Lurker > Anteaterking

whitelytning posted...

Its called market value and, short sighted or not, is a thing.

The alternative, that a number of people seem to argue in any NFT thread, is ridiculous. Just because someone doesnt like a product or service doesnt mean its worthless.

Yeah but people who hyperbolically call NFTs are usually claiming that they are a bubble/scam/etc. so pointing at their *current value* to say that the haters are wrong is just framing the conversation in a strange way.

It really seems like outside of like the first 4 spots everyone wants to trade back.

whitelytning posted...

People pay millions for something and CE is like, worthless.

Not sure that is how it works.

I feel like a definition of value that's solely "the price at which a transaction can occur" is short sighted.

Jack Dorsey was generally just a rich CEO with your standard CEO problems.

Elon Musk is an attention whore whose feelings are easily hurt who needs to make controversy for people to keep thinking about him.

If you like using a platform, who do you want in charge? (I know Agrawal is the CEO of Twitter now but that's been for like four months)

I feel like a lot of the jokes presented in this topic aren't uniquely "zoomer-y" in terms of humor, but since they're being presented on e.g. TikTok people are just calling it zoomer humor.

Is the difference that people defended Will Smith but not Ezra?

How do you plan on doing this?

I don't think it's that people "care little" about the suffering of others. Many people just don't trace the impacts of their actions far enough or the impact is an aggregate effect rather than an individual one. Like I know plenty of conservatives who would e.g. give a meal to someone on the street but vote for candidates who promise to lower their taxes (and do so by cutting funding to social programs). They don't see the people on the street as a result of their voting actions.

joe40001 posted...

Nobody has demonstrated evidence that they are illogical or false.

What would a proof look like to you, out of curiosity?

Like is there anything that someone on CE could present to you that you would consider to be evidence?

joe40001 posted...

Find marriages, find people who might love them like an ugly dog, but do you really think they find people who romantically desire/love them?

I think even at the most pessimistic framing of this, you're underestimating the mental gymnastics people go through to convince themselves that their partner is sexually attractive to them even if they are physically undesirable to most people.

Like you can frame that as "cope because it's who they're with" or a number of other things, but there are legitimately people who believe they are attracted to a particular obese person.

Where's the connection to QAnon?

Hayame Zero posted...

All the toxic shit on Twitter is almost entirely non-existent in my feed. In fact, it's a pretty positive community.

I know it's there, but I guess I just don't let it into my life. Plus it's done a great job of exposing shitty behavior, like cops abusing power

My friend: "I had to quit Twitter because it's too toxic of a place.

My brother in Christ, you followed the accounts.

DrizztLink posted...

I was making a joke agreeing with you and didn't make that very clear, my bad.

As in "here is an example utilizing what you said."

no problem, I misread.

Squall28 posted...

It's better for stuff where you have to account for situations outside the central value. Like for example, if you have to allocate time for producing 3 widgets in your factory. Widget A takes 1 minute. Widget B takes 2 minutes. Widget C Takes 10 minutes. If you use the median for your calculation, you'll end up being very short on time.

Of course I'm dumbing it down for the example. In real life scenarios, you'll be needing to produce thousands of widgets of dozens of different type.

Yeah but you can mirror your example (where one widget is far shorter than the others) and the average will make you underestimate how much time you use as well.

When I have to provide such numbers at my work, I usually provide median case and worst case. Obviously in some scenarios I would provide more information, but if someone just wants to know how long e.g. a program is going to take the data is basically always going to be more right tailed and so the mean is always going to overestimate how many resources should be given to the "average" case.

DrizztLink posted...

POV: Speedrun failing statistics

Demonstrate one then.

Basically all of the contexts where I've used mean, it's been alongside median to demonstrate some sort of skew or because it was just easier to calculate.

I'd basically never use it to try to measure any "average" demographic statistic.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yeah, I understand why people sort it in, but to me the pseudonymous aspect of e.g. Gamefaqs makes it not fit as well in what is traditionally thought of as "social media".

COVxy posted...

Median is always going to be a better central tendency for things like wealth/income/etc, because it's both bounded at 0 and positively skewed. Using an appropriate measure is not cherry picking.

I honestly couldn't think of a scenario where mean is better than median for measuring central tendency, but I might not be imaginative enough.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


That's not how "medians" work.

Honestly idk where the cut off is but if you withhold information from the player as an attempt at world-building and 80% of your player base is just looking up that withheld information, you've sort of failed at your goal of motivating that within the game.

For example, if I wanted to have my players feel lost, it's more effective for me to procedurally generate a map than to give everyone the same one. (That's just a simple example, I know that "oh just make it unique for everyone" is easier said than done)

I thought it was offensive, but it wasn't offending *me* in the sense that I'm not the group that's targeted by it.

I don't exactly understand the Ted Cruz erotica thing. I would definitely click on that ad if it didn't look like malware.

It's not entirely clear to me that when a hypothetical revolution happens that the masses are going to be hanging the technically capital owner who runs a 10 person business and sparing the people who make millions a year but on paper are selling their labor.

Athletes/actors/musicians sell their labor (ignoring that some are in fact capital holders in various side businesses they have). Where do their loyalties tend to lie when it comes to policies of social class?

You can say that's just an unnecessary distinction as an attempt to keep working class divided, but does the distinction rise naturally or not? Do capital owners ingratiate themselves to rich working class to encourage class division or do rich working class people emulate rich capital owners?

BlingBling22947 posted...

Intelligence

yeah they have contractors too.

Lost_All_Senses posted...

Im not gonna say there's no outliers. But, we wouldn't be here if we didn't have some type of social reservations/anxieties. Like, if you can attack a situation like that head on and live your best life while staying out your own head/way ...why the f*** are you on CE wasting time?

I don't really get this tbh. CE isn't in a different category of wasting time than the hundreds of other ways that people spend alone time in their day. It's not like people without social anxiety are "grinding the clubs" all Sunday long.

BlingBling22947 posted...

nah, fed stuff

So contractor stuff.

The restaurant one is framed as a "is nice to wait staff" thing, but I'm also not sure (depending on how the order is messed up) whether "not saying anything and just letting it go" is inherently a good worker trait either.

I think only in this case is your work justified.

bobbaaay posted...

I never got that "denying you're a person" thing. It's such exaggerated semantics. Not treating someone with respect isn't the same as denying they're a person? There are plenty of people I don't respect but I still think they're humans.
It's not like transphobic people are saying, "ew, you let your trans lay on your couch?," "we don't accommodate trans in the store unless they're emotional support trans or ADA approved seeing-eye trans," "we're all out of wet food -- we gotta go to Pet Smart to pick up some trans food," "oh, I'm not a vegetarian -- I just avoid red meat. I still eat trans."

This is just peak CEman right here.

itachi15243 posted...

What challenges in your work place would you be least likely to say, "Sure, why not" to in a manner to make more money?

90-120k at least

Checks out.

itachi15243 posted...

How do you spend most of your work day generally?

Scripting

ellis123 posted...

It is extremely constructed playable. The first mode is a bit of a trap but you can potentially blow out a lot of decks with instant speed removal so the fact that it has a dead mode isn't super damning. Otherwise this meta has multiples of high impact enchantments to kill (and a lot of enchantment creatures) and the fact that it can instant speed draw 2 is pretty good for tempo if it's not a "kill something for 3". Its big downside is that it has to be put into a new deck as one currently doesn't exist for it (though there is a close-ish one, so if more support happens then the deck makes itself). Being a good card means little if you don't fit into anything.

The only bad-ish charm is the Grixis one. Its modes are nowhere near worth the tax for options and even if it gets thrown into a deck it will almost entirely be because graveyard shenanigans become really good.

Yeah obviously we don't have the full picture yet of the format, I just don't see a Bant deck that takes advantage of all the modes effectively, compared to the Khans cycle.

I haven't looked at the other new ones yet though.

I'm in

OVERGOATED posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/1/3/AAfJefAADGqR.jpg

I feel like this isn't going to be constructed playable but who knows.

Prestoff posted...

It's a marketing tactic, controversy sells. You notice he starts acting like a f***ing weirdo anytime he's about to release an album.

I'm not entirely convinced it actually works anymore. When you're already as famous as Kanye, I don't really feel like you need gimmicky "get in the news" type stuff to sell your album. This isn't like random nobody creates a controversy and then is like "hmm...I am selling a book right now, unrelated".

I'm calling it quits at 44/300 since I've spent some time on it.

Shablagoo posted...

In Marxist literature, private property refers to a social relationship in which the property owner takes possession of anything that another person or group produces with that property.

It's not clear to me how under this definition rental property is private property.

Xette33 posted...

Thank you.
I regret to inform you that I am still very confused lmao.

This is like the underwater weighing test story to me but unintentional.

???

When I taught at a university, the idea was that if I attempted to remove a student from my classroom, they were supposed to comply and later it would be sorted out with my superiors, campus security, the student, etc. as appropriate to determine whether it was right for me to ask the student to leave. And then if I was found to have been in the wrong, things would be rectified in whatever way necessary.

Which makes sense because generally in situations where it's appropriate to ask someone to leave, it is not right to debate that person out of the room or the situation requires adjudication that you are unable to do so in the moment. E.g. when you catch a student cheating.

Now this isn't to say that the professor isn't an asshole, because most teachers I've known who have been hard-asses on attendance have never been justified in doing so. It's more to counter the idea that people are spreading in here that "professors can't ask you to leave".

I've had my dealership in the past try to buy me out of a lease early because they need more used cars on the lot and have an abundance of leaseable new cars.

But I'm not sure if that's what is happening here.

I think every thing that's negative about the Smiths as a family unit is true of both Will and Jada, but people have more fond childhood memories of Will so they don't get the hate equally.

There's probably some sexism under the surface there but it's also just a fame difference.

nexigrams posted...

Didn't they just literally fork Twitter and change the logo? lol

Mastodon(?) I think.

BakonBitz posted...

That's not really what people are saying though.

They're saying that expulsion over a slap that has been resolved by both parties is ridiculous compared to what has transpired in the past. If it was something more serious then for sure.

Yeah but the same people believe "what has transpired in the past" should have been punished.

MrMallard posted...

John Wayne had to be held back by six security guards to stop him from hitting a Native American woman.

They gave Oscars to Roman Polanski after he raped a young teenager and fled the country to avoid prosecution, and to Woody Allen after his creepy history with young girls came to light.

I've said before that I empathize with Will Smith for what he did, but even if I didn't, I don't think he should be expelled. If they won't kick a person out after molesting and raping a 13 year old and fleeing the country to avoid being arrested, it hardly seems fair to expell Will Smith for slapping someone for making light of his wife's medical condition.

Argue about how appropriate of a response it was, by all means. But was it such an egregious and unacceptable occurrence in the history of this institution that it warrants an expulsion? I genuinely don't think so, and the expulsion of Will Smith will go down as a pointless and arbitrary endeavour.

I really don't think that "People failed to be punished in the past so we shouldn't punish people now" is as good of an argument as people seem to think it is.

I'm not even necessarily saying he should be expelled. But like you can't in one breath be like "These other people should also have been punished from the past" and then "And when I say also I mean that Will Smith shouldn't be punished though".

How hopeful of a candidate is he?

You know that you're going to win Best Actor (given the award season up to this point it was all but guaranteed) and get the chance to give a speech and have the opportunity to use your speech to make the person who made fun of your wife look like a fool and get the crowd rallying around you because people tend to back what people say during their acceptance speeches.

That's just free value to have the moral high ground and check the box of defending your wife. You basically get the best of both worlds.