings - but no to the extent that you completely submerge your own wants and desires. You should never feel bad about voicing what you want - provided it's reasonable - and your friends shouldn't make you feel bad. Forget fixing things quietly, don't forgive other people's behaviour, if it is offensive. All of these things contribute towards making yourself invisible. And invisible peoples feelings don't count to most. That's why it's a shock to others when you want something to go your way. Be vocal. Be gently demanding, if the situation merits it. Make your friends used to the idea that you have an opinion, and you won't be the silent, accepting member of the group. Excessive passivity [especially to the point of martyrdom] isn't attractive at all. The sooner they realise this, the less shocked they'll be. The more used to taking a stand you become, the easier it will be. Win-win scenario. Just make sure you become the sort of person that can do this sort of thing without being the annoying asshole of the group who is obnoxiously vocal. Because no one likes that guy/girl. Learn to speak out, but continue to listen, I guess. TL;DR - become someone who stands up for themselves. Respect your right to have an opinion, and others will. Just be compassionate and aware of others feelings while doing so. Treat everyone with kindness, including yourself.

Personally, I think you SHOULD GAF bout other people's feelings - but no to the extent that you completely submerge your own wants and desires. You should never feel bad about voicing what you want - provided it's reasonable - and your friends shouldn't make you feel bad. Forget fixing things quietly, don't forgive other people's behaviour, if it is offensive. All of these things contribute towards making yourself invisible. And invisible peoples feelings don't count to most. That's why it's a shock to others when you want something to go your way. Be vocal. Be gently demanding, if the situation merits it. Make your friends used to the idea that you have an opinion, and you won't be the silent, accepting member of the group. Excessive passivity [especially to the point of martyrdom] isn't attractive at all. The sooner they realise this, the less shocked they'll be. The more used to taking a stand you become, the easier it will be. Win-win scenario. Just make sure you become the sort of person that can do this sort of thing without being the annoying asshole of the group who is obnoxiously vocal. Because no one likes that guy/girl. Learn to speak out, but continue to listen, I guess. TL;DR - become someone who stands up for themselves. Respect your right to have an opinion, and others will. Just be compassionate and aware of others feelings while doing so. Treat everyone with kindness, including yourself.

howtonotgiveafuck

t5_2tna8

ceffx0b

Personally, I think you SHOULD GAF bout other people's feelings - but no to the extent that you completely submerge your own wants and desires. You should never feel bad about voicing what you want - provided it's reasonable - and your friends shouldn't make you feel bad. Forget fixing things quietly, don't forgive other people's behaviour, if it is offensive. All of these things contribute towards making yourself invisible. And invisible peoples feelings don't count to most. That's why it's a shock to others when you want something to go your way. Be vocal. Be gently demanding, if the situation merits it. Make your friends used to the idea that you have an opinion, and you won't be the silent, accepting member of the group. Excessive passivity [especially to the point of martyrdom] isn't attractive at all. The sooner they realise this, the less shocked they'll be. The more used to taking a stand you become, the easier it will be. Win-win scenario. Just make sure you become the sort of person that can do this sort of thing without being the annoying asshole of the group who is obnoxiously vocal. Because no one likes that guy/girl. Learn to speak out, but continue to listen, I guess.

become someone who stands up for themselves. Respect your right to have an opinion, and others will. Just be compassionate and aware of others feelings while doing so. Treat everyone with kindness, including yourself.

TrollinForDownvotes

How about Fox News? How much are they paid by the Obama administration? I hate Fox News just as much as I hate MSNBC (okay, I hate Fox a bit more). That being said, those 2 networks kind of guarantee that American media won't be bought by the administration in power. This country's politics are too damned divided, but it does help keep the controlling party in check to an extent. Just to emphasize the point, [here]( is an article from March 16, 2011 about the Bahrain uprising. Your link mentions the US media that was bought. Fox news put this AP article on their website, and it is certainly not kind. The tl;dr: government forces are killing innocent protestors and doctors, shutting down the country, and blatantly lying.

How about Fox News? How much are they paid by the Obama administration? I hate Fox News just as much as I hate MSNBC (okay, I hate Fox a bit more). That being said, those 2 networks kind of guarantee that American media won't be bought by the administration in power. This country's politics are too damned divided, but it does help keep the controlling party in check to an extent. Just to emphasize the point, [here]( is an article from March 16, 2011 about the Bahrain uprising. Your link mentions the US media that was bought. Fox news put this AP article on their website, and it is certainly not kind. The tl;dr: government forces are killing innocent protestors and doctors, shutting down the country, and blatantly lying.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cefn4bd

How about Fox News? How much are they paid by the Obama administration? I hate Fox News just as much as I hate MSNBC (okay, I hate Fox a bit more). That being said, those 2 networks kind of guarantee that American media won't be bought by the administration in power. This country's politics are too damned divided, but it does help keep the controlling party in check to an extent. Just to emphasize the point, [here]( is an article from March 16, 2011 about the Bahrain uprising. Your link mentions the US media that was bought. Fox news put this AP article on their website, and it is certainly not kind. The

government forces are killing innocent protestors and doctors, shutting down the country, and blatantly lying.

st1y_wan_kenobi

ok so again... you have your world view, i have mine. requiring a "doctor" to be a "doctor" seems reasonable to me. 633 that were caught and determined to be voter fraud, obviously missing the ones they didn't catch (because without requiring a valid ID anyone can say they are anyone they want to be), because the little old lady at the polling location isn't trying to stop voter fraud... she's just there to hand out your card and a sticker. the crack thing is a prime example of what i mean here... you even took the time to highlight parts of that post as "racist" missing the point that race wasn't the motivator... emotion and headlines were. the news media picked up on "crack baby deformations" in newborns. it became a huge news story back in the 80's (i'm old). just as politicians do now when something makes news politicians use it to gain voter favor. by taking a tough stance on crack, it appeared that these lawmakers were taking a tough stance on protecting newborn babies. it just so happened that int he wake of all their grandstanding a predominantly "black drug" got demonized by people who did not understand that it was essentially the same drug as coke (even though it is in fact not the same drug because of it's effects but that's a different topic of discussion). point being they weren't being racist when they made those laws, race had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was %100 about the whole crack baby outrage on the news and politicians who wanted to appear to be doing something to stop it. crack babies was the term used to describe babies with birth defects caused by pregnant mothers smoking crack... it's not racist to say "crack baby" and affirmative action was in fact super racist, thats why it's been abolished in most cases. how is it "racist" for me to use the term "reverse racism"? lastly the whole homeless thing with a mild TLDR because i'm sick of typing... lost almost everything i owned in a fire, had trouble finding a job, decided to move somewhere where i could get a job, hopped on a greyhound with a backpack and a wheeled trunk. got off the bus downtown toledo, walked to the cherry street mission, stayed the night there for free, woke up the next morning on my cot and walked down the street to the unemployment office. took me a week and a half to get into a real job, but i worked odd jobs under the table through a labor ready shop till then... used that money to rent a room at a boarding house until my first paycheck came in. point is i didn't just sit there and wait for things to happen, and settle for my shitty free meal and shitty cot to sleep on like the rest of the people living there. i knew right away that i would do anything it took short of gay prostitution to not have to live like that. and 2 weeks after stepping off that bus i was living in a room and had a real job. 2 months after that i was living in an apartment. it's all a matter of motivation and what you are willing to do to better yourself.

ok so again... you have your world view, i have mine. requiring a "doctor" to be a "doctor" seems reasonable to me. 633 that were caught and determined to be voter fraud, obviously missing the ones they didn't catch (because without requiring a valid ID anyone can say they are anyone they want to be), because the little old lady at the polling location isn't trying to stop voter fraud... she's just there to hand out your card and a sticker. the crack thing is a prime example of what i mean here... you even took the time to highlight parts of that post as "racist" missing the point that race wasn't the motivator... emotion and headlines were. the news media picked up on "crack baby deformations" in newborns. it became a huge news story back in the 80's (i'm old). just as politicians do now when something makes news politicians use it to gain voter favor. by taking a tough stance on crack, it appeared that these lawmakers were taking a tough stance on protecting newborn babies. it just so happened that int he wake of all their grandstanding a predominantly "black drug" got demonized by people who did not understand that it was essentially the same drug as coke (even though it is in fact not the same drug because of it's effects but that's a different topic of discussion). point being they weren't being racist when they made those laws, race had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was %100 about the whole crack baby outrage on the news and politicians who wanted to appear to be doing something to stop it. crack babies was the term used to describe babies with birth defects caused by pregnant mothers smoking crack... it's not racist to say "crack baby" and affirmative action was in fact super racist, thats why it's been abolished in most cases. how is it "racist" for me to use the term "reverse racism"? lastly the whole homeless thing with a mild TLDR because i'm sick of typing... lost almost everything i owned in a fire, had trouble finding a job, decided to move somewhere where i could get a job, hopped on a greyhound with a backpack and a wheeled trunk. got off the bus downtown toledo, walked to the cherry street mission, stayed the night there for free, woke up the next morning on my cot and walked down the street to the unemployment office. took me a week and a half to get into a real job, but i worked odd jobs under the table through a labor ready shop till then... used that money to rent a room at a boarding house until my first paycheck came in. point is i didn't just sit there and wait for things to happen, and settle for my shitty free meal and shitty cot to sleep on like the rest of the people living there. i knew right away that i would do anything it took short of gay prostitution to not have to live like that. and 2 weeks after stepping off that bus i was living in a room and had a real job. 2 months after that i was living in an apartment. it's all a matter of motivation and what you are willing to do to better yourself.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cefnmjg

ok so again... you have your world view, i have mine. requiring a "doctor" to be a "doctor" seems reasonable to me. 633 that were caught and determined to be voter fraud, obviously missing the ones they didn't catch (because without requiring a valid ID anyone can say they are anyone they want to be), because the little old lady at the polling location isn't trying to stop voter fraud... she's just there to hand out your card and a sticker. the crack thing is a prime example of what i mean here... you even took the time to highlight parts of that post as "racist" missing the point that race wasn't the motivator... emotion and headlines were. the news media picked up on "crack baby deformations" in newborns. it became a huge news story back in the 80's (i'm old). just as politicians do now when something makes news politicians use it to gain voter favor. by taking a tough stance on crack, it appeared that these lawmakers were taking a tough stance on protecting newborn babies. it just so happened that int he wake of all their grandstanding a predominantly "black drug" got demonized by people who did not understand that it was essentially the same drug as coke (even though it is in fact not the same drug because of it's effects but that's a different topic of discussion). point being they weren't being racist when they made those laws, race had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was %100 about the whole crack baby outrage on the news and politicians who wanted to appear to be doing something to stop it. crack babies was the term used to describe babies with birth defects caused by pregnant mothers smoking crack... it's not racist to say "crack baby" and affirmative action was in fact super racist, thats why it's been abolished in most cases. how is it "racist" for me to use the term "reverse racism"? lastly the whole homeless thing with a mild

because i'm sick of typing... lost almost everything i owned in a fire, had trouble finding a job, decided to move somewhere where i could get a job, hopped on a greyhound with a backpack and a wheeled trunk. got off the bus downtown toledo, walked to the cherry street mission, stayed the night there for free, woke up the next morning on my cot and walked down the street to the unemployment office. took me a week and a half to get into a real job, but i worked odd jobs under the table through a labor ready shop till then... used that money to rent a room at a boarding house until my first paycheck came in. point is i didn't just sit there and wait for things to happen, and settle for my shitty free meal and shitty cot to sleep on like the rest of the people living there. i knew right away that i would do anything it took short of gay prostitution to not have to live like that. and 2 weeks after stepping off that bus i was living in a room and had a real job. 2 months after that i was living in an apartment. it's all a matter of motivation and what you are willing to do to better yourself.

das_engineer

Those countries are indeed nice, but you have about the same chance of immigrating there as you do of being struck by lightning while winning the lottery. While US immigration policy may seem shitty, The US has one of the highest immigration rates **per capita** in the world, despite being the 3rd biggest by population. The only large developed countries (Population > 10 million) with higher per capita immigration rates are Spain, Italy, Australia, and Canada. The US has the largest immigrant population among all nations. ~20% of all immigrants **in the world** are in the US, despite the US constituting ~5% of the world population. TLDR: Those countries are nice, but its a very exclusive club, it's relatively much easier to immigrate to the USA

Those countries are indeed nice, but you have about the same chance of immigrating there as you do of being struck by lightning while winning the lottery. While US immigration policy may seem shitty, The US has one of the highest immigration rates per capita in the world, despite being the 3rd biggest by population. The only large developed countries (Population > 10 million) with higher per capita immigration rates are Spain, Italy, Australia, and Canada. The US has the largest immigrant population among all nations. ~20% of all immigrants in the world are in the US, despite the US constituting ~5% of the world population. TLDR: Those countries are nice, but its a very exclusive club, it's relatively much easier to immigrate to the USA

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cefi7jb

Those countries are indeed nice, but you have about the same chance of immigrating there as you do of being struck by lightning while winning the lottery. While US immigration policy may seem shitty, The US has one of the highest immigration rates per capita in the world, despite being the 3rd biggest by population. The only large developed countries (Population > 10 million) with higher per capita immigration rates are Spain, Italy, Australia, and Canada. The US has the largest immigrant population among all nations. ~20% of all immigrants in the world are in the US, despite the US constituting ~5% of the world population.

Those countries are nice, but its a very exclusive club, it's relatively much easier to immigrate to the USA

prime-mover

I don't quite see how your comment relates to mine. But yes, As a matter of fact US foreign policy is driven by what's best for the US, and vice versa for other countries. The US however has the ability to impact the world to a larger degree, as evidence by the US' huge proportion of world military spending. The discussion as I understand it has to do with what's right, not just what is the case. And if you don't believe there is a moral obligation to act in a way which promotes the universal good, but only the american good, it seems fairly easy to defend american foreign policy. On the other hand, if you accept as 99% of the world population does, people are being honest, then there is such an obligation, then there of course is a moral obligation to make US policy comply with this. tl;dr The US has a moral obligation not to FUBAR the world

I don't quite see how your comment relates to mine. But yes, As a matter of fact US foreign policy is driven by what's best for the US, and vice versa for other countries. The US however has the ability to impact the world to a larger degree, as evidence by the US' huge proportion of world military spending. The discussion as I understand it has to do with what's right, not just what is the case. And if you don't believe there is a moral obligation to act in a way which promotes the universal good, but only the american good, it seems fairly easy to defend american foreign policy. On the other hand, if you accept as 99% of the world population does, people are being honest, then there is such an obligation, then there of course is a moral obligation to make US policy comply with this. tl;dr The US has a moral obligation not to FUBAR the world

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cefiuwu

I don't quite see how your comment relates to mine. But yes, As a matter of fact US foreign policy is driven by what's best for the US, and vice versa for other countries. The US however has the ability to impact the world to a larger degree, as evidence by the US' huge proportion of world military spending. The discussion as I understand it has to do with what's right, not just what is the case. And if you don't believe there is a moral obligation to act in a way which promotes the universal good, but only the american good, it seems fairly easy to defend american foreign policy. On the other hand, if you accept as 99% of the world population does, people are being honest, then there is such an obligation, then there of course is a moral obligation to make US policy comply with this.

The US has a moral obligation not to FUBAR the world

Mastercharade

>The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote. ok, so what about the other 57% of people? Also, where are they getting their sample size of each country's population? How large is the sample? TL;DR: This article's stats are bullshit.

>The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote. ok, so what about the other 57% of people? Also, where are they getting their sample size of each country's population? How large is the sample? TL;DR: This article's stats are bullshit.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cefjejr

The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote. ok, so what about the other 57% of people? Also, where are they getting their sample size of each country's population? How large is the sample?

This article's stats are bullshit.

lewald649

>their lack of reasonable gun laws buying a firearm in the states is harder than you think, especially handguns. Mass shootings get so much media coverage because *so few of them happen.* moreover, due to the declaratory and restrictive nature of the bill of rights, it would require tabula rasa to get the second amendment off of the constitution. And tabula rasa is no bueno for anybody, because precedent is how the west does business in the legal arena. tl:dr guns aren't leaving private hands without repealing the constitution, and the question is moot anyway.

>their lack of reasonable gun laws buying a firearm in the states is harder than you think, especially handguns. Mass shootings get so much media coverage because so few of them happen. moreover, due to the declaratory and restrictive nature of the bill of rights, it would require tabula rasa to get the second amendment off of the constitution. And tabula rasa is no bueno for anybody, because precedent is how the west does business in the legal arena. tl:dr guns aren't leaving private hands without repealing the constitution, and the question is moot anyway.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cefniij

their lack of reasonable gun laws buying a firearm in the states is harder than you think, especially handguns. Mass shootings get so much media coverage because so few of them happen. moreover, due to the declaratory and restrictive nature of the bill of rights, it would require tabula rasa to get the second amendment off of the constitution. And tabula rasa is no bueno for anybody, because precedent is how the west does business in the legal arena.

guns aren't leaving private hands without repealing the constitution, and the question is moot anyway.

wioneo

> the number of people dying is less (debatable) **This is not debatable.** There are more people and a lower gross number of violent deaths annually. Period. That indicates a massive decrease both relatively and in total. Anyone stating otherwise is incorrect. > The number of people killed in battle – calculated per 100,000 population – has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved - > What's happening is that the U.S. is acting as a "pacifier" keeping the peace all over the world, Mearsheimer said. He said like-minded thinkers, who call themselves "realists" believe "that power matters because the best way to survive is to be really powerful. - >Goldstein says there's a turn on a cliche that is apt: "We're actually going from the fire to the frying pan. And that's progress. It's not as bad as the fire." * 1900-1950: The tens of millions of violent deaths during the first half of the century make these numbers laughably large, as I'll assume you know * 1990: 20/100,000 people died violently, ~1,065,000 total deaths * 2004-2009: Average 7.9/100,000 people died violently ~526,000 total/year (with more than 25% from 14 countries) This indicates a blatantly obvious trend since the dissolution of the USSR (1991). *Suicides were not included and now make up the majority of violent deaths (surpassed interpersonal violence in the 90s) . **Sources:** * * * * * * Now you can argue what does or does not constitute "open conflict" (which I never mentioned), but these open conflicts are clearly less deadly regardless of how many there are. **TL;DR:** The ends justify the means.

> the number of people dying is less (debatable) This is not debatable. There are more people and a lower gross number of violent deaths annually. Period. That indicates a massive decrease both relatively and in total. Anyone stating otherwise is incorrect. > The number of people killed in battle – calculated per 100,000 population – has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved - > What's happening is that the U.S. is acting as a "pacifier" keeping the peace all over the world, Mearsheimer said. He said like-minded thinkers, who call themselves "realists" believe "that power matters because the best way to survive is to be really powerful. - >Goldstein says there's a turn on a cliche that is apt: "We're actually going from the fire to the frying pan. And that's progress. It's not as bad as the fire." 1900-1950: The tens of millions of violent deaths during the first half of the century make these numbers laughably large, as I'll assume you know 1990: 20/100,000 people died violently, ~1,065,000 total deaths 2004-2009: Average 7.9/100,000 people died violently ~526,000 total/year (with more than 25% from 14 countries) This indicates a blatantly obvious trend since the dissolution of the USSR (1991). *Suicides were not included and now make up the majority of violent deaths (surpassed interpersonal violence in the 90s) . Sources: Now you can argue what does or does not constitute "open conflict" (which I never mentioned), but these open conflicts are clearly less deadly regardless of how many there are. TL;DR: The ends justify the means.

worldnews

t5_2qh13

cefohyd

the number of people dying is less (debatable) This is not debatable. There are more people and a lower gross number of violent deaths annually. Period. That indicates a massive decrease both relatively and in total. Anyone stating otherwise is incorrect. > The number of people killed in battle – calculated per 100,000 population – has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved - > What's happening is that the U.S. is acting as a "pacifier" keeping the peace all over the world, Mearsheimer said. He said like-minded thinkers, who call themselves "realists" believe "that power matters because the best way to survive is to be really powerful. - >Goldstein says there's a turn on a cliche that is apt: "We're actually going from the fire to the frying pan. And that's progress. It's not as bad as the fire." 1900-1950: The tens of millions of violent deaths during the first half of the century make these numbers laughably large, as I'll assume you know 1990: 20/100,000 people died violently, ~1,065,000 total deaths 2004-2009: Average 7.9/100,000 people died violently ~526,000 total/year (with more than 25% from 14 countries) This indicates a blatantly obvious trend since the dissolution of the USSR (1991). *Suicides were not included and now make up the majority of violent deaths (surpassed interpersonal violence in the 90s) . Sources: Now you can argue what does or does not constitute "open conflict" (which I never mentioned), but these open conflicts are clearly less deadly regardless of how many there are.

The ends justify the means.

downhillcarver

Because up until recently, the homosexual lifestyle was not accepted publicly or legally. So in order to make things clear to those who consider the homosexual lifestyle to be a disorder rather than an inclination/choice/genetic/born that way/what have you, they worded it this way in legal documents. Otherwise you'd get some yahoo disputing a charge/lawsuit/whatever on the basis that a "homosexual relation" does not qualify as a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse. TLDR: legal clarity.

Because up until recently, the homosexual lifestyle was not accepted publicly or legally. So in order to make things clear to those who consider the homosexual lifestyle to be a disorder rather than an inclination/choice/genetic/born that way/what have you, they worded it this way in legal documents. Otherwise you'd get some yahoo disputing a charge/lawsuit/whatever on the basis that a "homosexual relation" does not qualify as a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse. TLDR: legal clarity.

CCW

t5_2s4mc

ceg7egk

Because up until recently, the homosexual lifestyle was not accepted publicly or legally. So in order to make things clear to those who consider the homosexual lifestyle to be a disorder rather than an inclination/choice/genetic/born that way/what have you, they worded it this way in legal documents. Otherwise you'd get some yahoo disputing a charge/lawsuit/whatever on the basis that a "homosexual relation" does not qualify as a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse.

legal clarity.

apb1979a

wow. it feels like this is a bold new step down the rabbit hole. I forecast an increased emphasis on the intersectionality of sizism and other axes of oppression TL;DR: feelz will be supersized

wow. it feels like this is a bold new step down the rabbit hole. I forecast an increased emphasis on the intersectionality of sizism and other axes of oppression TL;DR: feelz will be supersized

TumblrInAction

t5_2vizz

cefpupe

wow. it feels like this is a bold new step down the rabbit hole. I forecast an increased emphasis on the intersectionality of sizism and other axes of oppression

feelz will be supersized

Lion_on_the_floor

This stupid People & Style mag comes addressed to me, I don't know why I get it but I look through it. They had tips for better selfies and better full body shots. For selfies they suggested smiling slightly with the camera being held above you, you can cock your head a little too. For full body it was more advice at a Holiday party (for women) so they suggested one hand straight down holding your purse, the other hand on your hip or holding a drink, and cock your body so you're at an angle with one hip over the other. **TL;DR find an angle that works best for you, never take a picture straight on, smile**

This stupid People & Style mag comes addressed to me, I don't know why I get it but I look through it. They had tips for better selfies and better full body shots. For selfies they suggested smiling slightly with the camera being held above you, you can cock your head a little too. For full body it was more advice at a Holiday party (for women) so they suggested one hand straight down holding your purse, the other hand on your hip or holding a drink, and cock your body so you're at an angle with one hip over the other. TL;DR find an angle that works best for you, never take a picture straight on, smile

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cefvsd6

This stupid People & Style mag comes addressed to me, I don't know why I get it but I look through it. They had tips for better selfies and better full body shots. For selfies they suggested smiling slightly with the camera being held above you, you can cock your head a little too. For full body it was more advice at a Holiday party (for women) so they suggested one hand straight down holding your purse, the other hand on your hip or holding a drink, and cock your body so you're at an angle with one hip over the other.

find an angle that works best for you, never take a picture straight on, smile

lauradiamandis

Megan is Missing. It's meh until the last 20 minutes, after which I wanted to take a daylong shower, vomit, and then find jesus. tldr, DO NOT WATCH MEGAN IS MISSING

Megan is Missing. It's meh until the last 20 minutes, after which I wanted to take a daylong shower, vomit, and then find jesus. tldr, DO NOT WATCH MEGAN IS MISSING

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

cefyo06

Megan is Missing. It's meh until the last 20 minutes, after which I wanted to take a daylong shower, vomit, and then find jesus.

DO NOT WATCH MEGAN IS MISSING

Ric3rid3r

**Backstory:** I started seeing this incredibly attractive girl from College about 2 months ago. I took her out to the Renaissance Faire for her birthday and made her a custom dress. Things were frickin great. Come end of the semester, she told me she'd prolly see me a lot less cuz no good excuses to tell her parents to leave her house... I'm cool with that. Christmas, her sisters wedding, New Years.... She doesn't even make an effort to contact me back when i text/call. Now it's been bout 2 weeks of this... and i'm doing everything to take my mind off her, Video games, Work, Cooking, Arts and Crafts, Anime, Read a book. But every few minutes i find myself going "What did i do wrong?" or "Is she mad at me for something?" **TL;DR**: I'm an overly attached BF

Backstory: I started seeing this incredibly attractive girl from College about 2 months ago. I took her out to the Renaissance Faire for her birthday and made her a custom dress. Things were frickin great. Come end of the semester, she told me she'd prolly see me a lot less cuz no good excuses to tell her parents to leave her house... I'm cool with that. Christmas, her sisters wedding, New Years.... She doesn't even make an effort to contact me back when i text/call. Now it's been bout 2 weeks of this... and i'm doing everything to take my mind off her, Video games, Work, Cooking, Arts and Crafts, Anime, Read a book. But every few minutes i find myself going "What did i do wrong?" or "Is she mad at me for something?" TL;DR : I'm an overly attached BF

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cefz2dw

Backstory: I started seeing this incredibly attractive girl from College about 2 months ago. I took her out to the Renaissance Faire for her birthday and made her a custom dress. Things were frickin great. Come end of the semester, she told me she'd prolly see me a lot less cuz no good excuses to tell her parents to leave her house... I'm cool with that. Christmas, her sisters wedding, New Years.... She doesn't even make an effort to contact me back when i text/call. Now it's been bout 2 weeks of this... and i'm doing everything to take my mind off her, Video games, Work, Cooking, Arts and Crafts, Anime, Read a book. But every few minutes i find myself going "What did i do wrong?" or "Is she mad at me for something?"

I'm an overly attached BF

rich_toasted_cheese

My immediate response is boobs. If you like boobs, like to play with them, admire them, whatever, well then it just follows.... But I read earlier that a lot of gay men like boobs, so that falls through. So it must be about the vagina. I know "straight" men who are scared of vaginas. Don't like the look of them, don't like the taste, etc... Of course, this is just from a man's point of view here, but it is an easy step to extrapolate to women, so I won't waste your time. Anyway, that is my immediate response. But as I started writing, I remember what a gay friend of mine just said within the last month, and it is painfully true. At least in my case. Straight people think about gayness in terms of penetration and sexual gymnastics. Yet what it is, is who are you attracted to. Who do you like to spend time with, be close, watch movies together, and of course snuggle, kiss, and all that. It is a very different feeling than a good friend. Anyone on either side of the sexual fence will agree to that. And that feeling, that state of attraction, isn't something that can be chosen. But you sure know when it's there. And I can't for the life of me understand why people look down on two people who have these incredible, magical feelings toward one another because of some prejudice. It should be celebrated. tl;dr Who knows, and why does it matter?

My immediate response is boobs. If you like boobs, like to play with them, admire them, whatever, well then it just follows.... But I read earlier that a lot of gay men like boobs, so that falls through. So it must be about the vagina. I know "straight" men who are scared of vaginas. Don't like the look of them, don't like the taste, etc... Of course, this is just from a man's point of view here, but it is an easy step to extrapolate to women, so I won't waste your time. Anyway, that is my immediate response. But as I started writing, I remember what a gay friend of mine just said within the last month, and it is painfully true. At least in my case. Straight people think about gayness in terms of penetration and sexual gymnastics. Yet what it is, is who are you attracted to. Who do you like to spend time with, be close, watch movies together, and of course snuggle, kiss, and all that. It is a very different feeling than a good friend. Anyone on either side of the sexual fence will agree to that. And that feeling, that state of attraction, isn't something that can be chosen. But you sure know when it's there. And I can't for the life of me understand why people look down on two people who have these incredible, magical feelings toward one another because of some prejudice. It should be celebrated. tl;dr Who knows, and why does it matter?

explainlikeimfive

t5_2sokd

ceg44t7

My immediate response is boobs. If you like boobs, like to play with them, admire them, whatever, well then it just follows.... But I read earlier that a lot of gay men like boobs, so that falls through. So it must be about the vagina. I know "straight" men who are scared of vaginas. Don't like the look of them, don't like the taste, etc... Of course, this is just from a man's point of view here, but it is an easy step to extrapolate to women, so I won't waste your time. Anyway, that is my immediate response. But as I started writing, I remember what a gay friend of mine just said within the last month, and it is painfully true. At least in my case. Straight people think about gayness in terms of penetration and sexual gymnastics. Yet what it is, is who are you attracted to. Who do you like to spend time with, be close, watch movies together, and of course snuggle, kiss, and all that. It is a very different feeling than a good friend. Anyone on either side of the sexual fence will agree to that. And that feeling, that state of attraction, isn't something that can be chosen. But you sure know when it's there. And I can't for the life of me understand why people look down on two people who have these incredible, magical feelings toward one another because of some prejudice. It should be celebrated.

Who knows, and why does it matter?

mercury996

Partial truth. Other side of the coin that I have seen is many people work minimum wage with the employer paying them the rest of their wage under the table/in cash. Allows them to still collect their food stamps and after a few months get purposefully laid off or are fired to collect unemployment benefits. Yes there are hard working people who deserve back what the put in and need it when they fall on hard times. There are far more people IMO who game the system as much as they can to their benefit. TL DR: systems fucked...

Partial truth. Other side of the coin that I have seen is many people work minimum wage with the employer paying them the rest of their wage under the table/in cash. Allows them to still collect their food stamps and after a few months get purposefully laid off or are fired to collect unemployment benefits. Yes there are hard working people who deserve back what the put in and need it when they fall on hard times. There are far more people IMO who game the system as much as they can to their benefit. TL DR: systems fucked...

politics

t5_2cneq

cegeh9i

Partial truth. Other side of the coin that I have seen is many people work minimum wage with the employer paying them the rest of their wage under the table/in cash. Allows them to still collect their food stamps and after a few months get purposefully laid off or are fired to collect unemployment benefits. Yes there are hard working people who deserve back what the put in and need it when they fall on hard times. There are far more people IMO who game the system as much as they can to their benefit.

systems fucked...

Allen1019

I think it's fundamentally about optimism, or not wanting to give up. Everybody wants unemployment to be a temporary condition. It's the same mindset that fuels the voting patterns the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". Selling your house can be expensive, especially if you're one of the unfortunates who are now underwater because of the real estate market crash. Other people in your area are also unemployed and shedding possessions, so the value of your stuff goes down. The process of moving is also very stressful, as if being unemployed and looking for a job wasn't stressful enough. Then, when you finally do get a job that is close to your old one, you'll want to resume your former lifestyle, only you have to buy back all the things you shed while temporarily unemployed. Unemployment then becomes not just a short-term loss of income, but a long-term loss of wealth. If you get "any" job, you've now got to deal with learning how to do a new job in a field you're not necessarily familiar with. You have the time and energy drain of working, so good luck looking for a job in your former field. This holds double if you try to temp it out in a shitty field where your employer is abusing your vulnerable position and making you work long / swing / random shifts, screwing up your ability to schedule an interview. And that's if you can even get away with working while looking for another job; your employer may decide to fire you for that, and then you're back in the unemployment trap only this time you're coming from a lower wage. Then there's the larger societal problem, where if formerly middle class people are taking lower-class jobs, now the working poor get to add "more job competition" to their already-long list of woes. See Also: the "Lost Generation" of young adults who can't get entry-level jobs, because they are being taken by desperate and over-qualified workers of the previous generation. TLDR; nobody wants to believe that becoming unemployed means their life will permanently change for the worse.

I think it's fundamentally about optimism, or not wanting to give up. Everybody wants unemployment to be a temporary condition. It's the same mindset that fuels the voting patterns the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". Selling your house can be expensive, especially if you're one of the unfortunates who are now underwater because of the real estate market crash. Other people in your area are also unemployed and shedding possessions, so the value of your stuff goes down. The process of moving is also very stressful, as if being unemployed and looking for a job wasn't stressful enough. Then, when you finally do get a job that is close to your old one, you'll want to resume your former lifestyle, only you have to buy back all the things you shed while temporarily unemployed. Unemployment then becomes not just a short-term loss of income, but a long-term loss of wealth. If you get "any" job, you've now got to deal with learning how to do a new job in a field you're not necessarily familiar with. You have the time and energy drain of working, so good luck looking for a job in your former field. This holds double if you try to temp it out in a shitty field where your employer is abusing your vulnerable position and making you work long / swing / random shifts, screwing up your ability to schedule an interview. And that's if you can even get away with working while looking for another job; your employer may decide to fire you for that, and then you're back in the unemployment trap only this time you're coming from a lower wage. Then there's the larger societal problem, where if formerly middle class people are taking lower-class jobs, now the working poor get to add "more job competition" to their already-long list of woes. See Also: the "Lost Generation" of young adults who can't get entry-level jobs, because they are being taken by desperate and over-qualified workers of the previous generation. TLDR; nobody wants to believe that becoming unemployed means their life will permanently change for the worse.

politics

t5_2cneq

ceggt2h

I think it's fundamentally about optimism, or not wanting to give up. Everybody wants unemployment to be a temporary condition. It's the same mindset that fuels the voting patterns the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". Selling your house can be expensive, especially if you're one of the unfortunates who are now underwater because of the real estate market crash. Other people in your area are also unemployed and shedding possessions, so the value of your stuff goes down. The process of moving is also very stressful, as if being unemployed and looking for a job wasn't stressful enough. Then, when you finally do get a job that is close to your old one, you'll want to resume your former lifestyle, only you have to buy back all the things you shed while temporarily unemployed. Unemployment then becomes not just a short-term loss of income, but a long-term loss of wealth. If you get "any" job, you've now got to deal with learning how to do a new job in a field you're not necessarily familiar with. You have the time and energy drain of working, so good luck looking for a job in your former field. This holds double if you try to temp it out in a shitty field where your employer is abusing your vulnerable position and making you work long / swing / random shifts, screwing up your ability to schedule an interview. And that's if you can even get away with working while looking for another job; your employer may decide to fire you for that, and then you're back in the unemployment trap only this time you're coming from a lower wage. Then there's the larger societal problem, where if formerly middle class people are taking lower-class jobs, now the working poor get to add "more job competition" to their already-long list of woes. See Also: the "Lost Generation" of young adults who can't get entry-level jobs, because they are being taken by desperate and over-qualified workers of the previous generation.

nobody wants to believe that becoming unemployed means their life will permanently change for the worse.

Sesstuna

I'm not arguing with the cut-off. I'm arguing with your statements, because frankly they are quite bullheaded and off the mark. You seem to believe that this length of unemployment only happens because they aren't trying enough. Or maybe they aren't lowering their standards enough. In my experience, that's just not the case. The job market isn't there, and when it is it's skewed for you to lose. Let's throw some anecdotal evidence in here: I graduated high-school in 2004. Since I came out of high school with MCP and A+ certain, I was immediately able to find a job in IT at a bank in southern PA. My performance there led to me being offered a (contractor) job at a large hospital, and when you're offered a $60k/yr salary at 21, you don't turn it down. By the end of my first year there, the recession went into full swing. I was let go two weeks prior to my yearly review with no warning and only a $3000 windfall. I owned a car, I owed loans for my certifications, and I rented a two bedroom apt. I opted not to go in unemployment despite the recession, powering through and hoping to find a job. In 4 months and literally hundreds of applications later, the only call back I got was due to nepotism at its finest. I was a month behind on my car payment and Sallie Mae had already begun to push for default with my student loans. I had been surviving on a diet of rice and peanut butter. But I lost nothing because I got lucky. That $3k saved my life. Fast forward to 2011: still working Customer service. Things happened, job was lost in July 2011. I don't sweat it, thinking the recession is over. Turns out the job market is even worse here than it was last time. After the first month I apply for unemployment. Thousands of applications this time. Customer service, IT at first; after a few months I started applying for -anything- entry level. I am not given another job opportunity until October 2012, a sales position at $8/hr. By this point my primary car has been repossessed, I've lost my apartment and had to move back to my home state and live with the parents. Even on unemployment, these things still disappeared and we're let go. But that shit was a hell of a lifeline. I would have starved to death or worse, jumped off of the Ben Franklin. I go into the sales position with gusto, only to be let to a month later when the company goes belly up. No benefits this time. No job leads until a full year later, which brings us to September, where I'm hired in a distribution center (Amazon) with conditions that would be Upton Sinclair's worst nightmare. I was laid off yesterday due to the holiday season being over, despite me being hired as a full time employee (not a temp). I'm an intelligent guy, educated in a valuable field; but I am ready, willing, and able to break my back for pennies on the dollar just for a chance to work and have stability. Unfortunately the work isn't there, the internet has made hiring a complete joke, and my entire generation is under-employed and over-educated. Tldr; Unemployment is miserable and it destroys your life. The benefits are a lifeline. How dare you complain about someone needing it?

I'm not arguing with the cut-off. I'm arguing with your statements, because frankly they are quite bullheaded and off the mark. You seem to believe that this length of unemployment only happens because they aren't trying enough. Or maybe they aren't lowering their standards enough. In my experience, that's just not the case. The job market isn't there, and when it is it's skewed for you to lose. Let's throw some anecdotal evidence in here: I graduated high-school in 2004. Since I came out of high school with MCP and A+ certain, I was immediately able to find a job in IT at a bank in southern PA. My performance there led to me being offered a (contractor) job at a large hospital, and when you're offered a $60k/yr salary at 21, you don't turn it down. By the end of my first year there, the recession went into full swing. I was let go two weeks prior to my yearly review with no warning and only a $3000 windfall. I owned a car, I owed loans for my certifications, and I rented a two bedroom apt. I opted not to go in unemployment despite the recession, powering through and hoping to find a job. In 4 months and literally hundreds of applications later, the only call back I got was due to nepotism at its finest. I was a month behind on my car payment and Sallie Mae had already begun to push for default with my student loans. I had been surviving on a diet of rice and peanut butter. But I lost nothing because I got lucky. That $3k saved my life. Fast forward to 2011: still working Customer service. Things happened, job was lost in July 2011. I don't sweat it, thinking the recession is over. Turns out the job market is even worse here than it was last time. After the first month I apply for unemployment. Thousands of applications this time. Customer service, IT at first; after a few months I started applying for -anything- entry level. I am not given another job opportunity until October 2012, a sales position at $8/hr. By this point my primary car has been repossessed, I've lost my apartment and had to move back to my home state and live with the parents. Even on unemployment, these things still disappeared and we're let go. But that shit was a hell of a lifeline. I would have starved to death or worse, jumped off of the Ben Franklin. I go into the sales position with gusto, only to be let to a month later when the company goes belly up. No benefits this time. No job leads until a full year later, which brings us to September, where I'm hired in a distribution center (Amazon) with conditions that would be Upton Sinclair's worst nightmare. I was laid off yesterday due to the holiday season being over, despite me being hired as a full time employee (not a temp). I'm an intelligent guy, educated in a valuable field; but I am ready, willing, and able to break my back for pennies on the dollar just for a chance to work and have stability. Unfortunately the work isn't there, the internet has made hiring a complete joke, and my entire generation is under-employed and over-educated. Tldr; Unemployment is miserable and it destroys your life. The benefits are a lifeline. How dare you complain about someone needing it?

politics

t5_2cneq

cegje87

I'm not arguing with the cut-off. I'm arguing with your statements, because frankly they are quite bullheaded and off the mark. You seem to believe that this length of unemployment only happens because they aren't trying enough. Or maybe they aren't lowering their standards enough. In my experience, that's just not the case. The job market isn't there, and when it is it's skewed for you to lose. Let's throw some anecdotal evidence in here: I graduated high-school in 2004. Since I came out of high school with MCP and A+ certain, I was immediately able to find a job in IT at a bank in southern PA. My performance there led to me being offered a (contractor) job at a large hospital, and when you're offered a $60k/yr salary at 21, you don't turn it down. By the end of my first year there, the recession went into full swing. I was let go two weeks prior to my yearly review with no warning and only a $3000 windfall. I owned a car, I owed loans for my certifications, and I rented a two bedroom apt. I opted not to go in unemployment despite the recession, powering through and hoping to find a job. In 4 months and literally hundreds of applications later, the only call back I got was due to nepotism at its finest. I was a month behind on my car payment and Sallie Mae had already begun to push for default with my student loans. I had been surviving on a diet of rice and peanut butter. But I lost nothing because I got lucky. That $3k saved my life. Fast forward to 2011: still working Customer service. Things happened, job was lost in July 2011. I don't sweat it, thinking the recession is over. Turns out the job market is even worse here than it was last time. After the first month I apply for unemployment. Thousands of applications this time. Customer service, IT at first; after a few months I started applying for -anything- entry level. I am not given another job opportunity until October 2012, a sales position at $8/hr. By this point my primary car has been repossessed, I've lost my apartment and had to move back to my home state and live with the parents. Even on unemployment, these things still disappeared and we're let go. But that shit was a hell of a lifeline. I would have starved to death or worse, jumped off of the Ben Franklin. I go into the sales position with gusto, only to be let to a month later when the company goes belly up. No benefits this time. No job leads until a full year later, which brings us to September, where I'm hired in a distribution center (Amazon) with conditions that would be Upton Sinclair's worst nightmare. I was laid off yesterday due to the holiday season being over, despite me being hired as a full time employee (not a temp). I'm an intelligent guy, educated in a valuable field; but I am ready, willing, and able to break my back for pennies on the dollar just for a chance to work and have stability. Unfortunately the work isn't there, the internet has made hiring a complete joke, and my entire generation is under-employed and over-educated.

Unemployment is miserable and it destroys your life. The benefits are a lifeline. How dare you complain about someone needing it?

lowbrowhijinks

When your citation hinges upon anything sourced from Fox, your argument *and you* instantly lose credibility. Simply put, Fox isn't a reliable source. They manipulate facts. Their style of "reporting" supports a dialogue, not unbiased, unabridged truth. That's not to say *everything* they show is a lie, but they definitely have an agenda and have no qualms about twisting stories to fit their worldview. And the irony is that Fox would have you believe it's *all the other guys* doing it- but not them. If you live in a world where this isn't painfully and blatantly obvious, too much of your worldview has been skewed by propaganda to have the faintest clue how misinformed you likely are about almost every issue that you have based your opinions on. And as such you are unequipped to even participate in any real, meaningful discussion. People dismiss Fox news viewers because it is almost as if they are living in a completely different reality from everyone else. Unfair? Maybe. But before you believe Fox about anything, see how other news sources cover the same story (or more telling- if it's even a story at all.) Protip: don't assume the other sources are lying or liberally biased simply because they aren't Fox. I haven't even watched the clip about this surfer dude, but I can already assume what it will be: not a news story at all, but a persuasive piece engineered to make you outraged at an abuse of the system (enabled by liberals) and the subtext is that *if we don't put a stop to this EVERYONE will do it.* Am I close? Maybe, maybe not. But your context sure makes me believe this is the case, and my read should give you an idea of what people who aren't drinking the Fox Kool-Aid think of their style of "reporting." But the reason that guy dropped out of the discussion is probably because he's been down this road before. When someone cites Fox news as a source, it's taken for granted that they are pretty much going to stick their fingers in their ears and assume that someone disagreeing with them is a liberal, and therefore wrong. And they always *always* argue with talking points built around twisted rhetoric. Again- unfair? Maybe. But I've been down this road before, too. And I'm a gun-toting red stater. For ~~conservatives~~ Republicans, watching Fox news is like being at a football game and and getting play-by-play commentary from the cheerleaders. Or using your Mother as a reference on a job application. **TL,DR:** Wean yourself off Fox news. You'll be better for it.

When your citation hinges upon anything sourced from Fox, your argument and you instantly lose credibility. Simply put, Fox isn't a reliable source. They manipulate facts. Their style of "reporting" supports a dialogue, not unbiased, unabridged truth. That's not to say everything they show is a lie, but they definitely have an agenda and have no qualms about twisting stories to fit their worldview. And the irony is that Fox would have you believe it's all the other guys doing it- but not them. If you live in a world where this isn't painfully and blatantly obvious, too much of your worldview has been skewed by propaganda to have the faintest clue how misinformed you likely are about almost every issue that you have based your opinions on. And as such you are unequipped to even participate in any real, meaningful discussion. People dismiss Fox news viewers because it is almost as if they are living in a completely different reality from everyone else. Unfair? Maybe. But before you believe Fox about anything, see how other news sources cover the same story (or more telling- if it's even a story at all.) Protip: don't assume the other sources are lying or liberally biased simply because they aren't Fox. I haven't even watched the clip about this surfer dude, but I can already assume what it will be: not a news story at all, but a persuasive piece engineered to make you outraged at an abuse of the system (enabled by liberals) and the subtext is that if we don't put a stop to this EVERYONE will do it. Am I close? Maybe, maybe not. But your context sure makes me believe this is the case, and my read should give you an idea of what people who aren't drinking the Fox Kool-Aid think of their style of "reporting." But the reason that guy dropped out of the discussion is probably because he's been down this road before. When someone cites Fox news as a source, it's taken for granted that they are pretty much going to stick their fingers in their ears and assume that someone disagreeing with them is a liberal, and therefore wrong. And they always always argue with talking points built around twisted rhetoric. Again- unfair? Maybe. But I've been down this road before, too. And I'm a gun-toting red stater. For conservatives Republicans, watching Fox news is like being at a football game and and getting play-by-play commentary from the cheerleaders. Or using your Mother as a reference on a job application. TL,DR: Wean yourself off Fox news. You'll be better for it.

politics

t5_2cneq

cegnmhe

When your citation hinges upon anything sourced from Fox, your argument and you instantly lose credibility. Simply put, Fox isn't a reliable source. They manipulate facts. Their style of "reporting" supports a dialogue, not unbiased, unabridged truth. That's not to say everything they show is a lie, but they definitely have an agenda and have no qualms about twisting stories to fit their worldview. And the irony is that Fox would have you believe it's all the other guys doing it- but not them. If you live in a world where this isn't painfully and blatantly obvious, too much of your worldview has been skewed by propaganda to have the faintest clue how misinformed you likely are about almost every issue that you have based your opinions on. And as such you are unequipped to even participate in any real, meaningful discussion. People dismiss Fox news viewers because it is almost as if they are living in a completely different reality from everyone else. Unfair? Maybe. But before you believe Fox about anything, see how other news sources cover the same story (or more telling- if it's even a story at all.) Protip: don't assume the other sources are lying or liberally biased simply because they aren't Fox. I haven't even watched the clip about this surfer dude, but I can already assume what it will be: not a news story at all, but a persuasive piece engineered to make you outraged at an abuse of the system (enabled by liberals) and the subtext is that if we don't put a stop to this EVERYONE will do it. Am I close? Maybe, maybe not. But your context sure makes me believe this is the case, and my read should give you an idea of what people who aren't drinking the Fox Kool-Aid think of their style of "reporting." But the reason that guy dropped out of the discussion is probably because he's been down this road before. When someone cites Fox news as a source, it's taken for granted that they are pretty much going to stick their fingers in their ears and assume that someone disagreeing with them is a liberal, and therefore wrong. And they always always argue with talking points built around twisted rhetoric. Again- unfair? Maybe. But I've been down this road before, too. And I'm a gun-toting red stater. For conservatives Republicans, watching Fox news is like being at a football game and and getting play-by-play commentary from the cheerleaders. Or using your Mother as a reference on a job application.

Wean yourself off Fox news. You'll be better for it.

thekidchew

Anyone know where I can find an area with a huge amounts of enemys? My warrior is an absolute beast and I want to see how damage hes truly capable of. Im on xbox 360 and I have the Dawnbreaker and Nightingale Blade and I ruins Dragons in literally 3-4 swings. Im playing on I believe the second highest difficulty, my characters only lvl 50 and someone suggested I did something to "break the game" making my character OP as fuck. I can still die ofcourse but it takes a while lol. tldr: my character is really OP, what area has the most enemies to push him to the limit?

Anyone know where I can find an area with a huge amounts of enemys? My warrior is an absolute beast and I want to see how damage hes truly capable of. Im on xbox 360 and I have the Dawnbreaker and Nightingale Blade and I ruins Dragons in literally 3-4 swings. Im playing on I believe the second highest difficulty, my characters only lvl 50 and someone suggested I did something to "break the game" making my character OP as fuck. I can still die ofcourse but it takes a while lol. tldr: my character is really OP, what area has the most enemies to push him to the limit?

skyrim

t5_2s837

cegk402

Anyone know where I can find an area with a huge amounts of enemys? My warrior is an absolute beast and I want to see how damage hes truly capable of. Im on xbox 360 and I have the Dawnbreaker and Nightingale Blade and I ruins Dragons in literally 3-4 swings. Im playing on I believe the second highest difficulty, my characters only lvl 50 and someone suggested I did something to "break the game" making my character OP as fuck. I can still die ofcourse but it takes a while lol.

my character is really OP, what area has the most enemies to push him to the limit?

Verdian

In the future, Stargates are being added so players can travel to other players' servers. Perhaps Stargates could function as downloads of other players planets, that let you travel to them as your character. In case that sounds confusing, I mean you would: 1) Download a planet from a website and place it in your starbound folder. 2) Go into the game, build a Stargate, and place it like any other furniture. 3) Enter the coordinates for the world you downloaded, and enter the Stargate (just like your FTL drive). That way the original world still exists on your game, you can choose which worlds you want to download, and you can travel to them instantly (but only downloaded planets).

In the future, Stargates are being added so players can travel to other players' servers. Perhaps Stargates could function as downloads of other players planets, that let you travel to them as your character. In case that sounds confusing, I mean you would: 1) Download a planet from a website and place it in your starbound folder. 2) Go into the game, build a Stargate, and place it like any other furniture. 3) Enter the coordinates for the world you downloaded, and enter the Stargate (just like your FTL drive). That way the original world still exists on your game, you can choose which worlds you want to download, and you can travel to them instantly (but only downloaded planets).

starbound

t5_2tkp6

cegwndb

In the future, Stargates are being added so players can travel to other players' servers. Perhaps Stargates could function as downloads of other players planets, that let you travel to them as your character. In case that sounds confusing, I mean you would: 1) Download a planet from a website and place it in your starbound folder. 2) Go into the game, build a Stargate, and place it like any other furniture. 3) Enter the coordinates for the world you downloaded, and enter the Stargate (just like your F

ive). That way the original world still exists on your game, you can choose which worlds you want to download, and you can travel to them instantly (but only downloaded planets).

SirChasm

You said he smashed he phone, and in the TLDR that escalated to hitting her?

You said he smashed he phone, and in the TLDR that escalated to hitting her?

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cegsirw

You said he smashed he phone, and in the

that escalated to hitting her?

dreadpiratewombat

My alcoholic brother in law did something similar to my wife: got drunk and violent, then smashed her phone when she tried to video his behaviour. The spiral break on his arm and the broken jaw that little tirade earned him were quickly dismissed by the police after they pulled me off him. Tl;dr: hit a woman and the beating you're likely to get is never going to get you sympathy.

My alcoholic brother in law did something similar to my wife: got drunk and violent, then smashed her phone when she tried to video his behaviour. The spiral break on his arm and the broken jaw that little tirade earned him were quickly dismissed by the police after they pulled me off him. Tl;dr: hit a woman and the beating you're likely to get is never going to get you sympathy.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cegr7va

My alcoholic brother in law did something similar to my wife: got drunk and violent, then smashed her phone when she tried to video his behaviour. The spiral break on his arm and the broken jaw that little tirade earned him were quickly dismissed by the police after they pulled me off him.

hit a woman and the beating you're likely to get is never going to get you sympathy.

Zaethar

I definitely understand that, but I do believe there still exists a difference between an 'accidental' occurance, and repeated deliberate abuse. I don't believe that one necessarily has to lead to the other, although I do agree that there is a possibility that it does. What I don't get though, is society's mixed views on this. If, say, two male friends were to have an arguement, it's often 'acceptable' for them to punch it out, reconcile their differences, and carry on being good friends (of course, this differs per culture/subculture). I understand that gender come into play here, and females are generally seen as the weaker sex (and usually are physically less powerful), but that doesn't mean they can't defend themselves at all. I also wonder what would happen in the case of same sex relationships. Once again, say that two male friends have a heated arguement and they fight. How about instead of friends, they're now gay lovers? Should the abused party still immediately run? They should technically be able to physically stand up for themselves should there be a recurrence, so the inability to defend against an attack shouldn't be the issue here. I guess if we're talking emotional impact (once more regardless of gender), then that's a different story altogether though. Whether you're able to defend yourself or not, your trust has been breached, your emotional stability has been compromised, and you may even feel violated as a human being. But despite how shitty these issues may be (and don't get me wrong; they're good reasons to end a relationship) I still believe you should atleast *try* to communicate with your partner and get these issues out in the open, give them a chance to redeem themselves, and give yourself a chance to perhaps learn to trust them again. Maybe not if it's a short-term relationship (in which case, there's not much lost), but imagine if this were to happen to a couple that's been together for, say, 10 years. Would it be worth throwing that all away over something that hasn't yet been proven to be constant aberrant behaviour of the supposed abusive spouse? TL;DR: I think there's a difference between one-time, relatively 'light' abuse, and prolonged heavy abuse, and this should dictate the actions taken. There's also a weird discrepancy in our generic societal views when it comes to physical expression of anger between humans.

I definitely understand that, but I do believe there still exists a difference between an 'accidental' occurance, and repeated deliberate abuse. I don't believe that one necessarily has to lead to the other, although I do agree that there is a possibility that it does. What I don't get though, is society's mixed views on this. If, say, two male friends were to have an arguement, it's often 'acceptable' for them to punch it out, reconcile their differences, and carry on being good friends (of course, this differs per culture/subculture). I understand that gender come into play here, and females are generally seen as the weaker sex (and usually are physically less powerful), but that doesn't mean they can't defend themselves at all. I also wonder what would happen in the case of same sex relationships. Once again, say that two male friends have a heated arguement and they fight. How about instead of friends, they're now gay lovers? Should the abused party still immediately run? They should technically be able to physically stand up for themselves should there be a recurrence, so the inability to defend against an attack shouldn't be the issue here. I guess if we're talking emotional impact (once more regardless of gender), then that's a different story altogether though. Whether you're able to defend yourself or not, your trust has been breached, your emotional stability has been compromised, and you may even feel violated as a human being. But despite how shitty these issues may be (and don't get me wrong; they're good reasons to end a relationship) I still believe you should atleast try to communicate with your partner and get these issues out in the open, give them a chance to redeem themselves, and give yourself a chance to perhaps learn to trust them again. Maybe not if it's a short-term relationship (in which case, there's not much lost), but imagine if this were to happen to a couple that's been together for, say, 10 years. Would it be worth throwing that all away over something that hasn't yet been proven to be constant aberrant behaviour of the supposed abusive spouse? TL;DR: I think there's a difference between one-time, relatively 'light' abuse, and prolonged heavy abuse, and this should dictate the actions taken. There's also a weird discrepancy in our generic societal views when it comes to physical expression of anger between humans.

AdviceAnimals

t5_2s7tt

cegwf9s

I definitely understand that, but I do believe there still exists a difference between an 'accidental' occurance, and repeated deliberate abuse. I don't believe that one necessarily has to lead to the other, although I do agree that there is a possibility that it does. What I don't get though, is society's mixed views on this. If, say, two male friends were to have an arguement, it's often 'acceptable' for them to punch it out, reconcile their differences, and carry on being good friends (of course, this differs per culture/subculture). I understand that gender come into play here, and females are generally seen as the weaker sex (and usually are physically less powerful), but that doesn't mean they can't defend themselves at all. I also wonder what would happen in the case of same sex relationships. Once again, say that two male friends have a heated arguement and they fight. How about instead of friends, they're now gay lovers? Should the abused party still immediately run? They should technically be able to physically stand up for themselves should there be a recurrence, so the inability to defend against an attack shouldn't be the issue here. I guess if we're talking emotional impact (once more regardless of gender), then that's a different story altogether though. Whether you're able to defend yourself or not, your trust has been breached, your emotional stability has been compromised, and you may even feel violated as a human being. But despite how shitty these issues may be (and don't get me wrong; they're good reasons to end a relationship) I still believe you should atleast try to communicate with your partner and get these issues out in the open, give them a chance to redeem themselves, and give yourself a chance to perhaps learn to trust them again. Maybe not if it's a short-term relationship (in which case, there's not much lost), but imagine if this were to happen to a couple that's been together for, say, 10 years. Would it be worth throwing that all away over something that hasn't yet been proven to be constant aberrant behaviour of the supposed abusive spouse?

I think there's a difference between one-time, relatively 'light' abuse, and prolonged heavy abuse, and this should dictate the actions taken. There's also a weird discrepancy in our generic societal views when it comes to physical expression of anger between humans.

smcnally

I don't have a Surface, so, YMMV. I did just see this article: Find In Page: "Make Browsing On Touch Screen Computers Bearable" tl;dr -- from chrome://flags "... recommends enabling the following flags: "Touch Optimized UI," "Enable Touch Events," and "Enable Touch Initiated Drag and Drop.""

I don't have a Surface, so, YMMV. I did just see this article: Find In Page: "Make Browsing On Touch Screen Computers Bearable" tl;dr -- from chrome://flags "... recommends enabling the following flags: "Touch Optimized UI," "Enable Touch Events," and "Enable Touch Initiated Drag and Drop.""

chrome

t5_2qlz9

ceh8y7z

I don't have a Surface, so, YMMV. I did just see this article: Find In Page: "Make Browsing On Touch Screen Computers Bearable"

from chrome://flags "... recommends enabling the following flags: "Touch Optimized UI," "Enable Touch Events," and "Enable Touch Initiated Drag and Drop.""

scottseligman

Man I am feeling like writing a really long answer that will solve all your woes tonight. I am going to be very frank with you. The thing that you need to do is really get comfortable with the idea of spending 300 dollars in one chunk on your new hobby. Limited is far and away the hardest format to "master." For one it is not just about playing magic, it is also about understanding the game. Much of your success in limited is decided by factors outside of play skill. Card evaluation, set knowledge and generally understanding of fellow players behavior, swing your chances of winning or losing long before you have shuffled up. Add to that the fact that limited is, especial on the level of FNM players, can be extremely luck depended. Ask anyone who has faced down a turn two pack rat/jitte or a turn 4 bloodline keeper how they feel they could have played their way out of it. Draft and sealed reward good players and punish player that are learning. You are a learning player. So you are left with the 300 dollar option. You either play standard or you play modern. Legacy is out of the price range I would suggest for a newer competitive player. **Standard:** Pro: You probably have some of the cards, standard is far and away the most played format. The tuned power level prevents you from running into anything too broken slash discouraging. Currently the buy in for a tier 1 standard deck is right around 300 bucks (a while back that would barely get you a playset of bonfires) Cons: The format changes much faster than all others. This leads to a money pit effect where you really have to drop upwards of 150 bucks every new set to stay on the best deck. This also means you end up having to trade/slash sell cards a lot to fund this (I know this is a pro for some, but it won't make you better at magic). Standard evolving a lot means you don't always get to play a deck you enjoy, aggro players who where forced to play thragtusk mirrors last year can tell you more about this if you like. **Modern:** Pros: Modern is stable on a year to year bases, you can buy a deck and it will still be about as good as it is today as it will be next year. It is eternal and allows you access to more stuff, (More stuff = more power = more interactions = more fun?). You can play a combo deck if you want. This is WOTC's pet format and come hell or high water they are gonna push it, GPs and special products abound. Modern players are on average better players, more smart magicians to gain information from when you play. Cons: They could ban your favorite card, as the pet format Wizards tweak it the most. Local modern events can be hard to come by in certain areas, this is not an issue with MTGO. There are not a ton of cons for modern really, but the last one can be a big one. **What you should do:** All in all, my advice would be to buy into modern. If your local community can support it it will be the best bang for you buck to become a stronger magician. If not standard is your next best thing. To chose a deck fire up youtube and find some modo videos of decks and see what speaks to you. Probably use a TCG 4-0 daily deck list archive to check prices first [LINK]( just to make sure you are in a good price range. Affinity is your best bet if you really want to win, merfolk is also a strong consideration. If you just read this and thought to yourself "man 300 smackaroos that is way too much for me to drop." First: You are full of crap, you have probably spent at least half that on drafts and other magic related crap in the last 2 months. If you really are tight up for cash skip your next 7 drafts, buy a soul sisters deck, and play that until your local win percentage is 70 or higher. By that time you will be a good enough player and have won enough packs that MTG world will be putty in you god like hands. **TLDR: Screw you, read it or you get none of this awesome advice**

Man I am feeling like writing a really long answer that will solve all your woes tonight. I am going to be very frank with you. The thing that you need to do is really get comfortable with the idea of spending 300 dollars in one chunk on your new hobby. Limited is far and away the hardest format to "master." For one it is not just about playing magic, it is also about understanding the game. Much of your success in limited is decided by factors outside of play skill. Card evaluation, set knowledge and generally understanding of fellow players behavior, swing your chances of winning or losing long before you have shuffled up. Add to that the fact that limited is, especial on the level of FNM players, can be extremely luck depended. Ask anyone who has faced down a turn two pack rat/jitte or a turn 4 bloodline keeper how they feel they could have played their way out of it. Draft and sealed reward good players and punish player that are learning. You are a learning player. So you are left with the 300 dollar option. You either play standard or you play modern. Legacy is out of the price range I would suggest for a newer competitive player. Standard: Pro: You probably have some of the cards, standard is far and away the most played format. The tuned power level prevents you from running into anything too broken slash discouraging. Currently the buy in for a tier 1 standard deck is right around 300 bucks (a while back that would barely get you a playset of bonfires) Cons: The format changes much faster than all others. This leads to a money pit effect where you really have to drop upwards of 150 bucks every new set to stay on the best deck. This also means you end up having to trade/slash sell cards a lot to fund this (I know this is a pro for some, but it won't make you better at magic). Standard evolving a lot means you don't always get to play a deck you enjoy, aggro players who where forced to play thragtusk mirrors last year can tell you more about this if you like. Modern: Pros: Modern is stable on a year to year bases, you can buy a deck and it will still be about as good as it is today as it will be next year. It is eternal and allows you access to more stuff, (More stuff = more power = more interactions = more fun?). You can play a combo deck if you want. This is WOTC's pet format and come hell or high water they are gonna push it, GPs and special products abound. Modern players are on average better players, more smart magicians to gain information from when you play. Cons: They could ban your favorite card, as the pet format Wizards tweak it the most. Local modern events can be hard to come by in certain areas, this is not an issue with MTGO. There are not a ton of cons for modern really, but the last one can be a big one. What you should do: All in all, my advice would be to buy into modern. If your local community can support it it will be the best bang for you buck to become a stronger magician. If not standard is your next best thing. To chose a deck fire up youtube and find some modo videos of decks and see what speaks to you. Probably use a TCG 4-0 daily deck list archive to check prices first [LINK]( just to make sure you are in a good price range. Affinity is your best bet if you really want to win, merfolk is also a strong consideration. If you just read this and thought to yourself "man 300 smackaroos that is way too much for me to drop." First: You are full of crap, you have probably spent at least half that on drafts and other magic related crap in the last 2 months. If you really are tight up for cash skip your next 7 drafts, buy a soul sisters deck, and play that until your local win percentage is 70 or higher. By that time you will be a good enough player and have won enough packs that MTG world will be putty in you god like hands. TLDR: Screw you, read it or you get none of this awesome advice

magicTCG

t5_2qn5f

cegxl1o

Man I am feeling like writing a really long answer that will solve all your woes tonight. I am going to be very frank with you. The thing that you need to do is really get comfortable with the idea of spending 300 dollars in one chunk on your new hobby. Limited is far and away the hardest format to "master." For one it is not just about playing magic, it is also about understanding the game. Much of your success in limited is decided by factors outside of play skill. Card evaluation, set knowledge and generally understanding of fellow players behavior, swing your chances of winning or losing long before you have shuffled up. Add to that the fact that limited is, especial on the level of FNM players, can be extremely luck depended. Ask anyone who has faced down a turn two pack rat/jitte or a turn 4 bloodline keeper how they feel they could have played their way out of it. Draft and sealed reward good players and punish player that are learning. You are a learning player. So you are left with the 300 dollar option. You either play standard or you play modern. Legacy is out of the price range I would suggest for a newer competitive player. Standard: Pro: You probably have some of the cards, standard is far and away the most played format. The tuned power level prevents you from running into anything too broken slash discouraging. Currently the buy in for a tier 1 standard deck is right around 300 bucks (a while back that would barely get you a playset of bonfires) Cons: The format changes much faster than all others. This leads to a money pit effect where you really have to drop upwards of 150 bucks every new set to stay on the best deck. This also means you end up having to trade/slash sell cards a lot to fund this (I know this is a pro for some, but it won't make you better at magic). Standard evolving a lot means you don't always get to play a deck you enjoy, aggro players who where forced to play thragtusk mirrors last year can tell you more about this if you like. Modern: Pros: Modern is stable on a year to year bases, you can buy a deck and it will still be about as good as it is today as it will be next year. It is eternal and allows you access to more stuff, (More stuff = more power = more interactions = more fun?). You can play a combo deck if you want. This is WOTC's pet format and come hell or high water they are gonna push it, GPs and special products abound. Modern players are on average better players, more smart magicians to gain information from when you play. Cons: They could ban your favorite card, as the pet format Wizards tweak it the most. Local modern events can be hard to come by in certain areas, this is not an issue with MTGO. There are not a ton of cons for modern really, but the last one can be a big one. What you should do: All in all, my advice would be to buy into modern. If your local community can support it it will be the best bang for you buck to become a stronger magician. If not standard is your next best thing. To chose a deck fire up youtube and find some modo videos of decks and see what speaks to you. Probably use a TCG 4-0 daily deck list archive to check prices first [LINK]( just to make sure you are in a good price range. Affinity is your best bet if you really want to win, merfolk is also a strong consideration. If you just read this and thought to yourself "man 300 smackaroos that is way too much for me to drop." First: You are full of crap, you have probably spent at least half that on drafts and other magic related crap in the last 2 months. If you really are tight up for cash skip your next 7 drafts, buy a soul sisters deck, and play that until your local win percentage is 70 or higher. By that time you will be a good enough player and have won enough packs that MTG world will be putty in you god like hands.

Screw you, read it or you get none of this awesome advice

ReclaimerSpirit

To me cyberpunk has always been about the conflicting power relationships created by technology and the class differences it creates. Its about massive capability for good being put towards morally grey purposes. Its technology at its grittiest and dirtiest. If you wanted to have something that's futuristic, but clean and black and white, you could watch the Jetsons. The technology in this genre doesn't look like the Apple Store. Its dirty, its soggy, held together by duct tape and cuss words and only gets turned on at peak hours so the authorities have a harder time tracking its power usage. Cyberpunk is about the darkside of the future, where we jerry-rig lives together from broken parts (whether those are mechanical or metaphorical). Maybe thats why OP is confused by the pictures of contemporary cities on this SUB. I think some people are finding that these themes can hit a little close to home. TL;DR: The word "Punk" is in Cyberpunk for a reason.

To me cyberpunk has always been about the conflicting power relationships created by technology and the class differences it creates. Its about massive capability for good being put towards morally grey purposes. Its technology at its grittiest and dirtiest. If you wanted to have something that's futuristic, but clean and black and white, you could watch the Jetsons. The technology in this genre doesn't look like the Apple Store. Its dirty, its soggy, held together by duct tape and cuss words and only gets turned on at peak hours so the authorities have a harder time tracking its power usage. Cyberpunk is about the darkside of the future, where we jerry-rig lives together from broken parts (whether those are mechanical or metaphorical). Maybe thats why OP is confused by the pictures of contemporary cities on this SUB. I think some people are finding that these themes can hit a little close to home. TL;DR: The word "Punk" is in Cyberpunk for a reason.

Cyberpunk

t5_2qi50

cegxmo1

To me cyberpunk has always been about the conflicting power relationships created by technology and the class differences it creates. Its about massive capability for good being put towards morally grey purposes. Its technology at its grittiest and dirtiest. If you wanted to have something that's futuristic, but clean and black and white, you could watch the Jetsons. The technology in this genre doesn't look like the Apple Store. Its dirty, its soggy, held together by duct tape and cuss words and only gets turned on at peak hours so the authorities have a harder time tracking its power usage. Cyberpunk is about the darkside of the future, where we jerry-rig lives together from broken parts (whether those are mechanical or metaphorical). Maybe thats why OP is confused by the pictures of contemporary cities on this SUB. I think some people are finding that these themes can hit a little close to home.

The word "Punk" is in Cyberpunk for a reason.

tigranater

This should be the fucking TL;DR please...

This should be the fucking TL;DR please...

Cyberpunk

t5_2qi50

ceh397o

This should be the fucking

please...

utdscimajor

Do you think he might've wanted to have the bad review deleted by himself? It just really seems that he got multiple accounts to give himself positive reviews but forgot to give the "real" grades. Unless.. do you remember him giving all A's? That still seems really unlikely to me. tl;dr: This Russian math professor seems like a fraud on RMP.

Do you think he might've wanted to have the bad review deleted by himself? It just really seems that he got multiple accounts to give himself positive reviews but forgot to give the "real" grades. Unless.. do you remember him giving all A's? That still seems really unlikely to me. tl;dr: This Russian math professor seems like a fraud on RMP.

utdallas

t5_2s4is

ceiu1pq

Do you think he might've wanted to have the bad review deleted by himself? It just really seems that he got multiple accounts to give himself positive reviews but forgot to give the "real" grades. Unless.. do you remember him giving all A's? That still seems really unlikely to me.

This Russian math professor seems like a fraud on RMP.

marmulak

I grew up in California among Christians. I never witnessed any major anti-semitism in this context, by which I mean hatred specifically targeted to Jews. I've met plenty of devout Christians and Atheists who hate all other religions simply because they are different from their own. The Holocaust and its impact on US culture has given American Jews a kind of halo effect. That being said, I personally feel that the general culture here has an innate dislike of Judaism that is usually not expressed overtly; people here would scarcely view Jewish orthodoxy to be acceptable as a belief system or way of life, but are simply socially conditioned to feel an obligation to show respect to Judaism and Jews. As a religious Muslim, I can testify that among religious Muslims there is a positive attitude toward Jews/Judaism, but not towards the state of Israel. Most religious Muslims will deny that Israel is authentically Jewish, which of course is upsetting to some people, but it should be understood that Muslims adopt this position out of their positive regard toward Judaism and unwillingness to associate the religion with something they think is bad, so I would refrain from automatically labeling this as anti-semitism. It obviously has its complications. However, the worst anti-semitism I have personally witnessed is among Middle Eastern cultures that are predominantly Muslim. What I mean for example, is that I have seen quite a few Arabs express an incredibly irrational prejudice against Jews not due to any specific religious conviction or rationale (remember, for example, that the vast majority of Muslims are not Arab anyway). I met a guy from Saudi Arabia who adamantly swore that Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an important and authentic work. Obviously this issue has a lot to do with contemporary politics. tl;dr Anti-semitism isn't gone. The situation in the US seemingly pretty good, and the situation in the Arab world is seemingly awful.

I grew up in California among Christians. I never witnessed any major anti-semitism in this context, by which I mean hatred specifically targeted to Jews. I've met plenty of devout Christians and Atheists who hate all other religions simply because they are different from their own. The Holocaust and its impact on US culture has given American Jews a kind of halo effect. That being said, I personally feel that the general culture here has an innate dislike of Judaism that is usually not expressed overtly; people here would scarcely view Jewish orthodoxy to be acceptable as a belief system or way of life, but are simply socially conditioned to feel an obligation to show respect to Judaism and Jews. As a religious Muslim, I can testify that among religious Muslims there is a positive attitude toward Jews/Judaism, but not towards the state of Israel. Most religious Muslims will deny that Israel is authentically Jewish, which of course is upsetting to some people, but it should be understood that Muslims adopt this position out of their positive regard toward Judaism and unwillingness to associate the religion with something they think is bad, so I would refrain from automatically labeling this as anti-semitism. It obviously has its complications. However, the worst anti-semitism I have personally witnessed is among Middle Eastern cultures that are predominantly Muslim. What I mean for example, is that I have seen quite a few Arabs express an incredibly irrational prejudice against Jews not due to any specific religious conviction or rationale (remember, for example, that the vast majority of Muslims are not Arab anyway). I met a guy from Saudi Arabia who adamantly swore that Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an important and authentic work. Obviously this issue has a lot to do with contemporary politics. tl;dr Anti-semitism isn't gone. The situation in the US seemingly pretty good, and the situation in the Arab world is seemingly awful.

Judaism

t5_2qi67

ceht59l

I grew up in California among Christians. I never witnessed any major anti-semitism in this context, by which I mean hatred specifically targeted to Jews. I've met plenty of devout Christians and Atheists who hate all other religions simply because they are different from their own. The Holocaust and its impact on US culture has given American Jews a kind of halo effect. That being said, I personally feel that the general culture here has an innate dislike of Judaism that is usually not expressed overtly; people here would scarcely view Jewish orthodoxy to be acceptable as a belief system or way of life, but are simply socially conditioned to feel an obligation to show respect to Judaism and Jews. As a religious Muslim, I can testify that among religious Muslims there is a positive attitude toward Jews/Judaism, but not towards the state of Israel. Most religious Muslims will deny that Israel is authentically Jewish, which of course is upsetting to some people, but it should be understood that Muslims adopt this position out of their positive regard toward Judaism and unwillingness to associate the religion with something they think is bad, so I would refrain from automatically labeling this as anti-semitism. It obviously has its complications. However, the worst anti-semitism I have personally witnessed is among Middle Eastern cultures that are predominantly Muslim. What I mean for example, is that I have seen quite a few Arabs express an incredibly irrational prejudice against Jews not due to any specific religious conviction or rationale (remember, for example, that the vast majority of Muslims are not Arab anyway). I met a guy from Saudi Arabia who adamantly swore that Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an important and authentic work. Obviously this issue has a lot to do with contemporary politics.

Anti-semitism isn't gone. The situation in the US seemingly pretty good, and the situation in the Arab world is seemingly awful.

FansTurnOnYou

Well I won't try to fully flesh out the math out of it, but you should be going for a 5IV before a 6IV, since getting the 6th IV is completely luck based anyways since only five stats can be passed and the last is random. So your chance of 6IV with an ideal random stat is still: P = (1/32)*(1/2)^3 = ~0.4%, and that's when you get a good roll 2/6 times. But it doesn't make getting a 5IV any easier because a 4IV with one wrong stat is basically a 3IV forcing you to win an extra coin flip. TL;DR: Get the 5IV before trying to get 6IV, that's how you get a 6IV eventually anyways. EDIT: If you tell me specific spreads and what you're trying to get I can give you more specific advice.

Well I won't try to fully flesh out the math out of it, but you should be going for a 5IV before a 6IV, since getting the 6th IV is completely luck based anyways since only five stats can be passed and the last is random. So your chance of 6IV with an ideal random stat is still: P = (1/32)*(1/2)^3 = ~0.4%, and that's when you get a good roll 2/6 times. But it doesn't make getting a 5IV any easier because a 4IV with one wrong stat is basically a 3IV forcing you to win an extra coin flip. TL;DR: Get the 5IV before trying to get 6IV, that's how you get a 6IV eventually anyways. EDIT: If you tell me specific spreads and what you're trying to get I can give you more specific advice.

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

cei7ri7

Well I won't try to fully flesh out the math out of it, but you should be going for a 5IV before a 6IV, since getting the 6th IV is completely luck based anyways since only five stats can be passed and the last is random. So your chance of 6IV with an ideal random stat is still: P = (1/32)*(1/2)^3 = ~0.4%, and that's when you get a good roll 2/6 times. But it doesn't make getting a 5IV any easier because a 4IV with one wrong stat is basically a 3IV forcing you to win an extra coin flip.

Get the 5IV before trying to get 6IV, that's how you get a 6IV eventually anyways. EDIT: If you tell me specific spreads and what you're trying to get I can give you more specific advice.

xavierthegreat

Because lots of Americans like to stick with what they know. As an American, I can say that most people I know are pretty closed-minded. Those that are open-minded actually give WP a try, or don't hate on it. People learn one thing, think it's the shit, and stick with it through to the end. Because WP is a young platform, there are less people who adopted it as their first platform. **TL;DR: Americans are stubborn.**

Because lots of Americans like to stick with what they know. As an American, I can say that most people I know are pretty closed-minded. Those that are open-minded actually give WP a try, or don't hate on it. People learn one thing, think it's the shit, and stick with it through to the end. Because WP is a young platform, there are less people who adopted it as their first platform. TL;DR: Americans are stubborn.

windowsphone

t5_2r71o

cei1fgg

Because lots of Americans like to stick with what they know. As an American, I can say that most people I know are pretty closed-minded. Those that are open-minded actually give WP a try, or don't hate on it. People learn one thing, think it's the shit, and stick with it through to the end. Because WP is a young platform, there are less people who adopted it as their first platform.

Americans are stubborn.

puhatch

My mom bought me a Gameboy Pocket (my first handheld) and Pokemon Blue shortly after my 6th birthday (I'm 21 now). I sat in my living room about 3 inches from the lamp (backlights weren't a thing back then) training my Bulbasaur in Route 1 for hours. To get to Virdian City, you have to walk through tall grass and AROUND a cliff. My 6-year-old self did not notice that you could walk around the cliff, so I thought that if I trained enough, I could walk over the cliff. Had a pretty strong Ivysaur before I even got Pokeballs. I remember being awake until 10:00PM playing my new game which was wayyy later than I was *allowed* to be up at six years old. TLDR - My first time playing Pokemon was really similar to how I play today.

My mom bought me a Gameboy Pocket (my first handheld) and Pokemon Blue shortly after my 6th birthday (I'm 21 now). I sat in my living room about 3 inches from the lamp (backlights weren't a thing back then) training my Bulbasaur in Route 1 for hours. To get to Virdian City, you have to walk through tall grass and AROUND a cliff. My 6-year-old self did not notice that you could walk around the cliff, so I thought that if I trained enough, I could walk over the cliff. Had a pretty strong Ivysaur before I even got Pokeballs. I remember being awake until 10:00PM playing my new game which was wayyy later than I was allowed to be up at six years old. TLDR - My first time playing Pokemon was really similar to how I play today.

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

ceirg61

My mom bought me a Gameboy Pocket (my first handheld) and Pokemon Blue shortly after my 6th birthday (I'm 21 now). I sat in my living room about 3 inches from the lamp (backlights weren't a thing back then) training my Bulbasaur in Route 1 for hours. To get to Virdian City, you have to walk through tall grass and AROUND a cliff. My 6-year-old self did not notice that you could walk around the cliff, so I thought that if I trained enough, I could walk over the cliff. Had a pretty strong Ivysaur before I even got Pokeballs. I remember being awake until 10:00PM playing my new game which was wayyy later than I was allowed to be up at six years old.

My first time playing Pokemon was really similar to how I play today.

Caterpie1337

I remember when I was really young I was playing Yellow. I asked my cousin to help me battle Brock because I couldn't beat him with my Pikachu. So my cousin traded me a magikarp with splash, claiming it was a water type move. Needless to say I lost again. TL;DR My cousin is a dick

I remember when I was really young I was playing Yellow. I asked my cousin to help me battle Brock because I couldn't beat him with my Pikachu. So my cousin traded me a magikarp with splash, claiming it was a water type move. Needless to say I lost again. TL;DR My cousin is a dick

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

cei29yi

I remember when I was really young I was playing Yellow. I asked my cousin to help me battle Brock because I couldn't beat him with my Pikachu. So my cousin traded me a magikarp with splash, claiming it was a water type move. Needless to say I lost again.

My cousin is a dick

PandaXD001

/r/pokemon is for pics and comics and things liek that in general. Now dont get me wrong i do like the idea of the discussion times, but 9/10 i, and several others, come here to chill and laugh. Not have a deep thought convo or argue about pokemon --- now for the other subs it depends on whch one you're talking about. if we compined /r/pokemon and with /r/pokemontrades or /r/pokemongiveaway then harfly and trade or give awaywould be seen gettign lost in everything else and then people trade or giveaway wouldnt happen, and as someone who just got himself a 4 iv treecko for a pidgey named sparkletits! would happily keep it seperated now for things liiek fusions and shinies i honestly was one of the people that was tired of "OMG LOOK AT MY SHINY, LOVE ME AND GIMME UPVOTES" or "OMG LOOK AT MY FUNNY FUSION THAT HAS BEEN MADE AND SHOWN 20 OTHER TIMES ON THE SUB!" that shit got really old really fast. i did like the fanart of the fusions though and liek that theyre were allowed to stay here but since the generator started with only a few pokemon in the first place it was getting old seeing people combine lickitung derp face with everything, or constantly seeing the cubone/growlite arcinine fusion, so they needed to be placed someone where else for people who do truely enjoy them can go and see them if they so wish. And bith of the count doubly for memes. i was even a meme poster when it was allowed and eventually i stopped cause it was getting old seeing big lebowski "am i the only one who hasnt seen or caught a shniy..." we get it half of /r/pokemon has caught a shiny. shiny chain for one and get over it. but dont come here and post a meme that was posted 3 days ago but by a different user. however the other side of this coin is the few subs that i dont think make sense to be sepreate like /r/Pokemonconspiracies. it was mosty quiet from what i saw and i think it could be allowed here in /r/pokemon instead of being in its own sub. but the thing with that is it does have a specific following that is very dedicated so it makes sense for them to make their own sub so their posts dont get lost. --- you are right we do have more subs available (which should all be linked in the side bar might i add) but pokemon is a big thing. its on almost every media type, is linked to a major gaming company, and can be broken down in to several different categories for related subjects and as such if there is enough of a strong following i thing it should be separated so those followers dont have to dig around for an hour to find something thats relevant to their tastes and finding people with those similar tastes. think of it this way if i wanted to make a post for a skyrim mod wouldnt i make more sense for me to go and put it in /r/skyrim or /r/elderscrolls instead of posting in /r/gaming? As for complaints. As long as their are humans on the other side of our screen we're gonna get complaints. its impossible to make *everyone* happy but i think not knowing about the other subs can be fixed if the mods would link them in the side bar in stead of having 5 posting option/places on this specific sub. make a filter and organize instead of expecting others to click said link. i think by now everyone knows that shinies go to their sub and memes go to their sub TL;DR: go back and read or leave the conversation -.-

/r/pokemon is for pics and comics and things liek that in general. Now dont get me wrong i do like the idea of the discussion times, but 9/10 i, and several others, come here to chill and laugh. Not have a deep thought convo or argue about pokemon now for the other subs it depends on whch one you're talking about. if we compined /r/pokemon and with /r/pokemontrades or /r/pokemongiveaway then harfly and trade or give awaywould be seen gettign lost in everything else and then people trade or giveaway wouldnt happen, and as someone who just got himself a 4 iv treecko for a pidgey named sparkletits! would happily keep it seperated now for things liiek fusions and shinies i honestly was one of the people that was tired of "OMG LOOK AT MY SHINY, LOVE ME AND GIMME UPVOTES" or "OMG LOOK AT MY FUNNY FUSION THAT HAS BEEN MADE AND SHOWN 20 OTHER TIMES ON THE SUB!" that shit got really old really fast. i did like the fanart of the fusions though and liek that theyre were allowed to stay here but since the generator started with only a few pokemon in the first place it was getting old seeing people combine lickitung derp face with everything, or constantly seeing the cubone/growlite arcinine fusion, so they needed to be placed someone where else for people who do truely enjoy them can go and see them if they so wish. And bith of the count doubly for memes. i was even a meme poster when it was allowed and eventually i stopped cause it was getting old seeing big lebowski "am i the only one who hasnt seen or caught a shniy..." we get it half of /r/pokemon has caught a shiny. shiny chain for one and get over it. but dont come here and post a meme that was posted 3 days ago but by a different user. however the other side of this coin is the few subs that i dont think make sense to be sepreate like /r/Pokemonconspiracies. it was mosty quiet from what i saw and i think it could be allowed here in /r/pokemon instead of being in its own sub. but the thing with that is it does have a specific following that is very dedicated so it makes sense for them to make their own sub so their posts dont get lost. you are right we do have more subs available (which should all be linked in the side bar might i add) but pokemon is a big thing. its on almost every media type, is linked to a major gaming company, and can be broken down in to several different categories for related subjects and as such if there is enough of a strong following i thing it should be separated so those followers dont have to dig around for an hour to find something thats relevant to their tastes and finding people with those similar tastes. think of it this way if i wanted to make a post for a skyrim mod wouldnt i make more sense for me to go and put it in /r/skyrim or /r/elderscrolls instead of posting in /r/gaming? As for complaints. As long as their are humans on the other side of our screen we're gonna get complaints. its impossible to make everyone happy but i think not knowing about the other subs can be fixed if the mods would link them in the side bar in stead of having 5 posting option/places on this specific sub. make a filter and organize instead of expecting others to click said link. i think by now everyone knows that shinies go to their sub and memes go to their sub TL;DR: go back and read or leave the conversation -.-

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

cei89jq

r/pokemon is for pics and comics and things liek that in general. Now dont get me wrong i do like the idea of the discussion times, but 9/10 i, and several others, come here to chill and laugh. Not have a deep thought convo or argue about pokemon now for the other subs it depends on whch one you're talking about. if we compined /r/pokemon and with /r/pokemontrades or /r/pokemongiveaway then harfly and trade or give awaywould be seen gettign lost in everything else and then people trade or giveaway wouldnt happen, and as someone who just got himself a 4 iv treecko for a pidgey named sparkletits! would happily keep it seperated now for things liiek fusions and shinies i honestly was one of the people that was tired of "OMG LOOK AT MY SHINY, LOVE ME AND GIMME UPVOTES" or "OMG LOOK AT MY FUNNY FUSION THAT HAS BEEN MADE AND SHOWN 20 OTHER TIMES ON THE SUB!" that shit got really old really fast. i did like the fanart of the fusions though and liek that theyre were allowed to stay here but since the generator started with only a few pokemon in the first place it was getting old seeing people combine lickitung derp face with everything, or constantly seeing the cubone/growlite arcinine fusion, so they needed to be placed someone where else for people who do truely enjoy them can go and see them if they so wish. And bith of the count doubly for memes. i was even a meme poster when it was allowed and eventually i stopped cause it was getting old seeing big lebowski "am i the only one who hasnt seen or caught a shniy..." we get it half of /r/pokemon has caught a shiny. shiny chain for one and get over it. but dont come here and post a meme that was posted 3 days ago but by a different user. however the other side of this coin is the few subs that i dont think make sense to be sepreate like /r/Pokemonconspiracies. it was mosty quiet from what i saw and i think it could be allowed here in /r/pokemon instead of being in its own sub. but the thing with that is it does have a specific following that is very dedicated so it makes sense for them to make their own sub so their posts dont get lost. you are right we do have more subs available (which should all be linked in the side bar might i add) but pokemon is a big thing. its on almost every media type, is linked to a major gaming company, and can be broken down in to several different categories for related subjects and as such if there is enough of a strong following i thing it should be separated so those followers dont have to dig around for an hour to find something thats relevant to their tastes and finding people with those similar tastes. think of it this way if i wanted to make a post for a skyrim mod wouldnt i make more sense for me to go and put it in /r/skyrim or /r/elderscrolls instead of posting in /r/gaming? As for complaints. As long as their are humans on the other side of our screen we're gonna get complaints. its impossible to make everyone happy but i think not knowing about the other subs can be fixed if the mods would link them in the side bar in stead of having 5 posting option/places on this specific sub. make a filter and organize instead of expecting others to click said link. i think by now everyone knows that shinies go to their sub and memes go to their sub

go back and read or leave the conversation -.-

413612

tbqh i think banning this would solve most of our problems. there are plenty of more efficient ways to organize trades, like individualized subreddits, although a megathread would work as well (although you can only have one sticky thread at once so I guess not). and nobody gives a fuck if you "caught your first shiny in 20 years" so get that shit outta here. but if we ban anything past that (except memes, fuck that shit) it becomes a lot harder to post content; banning images is absurd as that's so much of this sub's content, and banning personal stories is kinda stupid because there's a chance some sorry fellow out there wants to read about how a child beat a children's video game. tl;dr i agree

tbqh i think banning this would solve most of our problems. there are plenty of more efficient ways to organize trades, like individualized subreddits, although a megathread would work as well (although you can only have one sticky thread at once so I guess not). and nobody gives a fuck if you "caught your first shiny in 20 years" so get that shit outta here. but if we ban anything past that (except memes, fuck that shit) it becomes a lot harder to post content; banning images is absurd as that's so much of this sub's content, and banning personal stories is kinda stupid because there's a chance some sorry fellow out there wants to read about how a child beat a children's video game. tl;dr i agree

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

cei6ky5

tbqh i think banning this would solve most of our problems. there are plenty of more efficient ways to organize trades, like individualized subreddits, although a megathread would work as well (although you can only have one sticky thread at once so I guess not). and nobody gives a fuck if you "caught your first shiny in 20 years" so get that shit outta here. but if we ban anything past that (except memes, fuck that shit) it becomes a lot harder to post content; banning images is absurd as that's so much of this sub's content, and banning personal stories is kinda stupid because there's a chance some sorry fellow out there wants to read about how a child beat a children's video game.

i agree

mashonem

I am well aware of how up/downvoting works. I don't need to be preached to about it. >Oh, so by "stolen," you mean something completely different from what the word actually means. I see, how silly of us to not realize. That's how people in those threads were using 'stolen', I simply did the same. Excuse the fuck out of me for you not understanding. >And enough people don't share your opinion to outvote you and the people who do. Your opinion is not the only one that matters. Never said it was, hence "I don't have a problem with them", save the preachiness for someone that actually does. >When text-only weekend is implemented and we see see such absolutely blatant disdain for it, to the point where nearly the entire front page is just links wrapped in self-posts, we see that self-posts is not what the community wants. A vocal minority may want self-post weekend, but it is abundantly clear that they are not the majority, and that is what matters. That's the thing, the last time it was instituted, the feedback was actually positive. Obviously, things have shifted, and people no longer feel that way, which is why it needs to go. Still, save the preaching for someone else. >The issue is a vocal minority trying to circumvent the voting system, because they're in the minority and their content gets drowned out. Guess what? That is the content that should be relegated to a different sub. A subreddit is the content which the majority want to see. If you're not in the majority, then that minority opinion should relegate to a new subreddit, where they will be the majority. We shouldn't be constantly taking the majority and whittling away what they like to see over and over until they are spread so thin that the minority has finally become the majority. That doesn't make sense and you're swimming against the current here. Go make a Pokémon subreddit that only allows text posts; I'll subscribe to it, and so will others that think the way you do about text posts, and you will have a community of like-minded people posting the things that you and they want to see. Then this community will be free to post what the majority already wants to see, which is how it should be. The *only* things I feel that need to be banned are Fusions, Friend Code threads, and Shiny posts. I might dislike a lot of the other things, but I accept that I'm in the minority on those issues, and just hide those posts. Unless you're stating that this sub should be for those three things, because that's what dominated the front page before they were banned, in which case I'll just leave. ***TL;DR: I know what minority/majority is and how up/downvoting works; despite how I liked it a few months ago, text-weekend isn't working and needs to go; I dislike a lot about the sub, but still don't want/expect all of it to be banned, stop talking to me like I do.***

I am well aware of how up/downvoting works. I don't need to be preached to about it. >Oh, so by "stolen," you mean something completely different from what the word actually means. I see, how silly of us to not realize. That's how people in those threads were using 'stolen', I simply did the same. Excuse the fuck out of me for you not understanding. >And enough people don't share your opinion to outvote you and the people who do. Your opinion is not the only one that matters. Never said it was, hence "I don't have a problem with them", save the preachiness for someone that actually does. >When text-only weekend is implemented and we see see such absolutely blatant disdain for it, to the point where nearly the entire front page is just links wrapped in self-posts, we see that self-posts is not what the community wants. A vocal minority may want self-post weekend, but it is abundantly clear that they are not the majority, and that is what matters. That's the thing, the last time it was instituted, the feedback was actually positive. Obviously, things have shifted, and people no longer feel that way, which is why it needs to go. Still, save the preaching for someone else. >The issue is a vocal minority trying to circumvent the voting system, because they're in the minority and their content gets drowned out. Guess what? That is the content that should be relegated to a different sub. A subreddit is the content which the majority want to see. If you're not in the majority, then that minority opinion should relegate to a new subreddit, where they will be the majority. We shouldn't be constantly taking the majority and whittling away what they like to see over and over until they are spread so thin that the minority has finally become the majority. That doesn't make sense and you're swimming against the current here. Go make a Pokémon subreddit that only allows text posts; I'll subscribe to it, and so will others that think the way you do about text posts, and you will have a community of like-minded people posting the things that you and they want to see. Then this community will be free to post what the majority already wants to see, which is how it should be. The only things I feel that need to be banned are Fusions, Friend Code threads, and Shiny posts. I might dislike a lot of the other things, but I accept that I'm in the minority on those issues, and just hide those posts. Unless you're stating that this sub should be for those three things, because that's what dominated the front page before they were banned, in which case I'll just leave. TL;DR: I know what minority/majority is and how up/downvoting works; despite how I liked it a few months ago, text-weekend isn't working and needs to go; I dislike a lot about the sub, but still don't want/expect all of it to be banned, stop talking to me like I do.

pokemon

t5_2qmeb

cei8j9g

I am well aware of how up/downvoting works. I don't need to be preached to about it. >Oh, so by "stolen," you mean something completely different from what the word actually means. I see, how silly of us to not realize. That's how people in those threads were using 'stolen', I simply did the same. Excuse the fuck out of me for you not understanding. >And enough people don't share your opinion to outvote you and the people who do. Your opinion is not the only one that matters. Never said it was, hence "I don't have a problem with them", save the preachiness for someone that actually does. >When text-only weekend is implemented and we see see such absolutely blatant disdain for it, to the point where nearly the entire front page is just links wrapped in self-posts, we see that self-posts is not what the community wants. A vocal minority may want self-post weekend, but it is abundantly clear that they are not the majority, and that is what matters. That's the thing, the last time it was instituted, the feedback was actually positive. Obviously, things have shifted, and people no longer feel that way, which is why it needs to go. Still, save the preaching for someone else. >The issue is a vocal minority trying to circumvent the voting system, because they're in the minority and their content gets drowned out. Guess what? That is the content that should be relegated to a different sub. A subreddit is the content which the majority want to see. If you're not in the majority, then that minority opinion should relegate to a new subreddit, where they will be the majority. We shouldn't be constantly taking the majority and whittling away what they like to see over and over until they are spread so thin that the minority has finally become the majority. That doesn't make sense and you're swimming against the current here. Go make a Pokémon subreddit that only allows text posts; I'll subscribe to it, and so will others that think the way you do about text posts, and you will have a community of like-minded people posting the things that you and they want to see. Then this community will be free to post what the majority already wants to see, which is how it should be. The only things I feel that need to be banned are Fusions, Friend Code threads, and Shiny posts. I might dislike a lot of the other things, but I accept that I'm in the minority on those issues, and just hide those posts. Unless you're stating that this sub should be for those three things, because that's what dominated the front page before they were banned, in which case I'll just leave.

I know what minority/majority is and how up/downvoting works; despite how I liked it a few months ago, text-weekend isn't working and needs to go; I dislike a lot about the sub, but still don't want/expect all of it to be banned, stop talking to me like I do.

lickmythrowaway

As a teenager who isn't orange and is well blended (thanks to y'all!) I just wanted to say that I don't think it's just a "most teenagers" thing, but rather just an "inexperienced people" thing. I've seen plenty of young women, middle aged women, and even some older women with badly blended eye shadow and unmatched foundation. I think a lot of the time that's made even worse if the person in question doesn't have a good source of critique (friends who will be honest, people who care..) or someone to share the experience/tips with. TL;DR No, no it is not just a teenager thing. Side note, while borrowing makeup can definitely result in bad matching, drugstore foundation does not automatically equal unmatched foundation.

As a teenager who isn't orange and is well blended (thanks to y'all!) I just wanted to say that I don't think it's just a "most teenagers" thing, but rather just an "inexperienced people" thing. I've seen plenty of young women, middle aged women, and even some older women with badly blended eye shadow and unmatched foundation. I think a lot of the time that's made even worse if the person in question doesn't have a good source of critique (friends who will be honest, people who care..) or someone to share the experience/tips with. TL;DR No, no it is not just a teenager thing. Side note, while borrowing makeup can definitely result in bad matching, drugstore foundation does not automatically equal unmatched foundation.

MakeupAddiction

t5_2rww2

ceidhjr

As a teenager who isn't orange and is well blended (thanks to y'all!) I just wanted to say that I don't think it's just a "most teenagers" thing, but rather just an "inexperienced people" thing. I've seen plenty of young women, middle aged women, and even some older women with badly blended eye shadow and unmatched foundation. I think a lot of the time that's made even worse if the person in question doesn't have a good source of critique (friends who will be honest, people who care..) or someone to share the experience/tips with.

No, no it is not just a teenager thing. Side note, while borrowing makeup can definitely result in bad matching, drugstore foundation does not automatically equal unmatched foundation.

jetpack_operation

Even during a shit year with no weapons, Brady got more wins and threw for more yards and TDs and completed a higher percentage of throws than Andrew Luck. TL;DR - Shut your fucking face.

Even during a shit year with no weapons, Brady got more wins and threw for more yards and TDs and completed a higher percentage of throws than Andrew Luck. TL;DR - Shut your fucking face.

Patriots

t5_2rx57

cejcl7n

Even during a shit year with no weapons, Brady got more wins and threw for more yards and TDs and completed a higher percentage of throws than Andrew Luck.

Shut your fucking face.

Dr_Bishop

Oh here let me explain. A person without a soul or with almost no soul who only thinks about themselves is afraid they will not always be able to manipulate and control you. So they brew up an evil plot to use your sense of honor against you. You're probably a decent guy who would want to provide for and protect his child. So they use this ploy to get you married in a hurry. Then they fake the miscarriage (like a soulless monster). Then they mess with your life as much as possible for a few years. Finally they have sex with a stranger in your bed, divorce you, & trick the legal system into making you pay her half your salary for a couple of decades. TL;DR - This type of female feels zero accountability. It's all about her.

Oh here let me explain. A person without a soul or with almost no soul who only thinks about themselves is afraid they will not always be able to manipulate and control you. So they brew up an evil plot to use your sense of honor against you. You're probably a decent guy who would want to provide for and protect his child. So they use this ploy to get you married in a hurry. Then they fake the miscarriage (like a soulless monster). Then they mess with your life as much as possible for a few years. Finally they have sex with a stranger in your bed, divorce you, & trick the legal system into making you pay her half your salary for a couple of decades. TL;DR - This type of female feels zero accountability. It's all about her.

Military

t5_2qh8y

ceikh8x

Oh here let me explain. A person without a soul or with almost no soul who only thinks about themselves is afraid they will not always be able to manipulate and control you. So they brew up an evil plot to use your sense of honor against you. You're probably a decent guy who would want to provide for and protect his child. So they use this ploy to get you married in a hurry. Then they fake the miscarriage (like a soulless monster). Then they mess with your life as much as possible for a few years. Finally they have sex with a stranger in your bed, divorce you, & trick the legal system into making you pay her half your salary for a couple of decades.

This type of female feels zero accountability. It's all about her.

ShadowM4st3r

I've always been an extremely shy person and terrible with social skills, but I feel I am better with public speaking. Because every time I speak publicly, it is to a class that has to do the same project I am. So I realized that everyone else is doing the same thing as me, so why be scared? Sometimes they're too uninterested to care and sometimes you really draw them in, and if they laugh well then they just laugh. At least I made someone laugh, but the probability of them laughing at some stupid powerpoint I had to do is low. Your biggest fear of public speaking is being laughed at and embarrassed, but what is so bad about people laughing? I am such an uncoordinated idiot that I've embarrassed myself greatly many times so messing up that a speech is the least of my worries. tl;dr - Everyone is doing/has done the same thing so they are not going to laugh. If they do, it is alright, laughter is good. You've probably been embarrassed before so you can deal with it **but you won't be.**

I've always been an extremely shy person and terrible with social skills, but I feel I am better with public speaking. Because every time I speak publicly, it is to a class that has to do the same project I am. So I realized that everyone else is doing the same thing as me, so why be scared? Sometimes they're too uninterested to care and sometimes you really draw them in, and if they laugh well then they just laugh. At least I made someone laugh, but the probability of them laughing at some stupid powerpoint I had to do is low. Your biggest fear of public speaking is being laughed at and embarrassed, but what is so bad about people laughing? I am such an uncoordinated idiot that I've embarrassed myself greatly many times so messing up that a speech is the least of my worries. tl;dr - Everyone is doing/has done the same thing so they are not going to laugh. If they do, it is alright, laughter is good. You've probably been embarrassed before so you can deal with it but you won't be.

AskReddit

t5_2qh1i

ceidhbl

I've always been an extremely shy person and terrible with social skills, but I feel I am better with public speaking. Because every time I speak publicly, it is to a class that has to do the same project I am. So I realized that everyone else is doing the same thing as me, so why be scared? Sometimes they're too uninterested to care and sometimes you really draw them in, and if they laugh well then they just laugh. At least I made someone laugh, but the probability of them laughing at some stupid powerpoint I had to do is low. Your biggest fear of public speaking is being laughed at and embarrassed, but what is so bad about people laughing? I am such an uncoordinated idiot that I've embarrassed myself greatly many times so messing up that a speech is the least of my worries.

Everyone is doing/has done the same thing so they are not going to laugh. If they do, it is alright, laughter is good. You've probably been embarrassed before so you can deal with it but you won't be.

Buck-O

So because your low RPM turbo works, everyone else must be wrong? There is also a thread over on GTPlanet about it. Sometimes, a mid or low turbo will work on its own. Usually mid wont. Buying anything other turbo than what is installed (if you can get it to) will cause it to glitch. If you had turbos in 1.00, or 1.01, it will glitch those in 1.02. There is your TL:DR retard. You came in here looking to argue, now you've got it. So shut the fuck up.

So because your low RPM turbo works, everyone else must be wrong? There is also a thread over on GTPlanet about it. Sometimes, a mid or low turbo will work on its own. Usually mid wont. Buying anything other turbo than what is installed (if you can get it to) will cause it to glitch. If you had turbos in 1.00, or 1.01, it will glitch those in 1.02. There is your TL:DR retard. You came in here looking to argue, now you've got it. So shut the fuck up.

granturismo

t5_2s4f7

cem3lgk

So because your low RPM turbo works, everyone else must be wrong? There is also a thread over on GTPlanet about it. Sometimes, a mid or low turbo will work on its own. Usually mid wont. Buying anything other turbo than what is installed (if you can get it to) will cause it to glitch. If you had turbos in 1.00, or 1.01, it will glitch those in 1.02. There is your

retard. You came in here looking to argue, now you've got it. So shut the fuck up.

Bushby_23

> So because your low RPM turbo works, everyone else must be wrong? No you fucking idiot, that is not what I said at all. Not all cases are the same. I just got both a mid and a high to work perfectly fine on my base model, but it may not work for others. > There is your TL:DR retard. You came in here looking to argue, now you've got it. So shut the fuck up. A huh.

> So because your low RPM turbo works, everyone else must be wrong? No you fucking idiot, that is not what I said at all. Not all cases are the same. I just got both a mid and a high to work perfectly fine on my base model, but it may not work for others. > There is your TL:DR retard. You came in here looking to argue, now you've got it. So shut the fuck up. A huh.

granturismo

t5_2s4f7

cem3off

So because your low RPM turbo works, everyone else must be wrong? No you fucking idiot, that is not what I said at all. Not all cases are the same. I just got both a mid and a high to work perfectly fine on my base model, but it may not work for others. > There is your

retard. You came in here looking to argue, now you've got it. So shut the fuck up. A huh.

beef-o-lipso

Your scenario won't last long. ok, let's take a look at the costs. You pay $70/month for 2GB. NetFlix says that a High video consumes [upto 1GB/hour]( That's a nice round number, so we'll go with that. How many videos on High do you watch a month? Me? Probably 30 since I have Amazon Prime and I watch TV and movies. Maybe I'm on the high side. Regardless, our Free Streamer streaming services sends video at 1GB/hr and let's say Sponsored Streamer does the same but sponsors. One hour media content would consume half my allocated data or $35. Free Streamer pays nothing, Sponsored Streamer pays $35. At two hours, Sponsored Streamer has broken even with what I paid and it goes down hill from there. In order to cover costs, Sponsored Streamer has to do something. At the bare minimum, they have to ensure that they are, on average taking in more money then they are paying out. If they charge a subscription, then they have to charge enough to cover costs which can easily run into the $100 or $1000 per month per user just in paying AT&T for a sponsored video. They certainly can't touch that with advertising. There's no business model there. But wait, I bet Sponsored media probably doesn't pay full rate for data consumption. Maybe, I don't know, but in order for a media streaming company to make money this way, the price for Sponsored content paid to AT&T would have to be very, very low. So low that it wouldn't off set the cost that AT&T has in place (and whether the costs is artificial or not, it does exist for AT&T and thus, it exists). TL:DR the cost to sponsor long media streams or high consumption of smaller videos doesn't make economic sense. Edit: I originally said: " I bet Sponsored media probably does pay full rate". I meant "I bet Sponsored media probably doesn't pay full rate"

Your scenario won't last long. ok, let's take a look at the costs. You pay $70/month for 2GB. NetFlix says that a High video consumes [upto 1GB/hour]( That's a nice round number, so we'll go with that. How many videos on High do you watch a month? Me? Probably 30 since I have Amazon Prime and I watch TV and movies. Maybe I'm on the high side. Regardless, our Free Streamer streaming services sends video at 1GB/hr and let's say Sponsored Streamer does the same but sponsors. One hour media content would consume half my allocated data or $35. Free Streamer pays nothing, Sponsored Streamer pays $35. At two hours, Sponsored Streamer has broken even with what I paid and it goes down hill from there. In order to cover costs, Sponsored Streamer has to do something. At the bare minimum, they have to ensure that they are, on average taking in more money then they are paying out. If they charge a subscription, then they have to charge enough to cover costs which can easily run into the $100 or $1000 per month per user just in paying AT&T for a sponsored video. They certainly can't touch that with advertising. There's no business model there. But wait, I bet Sponsored media probably doesn't pay full rate for data consumption. Maybe, I don't know, but in order for a media streaming company to make money this way, the price for Sponsored content paid to AT&T would have to be very, very low. So low that it wouldn't off set the cost that AT&T has in place (and whether the costs is artificial or not, it does exist for AT&T and thus, it exists). TL:DR the cost to sponsor long media streams or high consumption of smaller videos doesn't make economic sense. Edit: I originally said: " I bet Sponsored media probably does pay full rate". I meant "I bet Sponsored media probably doesn't pay full rate"

technology

t5_2qh16

ceiyd2b

Your scenario won't last long. ok, let's take a look at the costs. You pay $70/month for 2GB. NetFlix says that a High video consumes [upto 1GB/hour]( That's a nice round number, so we'll go with that. How many videos on High do you watch a month? Me? Probably 30 since I have Amazon Prime and I watch TV and movies. Maybe I'm on the high side. Regardless, our Free Streamer streaming services sends video at 1GB/hr and let's say Sponsored Streamer does the same but sponsors. One hour media content would consume half my allocated data or $35. Free Streamer pays nothing, Sponsored Streamer pays $35. At two hours, Sponsored Streamer has broken even with what I paid and it goes down hill from there. In order to cover costs, Sponsored Streamer has to do something. At the bare minimum, they have to ensure that they are, on average taking in more money then they are paying out. If they charge a subscription, then they have to charge enough to cover costs which can easily run into the $100 or $1000 per month per user just in paying AT&T for a sponsored video. They certainly can't touch that with advertising. There's no business model there. But wait, I bet Sponsored media probably doesn't pay full rate for data consumption. Maybe, I don't know, but in order for a media streaming company to make money this way, the price for Sponsored content paid to AT&T would have to be very, very low. So low that it wouldn't off set the cost that AT&T has in place (and whether the costs is artificial or not, it does exist for AT&T and thus, it exists).

the cost to sponsor long media streams or high consumption of smaller videos doesn't make economic sense. Edit: I originally said: " I bet Sponsored media probably does pay full rate". I meant "I bet Sponsored media probably doesn't pay full rate"