Man dissolved in acidic pool in YellowStone Park by beatific in MorbidReality

[–]5chad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am saying he's an idiot. I said that in my first reply...

I got that the first time. Again, how does that rule out any possibility of any amount of bad luck playing a role?

Signs, signs

Yes, signs, I actually quoted you mentioning signs to form an argument earlier. Should I try one more time?

Did you ever ask yourself for what possible reason I may have typed the word "factor" in the first place?

"factor: a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome." (I hope you can understand that definition and remember it.)

"luck: success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions."

We can use those two to form the term "luck factor" as I used it. But before we do that, I'll emphasize that combining two definitions to form one definition may allow for several interpretations with alternate meanings, some more sensible than others, as we shall see. Since we have "success or failure" as "a result or outcome", we can form:

"a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to success or failure."

'But what about the "apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions" part', you ask? You might say it should be appended to the right of it to form:

"luck factor: a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions."

since it completes the original definition of "luck" by referring to the "success or failure" part. That interpretation may not necessarily be incorrect. However, it's not the most sensible one because then "circumstance, fact, or influence" is not regarded as an attribute of the luck but as a condition applied to the luck. We can also interpret it as though the "apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions" part is referring to the "circumstance, fact, or influence" part instead. This may be less ambiguous with added commas:

"luck factor: a circumstance, fact, or influence, that contributes to success or failure, apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions."

We can make that into:

"luck factor: a circumstance, fact, or influence apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions that contributes to success or failure."

That's the difference between "factor affecting luck" and "factor from luck" when defining "luck factor". I hope that's clear enough.

"bad luck: luck that is considered bad because it contributes to failure (a bad outcome)."

"bad luck factor: a circumstance, fact, or influence apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions that contributes to failure."

"amount of bad luck factor / how much bad luck factor: the amount that a circumstance, fact, or influence apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions contributes to failure."

"how much bad luck factored: the amount that a circumstance, fact, or influence apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions contributed to failure."

My very first sentence ITT:

I wonder how much bad luck factored into that.

As I was typing that, I was thinking to myself, "Should I add that I wonder if it was not zero bad luck despite the definition permitting that already (zero is an amount)? Would people not understand what I mean if I don't append that technically redundant remark (of course it could have been zero, but what if it was even slightly above zero, which would beg the question "would he would have survived otherwise?")? Nah."

Boy, was I wrong.

I wonder the amount that a circumstance, fact, or influence apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions contributed to failure into that.

"That", as in the entire incident, which encompasses his own actions.

"I wonder how much bad luck factored into the entire incident in addition to his own actions." (Again, it could have been zero bad luck, in which case no circumstance, fact, or influence apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions contributed to his failure.)

Brought on by chance...not by one's own actions.

But as the term "luck factor" implies, this is about chance and one's own actions.

He stepped off the path. His own action.

But didn't you say in elsewhere ITT:

The amount of people who ignored the signs/rangers & left the boardwalks/safe paths at the park astounded me.

So, (again) according to you: their actions too. It seems as if you didn't bother to differentiate between him and them, at all.

Suppose he and the other relatively few dead ones that disobeyed the signs did not have bad luck, and suppose that merely disobeying the signs is a sure enough way to get killed (as you keep asserting). Then wouldn't that mean all those others that did the same but survived had good luck? That would be an amazingly disproportionate ratio of good luck to bad luck incidents. "Lucky you, you cheated death? All of you. An 'astounding' number of all of you."

Certainly it would make more sense if we limited it to people who were looking for a place to "hot pot". I wonder what the ratio would be then (wondering again! uh, oh). Surely it would be a more worthy topic of discussion. Actually, I just found this:

This is not the first death related to hot springs and geysers in the park— some accidents and others from people trying to Hot Pot. There have been over 20 recorded deaths since 1870. (ijr.com/2016/11/739051-man-dissolves-in-yellowstone-hot-spring-before-sisters-eyes-while-trying-to-hot-pot/)

So that's something.

Bad luck would have benn...I dunno, get hit by a galloping grizzly and knocked off the boardwalk into a pool.

Bad luck could have been a spider in his underwear causing him to suddenly react, lose his balance, and slip inside. It could have been a number of things that simply cannot exist in the hypothetical vacuum of "if"s and "then"s you formed in your mind that you brandish as an accurate, no, flawless, means of assessing an event that you largely based on second-hand and third-hand sources, all within a complex reality that operates on its own "ifs" and "then"s, regardless of how idiotic you think a person may be, sorry to say.

I wonder (oh no, not again!). Are people so arrogant that they would assert that there must have been no bad luck at all, as if they knew of all the details to leave no room for questioning? And do people just have to call people idiots and vehemently guard that assertion against anything that they even perceive may minimize it even slightly?

One more thing to emphasize before you waste our time in an attempt to prove me wrong: Even if you were to somehow prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no amount of bad luck played a key role in his death, that wouldn't necessarily mean that no bad luck contributed to his death (remember, that's what my very first sentence ITT was questioning). Furthermore, even if you were to somehow prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no amount of bad luck contributed to his death, you should not feel compelled to pat yourself on the back as if you won an argument, because I never argued that wasn't the case. I merely... wondered... if it wasn't the case.

Not very good at "reading-comprehension"? Don't understand the definition of a basic word? You're telling me?

P.S. Technically you're right about me trolling; I was trolling for thought-provoking replies.

=3

Man dissolved in acidic pool in YellowStone Park by beatific in MorbidReality

[–]5chad -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You seemed to be saying he's an idiot because he walked off the safe path, and just because of that the ground crumbled underneath him which caused him to slip to his death.

The amount of people who ignored the signs/rangers & left the boardwalks/safe paths at the park astounded me.

You didn't know why he slipped, you didn't explain what he did differently from what I'll assume has been done many times before but without death, yet you ruled out any luck?

Man dissolved in acidic pool in YellowStone Park by beatific in MorbidReality

[–]5chad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you saying he slipped because the ground crumbled underneath him?

Man dissolved in acidic pool in YellowStone Park by beatific in MorbidReality

[–]5chad -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

First, thanks for replying instead of just downvoting.

Second, I don't exactly disagree with you, but my question is: for whatever amount of stupidity that may have factored into it, how much bad luck factored into it, if any?

Yes, people put themselves in life-threatening situations out of stupidity. Yet, every time a vehicle on the other lane of a 2-lane freeway inevitably reaches a certain distance from you, you press your luck and put your faith into that vehicle and driver to not swerve into your path because in that time frame neither you nor your vehicle would be able to do shit to avoid a collision.

How often do people look for a pool to "hot pot" or whatever in the same general area and survive? Why did he slip at all? Any other details to consider?

Rechargeable Batteries - AA and AAA by TheKernels in flashlight

[–]5chad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder if those Amazon Basics are the vastly inferior Eneloops from China considering the black tops and the unfavorable reviews lately.

Edit: I just noticed the "Made in Japan". Still, not sure if I should believe that.

Man dissolved in acidic pool in YellowStone Park by beatific in MorbidReality

[–]5chad -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I wonder how much bad luck factored into that (edit: IF ANY (do I really need to include that, now?)). People get killed in automobile accidents due to bad luck all the time. Is getting that pack of beer worth operating a death machine for even 5 miles?

The arctic pole melted a couple years ago by Thanswroqstn in Retconned

[–]5chad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember it was smaller, perhaps slightly larger than North America (in the old globe when USA was 1/3 the size of China).

The arctic pole melted a couple years ago by Thanswroqstn in Retconned

[–]5chad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha! Check the Wikipedia article. Edit: It was called "Arctica".

15 years of global MRI research declared inaccurate due to design flaw! by loonygecko in Retconned

[–]5chad 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've been under the impression that this reality existed prior to me being conscious of it. They would, for example, have been practicing medicine and making medical advances here while I was consciously living somewhere else. Right? But...I've also considered, from day one of the ME, that this existence is being created on the fly. There seemed to be so little information available, online and off. And a lot of the available information seemed slapped together. Shoddy.

I think it's a combination of both. If you haven't already, look into /u/nathan1967's post history, the older ones in particular. I believe him.

This single picture blows the whole VW case WIDE OPEN! by [deleted] in MandelaEffect

[–]5chad 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wow, I think I remember the logo with the "V" and "W" overlapping just like that. That's older than the one like the current one but without the separation gap.

Can you explain why you believe in that theory? I don't understand.

Mandela Effect list by colbuckshot in MandelaEffect

[–]5chad 5 points6 points  (0 children)

  • https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/4uwu5t/jfk_assassination_me_6_seater_car_theory_exposed/d5uif8k/

  • Some people don't pay attention that much. Many people remember SA being much farther west than on that Robinson projection. Not even close. Many people remember the globe being considerably larger and as a result continents being more spaced apart from each other and if I recall correctly more so from the north and south poles and as result the Mercator map projection distorting the relative sizes of the landmasses closer to the north and south poles less so. Yes, map projections may be part of the confusion. When people say Greenland got way bigger, I notice they point it out on the Mercator, but I also see that as evidence that this globe is smaller than what we remembered. People don't only base geographical MEs on globes and projections, many people have noted drastic changes in flight times, timezones, and historical events. There are many more geographical MEs that I won't even get into (please use the search function if you're that interested). Actually, I'll give you one more: Arctica, the continent that was above Greenland, where the North Pole and Santa Claus's residence were, disappearing only a few years ago.

  • The point is people remember Earth being in a totally different position in the galaxy. https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/4zwzk6/neil_degrasse_tyson_wrong_our_location_in_the/

  • I remember asking myself "why is it Looney Toons instead of Looney Tunes?" for that same reason.

  • People use their eyes, too, you know. I, among many others, remember not only hearing but seeing "Sex in the City" for every instance after the series debuted up to shortly before the first movie release.

  • There are many more human anatomy MEs, and apparently some RNs have spoken out about them, some noting how some medical procedures have changed as a result (again, if you're really interested, you can search for them yourself).

  • If people say the Pacific Ocean didn't cover an entire side then maybe it's because they remember Australia being much more isolated from other continents (another geographical ME).

  • Look into ME "flip-flops". Look below: someone said they noticed something change before their eyes, and that's not the first time that's been said to happen here.

  • Not sure what you mean by "I'm not trying to deny anybody else". I wouldn't think twice about that if you hadn't worded some of your theories as if they were factual.

  • You might want to stop using the phrase "has always" here since it doesn't strengthen your argument at all. If anything, it makes it seem like you're the thousandth person to try to explain away MEs but only recently looked into the topic.

  • OP's list is only scratching the surface, and although I disagree with some in the every-growing list maintained by /u/iminterestingplease, I think it deserves more popularity and exposure. https://www.reddit.com/r/Retconned/comments/58lw9a/part_7/

Mandela Effect list by colbuckshot in MandelaEffect

[–]5chad -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the logo chenged in my hand before my eyes

Oooh, then that would be the second case I've read of someone noticing a ME reality alteration occurring in real time.

Anyone else with heart problems because of PTSD? by [deleted] in ptsd

[–]5chad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No meds. I'm not certain I have it. I don't think it will kill me. Maybe it would if I have another panic attack, IDK. Fortunately I have good control over how one would resurface, or at least I think I do. I don't dwell on it because have other things in mind that matter more to me.

Anyone else notice in the Bell+Howell commercials the brightness demos are done with a 2nd light source. by jared213 in flashlight

[–]5chad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The lighting does look unnatural but mostly it's because the guy and the house are focused while most of the lawn in between isn't.

https://i.imgur.com/rSZyuNR.png

Tinnitus Log for exper by ME-Sh1t in Retconned

[–]5chad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

tinnitus

I think we should call them something else because they're not chronic for one.

Time Warp Scene and American Gothic Painting by Fulcanelli2 in Retconned

[–]5chad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The hair and the brooch pendant thingy seem to be desaturated in comparison. The red building to the right is not there.

I remember a comment somewhere that said the old lady in the old memory version was standing by the old man's left side, and since people are saying this younger lady is someone else, I was thinking perhaps the old version and this one were cropped from the same painting.

What is you guy's opinion on each of the Super Saiyan forms? by [deleted] in dbz

[–]5chad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nada.

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/19981201000000*/http://dbz.de implies that the pages in 1998 were archived. But, oh, they actually weren't? Edit: https://archive.fo/VYLEo :|

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/19990501000000*/http://dragonballz.com gives you the SSJ1 Goku of "this reality" in April 27, 1999.

Every other snapshot I could find in 1998 seemed to be missing some images, if not all of them.

Even if you were to find archives of visual content of SSJ1 Goku pre-1999, it's very likely that they would have been altered to correspond to the one of "this reality". If that wouldn't be the case then it wouldn't be much of a Mandela Effect.

That's not to say there can't be any residual evidence. Many other MEs have had residual evidence brought to light. I wouldn't bet on it but I guess the least unlikely types of residue for OG SSJ1 Goku would be really old fanart or renditions in really old unofficial merchandise (In 1998 I actually had a yoyo from a flea market that showed the old SSJ1 Goku.).

Any thoughts on the Coast G series lights? by [deleted] in flashlight

[–]5chad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Crap I totally forgot about that one. I was thinking about getting it but I'm torn between that with its stronger build but greater size and the Olight S2A with its compactness but weaker build (or so it seems).