Lurker > Anteaterking

So likely the answer is "no I wouldn't", but I would feel a little different about it if I was hooking up with someone I had just met at a bar/club versus some more involved thing where I knew the people involved (even if I didn't like the partner).

MC_BatCommander posted...

It used to be a lot more. I used a taxi once and it was like, double the Lyft cost at the time. Glad to see they've stopped being crazy with their prices

Yeah I feel like taxis tried to be like "Don't you want a *trained* driver?" for a while after Lyft/Uber came out and the answer to most people was "no".

__aCEr__ posted...

Yeah they really should do away with the Thursday night games.

Thursday night games have historically not actually been worse for injuries than Sunday games.

MrWingnut posted...

Never should have been allowed to play. What good is concussion protocol if a team can just lie through it?

I thought it was conducted by someone outside the team.

Obviously that doesn't mean they aren't incentivized to pass people who are "important" to prime time games.

thronedfire2 posted...

is he close to the HR record?

If you put enough caveats on it.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Yeah I do, because I've also been in situations where I'm the rejecter and i never ghost anymore. I remember the first person I ever met off tinder, she said something like "can you just tell me why you're not interested rather than ignoring me because I feel pretty s***". I was rocked by that lol. I remember feeling like "damn, got me there."

And it's stuck with me lol. That was about 6 years ago and I've never ghosted someone I've met in person since. I've had a mutual case of nobody messaging each other after a date, but no ghosting.

I think it's "nicer" to not ghost people, I'm just saying that doing it isn't a sign that you're "socially maladjusted".

Also I think the level of interaction matters too. There are people in this topic who are saying that matching someone alone is enough to entitle them to a "here's why I stopped talking to you". That's crazy talk. That would be like saying a few words to someone at a party and then throwing a fit that they never said anything to you again. This is why people are saying that part of the problem is people getting far too invested in matches.

It's not clear communication, but only because it's time based. It's also not clear communication to pile all of the important info at the end of a sentence.

I've been ghosted. It obviously sucks, but every time there's a topic on CE about it you get completely unhinged takes.

Like you can go "the only people who ghost are socially unadjusted" but do you really think "people who ghost" are less socially adjusted than "people who tend to get ghosted"?

I think there are pro-life people who are more irrational than they are hypocritical. I feel like to accuse people of being hypocritical they can't just be like... "oh the consequences of my actions reduce life expectancy of people'.

Smallville posted...

what would be legal, though?

e.g. threatening to file a lawsuit against Gamefaqs or its parent company.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Idk depends on why she doesn't like her. If she doesn't like her because the other lady likes me that's pretty dumb, but if she doesn't like her because the other lady is a genuinely had person then sure.

Yeah and I feel like you should give a little more understanding if they don't like her because you guys had prior history, etc. etc.

That seems like standard fare for furry stuff

Reddit is better for my more specialized things but CE is better for news and random stuff.

what

Aressar posted...

Personally I don't think the r-word is offensive at all, considered it's almost never used to ridicule mentally disabled people, but commonly used to describe something silly, stupid, nonsensical, annoyingly uncooperative etc.
Then again, I personally prefer to focus on the intention and context, rather than the literal word(s) being applied.

I just don't think you can disentangle "This word was defined to mean group X" and "When I use this term in a derogatory way towards people and inanimate objects I don't mean anything to group X".

Like people use "autistic" in a similar way and that's very clearly used in a derogatory fashion towards people who aren't on the spectrum. I don't think that it should be that hard to see the similarity to using the r-word even if it's against "inanimate objects".

No but it's still bad.

I feel like Trump has always pulled back from QAnon stuff any time it gets too much coverage.

He then flirts with them to bring them back, but it ebbs and flows a lot.

Robot2600 posted...

was not anticipating this level of snobbery tbqh. yall seem like a miller highlife kind of crowd.

bro you're asking people to rate your purchase

Smashingpmkns posted...

"Cultural impact" really doesn't matter. There's been plenty of amazing movies that have had no cultural impact.

I think expecting cultural impact from the former "number one grossing movie of all time" isn't crazy.

Smashingpmkns posted...

https://twitter.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1573510371125522432

Lmao

Came here to share this, so good

King_Rial posted...

Not that I put any stock into this happening, but I believe the vibrating anal beads would be used like Morse code. The person in control of them would then telegraph to the wearer what moves to make, utilizing computer programs, artificial intelligence, and large amounts of data to give a better idea of what your opponent is doing and how to counter them.

That's just off the top of my head though.

It's actually even simpler than that. At really high levels of chess, it doesn't take a lot of information to get a real advantage (even looking at an engine once or twice during a game would increase your win rate significantly if you're already that good). In some cases, even just knowing "there's a really good move here" is enough.

You might be like "That's crazy" but chess puzzles are all built around that notion. Even as a more novice player, if you're told "Make what you think is the best move in the situation" you're less likely to find the best line compared to if I told you "Actually there is checkmate in 3 to find here" (especially when it comes to considering how much time you're going to spend looking for it under time control).

I'm not even claiming the guy is cheating or that this is how they are doing it, but I think it's underestimated how much a little information can help.

I use ublock and Google on Firefox and never have this problem...

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Do you think that's more down to her being a woman though, or down to her acting very snakey?

The complete lack of self awareness to be like "Is it because she's a woman or is it because she's a *****".

DarthAragorn posted...

They fired their old coach because he consistently only went 9-3

Program deserves to be a laughing stock

Yeah and it really feel like people just wanted him gone because he didn't call us "the best fans in college football".

I feel like this will end up closer to Pokemon than Magic in terms of "whether people actually play the game".

I think the only time "old" spoilers are still spoilery day to day is if someone is like

"I'm reading A Song of Ice and Fire for the first time having not seen Game of Thrones"
"Oh did you reach the part where *spoiler* happened?"

Like that's just a dumb/malicious thing to do.

I understand "purists" when it comes to speedrunning, but for casual playing I don't see any reason why emulated (legal or otherwise) should be looked down upon.

Just to put a little perspective on it, for the Millennium Problem that was solved, there was a fairly outlines "program" for how someone would prove it that was established. The sort of blueprint that was like "If you could prove this fact and this thing, you could combine them to do this".

Which is why math at level is very collaborative and sometimes "authorship" gets a little dicey. If someone lays out steps 1-99 of a 100 step process but you're the one that did step 100, who gets what credit? Like they didn't do step 100, but maybe you couldn't have laid out steps 1-99 and it was just the fact that they published that enabled you to do that.

Though this is why there's also been a large shift from the days of e.g. Fermat where people cared about results instead of proofs, so having secret knowledge of how to prove particular things gave you "power" as a mathematician and if people learned your secrets you lost that. Nowadays, you prove how good of a mathematician you are by how many secrets you share.

s0nicfan posted...

Okay. Well I was under the impression we were talking about a gap in pay between two people working the same job, which is obviously discrimination. You seem to be talking more about a gap between professions which I don't disagree with, but I also believe that's a far more complicated question that you most certainly couldn't summarize in a headline like "women make less money than men".

Not to put words in his mouth, but I think part of CovXY's point in this context is that you can mask or disguise certain sexist elements by reducing it to other "factors" but if you ignore the sexism behind the factors, all you're doing is just side stepping the issue.

It's just like "Oh it's not movie producers who are sexist it's the audience".

It's funny how a lot of this conversation is just abstracting things a level or two away from "At this studio women take a 20% reduction in wages due to their gender" and pretending like that just absolves any sexism that leads to those things.

The idea that Hollywood is just a victim of trends and not a driver of them is silly. We've just had like... a decade where Marvel could just say "yeah you ****ing care about this random super hero now because we said so" and people would do it. There are reasons that (even I) have a much longer list of actors who I see a movie if they are in it than actresses and it isn't "men are just naturally better actors". The stories coming out of Hollywood are male centric, so men get to take on more roles where they get to flex their acting ability, which means they become market draws, which means companies make movies in order to star them, etc. etc.

Damn_Underscore posted...

Isn't JLaw's Oscar win a notoriously bad decision?

I like how this is just thrown out there like it's Crash or Green Book winning rather than just something that you could maybe find someone who believes but isn't a "known controversial win" or anything.

chrono625 posted...

well, somewhere out there is the smartest mathematician on earth and they still cant solve these equations.

something tells me they will never be solveable.

and even if they are - does someone know the answer? How do they check if its correct?

You check the proof, just like any other math.

I'm a Vikings fan so deflategate is number one.

It's hard for me to get worked up about sign stealing. Just use better encryption.

He was the leader of an organization that had "Black Lives Matter" in its name, opposed by other groups that have "Black Lives Matter" in their name.

If my friend says to me "I killed that person on ____ Avenue last night" is that admissible as evidence?

Real question.

Rikishi posted...

Guess it's a very complex process for the solutions. If it was that simple then they would all been solved by now . But man if I was a math expert I'd be working on one or more of them problems all the time to try to be the first person and get the million dollars

Most people who attempt to solve those problems are cranks.

There are definitely people who are like "There is one difference between these situations, therefore all comparisons are pointless".

But to be fair there are also people where if you point out that a fundamental part of their comparison is inaccurate they act like you're being the first group of people.

TropicalAngel2 posted...

that's why the CIA comes to my mind, they (CIA) should know all American secret government, like nuke base locations and etc

There are people in all the various parts of the IC that have security clearances. It's part of what makes them the intelligence community.

Also most "secret nuke" stuff is classified by Department of Energy, not by the CIA/FBI/etc.

Libertarians are stuck between a rock and the hard place of they either actually believe what they say and are insane or don't and are just essentially conservatives who aren't religious.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yeah I think for me it was more like I thought he was leaning towards Alicent and then he has the conversation with the guy which doesn't get any deeper than "As a neutral third party I think it's probably best to marry Corly's daughter" without any extra moment of realization in between as far as I can tell.

So it just feels like, as you said, that they needed to convey to us that there are political consequences for making the wrong choice, but couldn't figure out how to have that conversation without Viserys.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'll admit I wasn't paying the closest attention but I don't really know why he decided to go with Alicent after having the conversation with the "unbiased" guy.

Lol that was pretty good.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Chris-chan is the original "lolcow" did you not hear of them?

If you didn't for the love of God keep it that way.

Yeah but I feel like I knew about Chris Chan from here or from 4chan or something.

I don't know how I only found out about kiwifarms like two months ago since it seems to have been "popular" for a while.

I can never gauge my programming abilities because I never learned it formally (my first programming was Sage which is Python + common mathy type things) and all my work related programming is highly specific to my field, so there's very involved code that I've written but I feel like there are lots of really surface level gaps in my knowledge.

Guide posted...

Lots of people bringing up Rand, but you don't even need that. The how and why of the setting, the big players and what they started and caused, are already clearly politically related themes.

Right, exactly. Sure, knowing about objectivism adds some to your understanding but I don't know how you hear "Is man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" followed by various governments and other forces answering the question and think "yeah there's nothing political going on here".

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Am I the only one who assumed this was satirical when I read it? I guessed this was an attempt to mock those who are complaining about the 10k debt forgiveness by using this as a comparison.

Guess I was wrong?

It's definitely satirical,it's not like the sims recently dropped in price for the first time or something,

I think "atheists are smarter" mostly comes from being not the default stance in society (similar to how vegans are more intelligent, etc.) and as society becomes less religious overall, you'll see that balance out more.

Did WH recently get numbers that said "actually if we try even a little we can keep congress"?

$0 I had a full ride.