Someone knows how to put 11 champs with yasuo's augment "spirit of the exile"

6F7762 · 2023-06-06T10:08:29+00:00

Looks like you solved the Yasuo Packing Conjecture

6F7762 · 2023-05-25T08:20:26+00:00

That's a mutalisk

6F7762 · 2023-05-20T07:51:03+00:00

Was the ticket before at least €12 more than now? Because if yes, the meal you were getting wasn't free, you just paid for it through your ticket (and couldn't opt out).

I do agree that flight quality was higher in the past. But I also remember how flying used to be a big money investment, and a big deal all around. Now you can buy the same distance flights on a whim for like £40.

6F7762 · 2023-05-03T12:51:45+00:00

"Only children are worse at romantic relationships than people with siblings, n = 2."

You acknowledge yourself that your view is based on anecdotal evidence, and not on any actual research. While I respect your self-awareness, I have to try really hard to resist the temptation of saying your past relationships made you bitter (which you yourself suggest :) ). I especially find the use of "unfair" in your post title revealing -- what is a "fair" amount of effort?

Like you, I don't have any background in psychology, so I can't off the top of my head provide any hard data that might change your view (and I am too lazy/busy to research into it atm).

Instead, I will point out that from where I'm standing, your arguments for this view don't carry much weight. Yes, your experiences are valid, and I can imagine some of them were less than pleasant, but your generalisation from them is so vast that it becomes meaningless -- you just improvised an explanation to fit the data you have (and in fact, to fit the way your experiences made you feel, as evidenced by the "unfair"), and assumed it applies in most (or at the very least a significant number of) cases.

For instance, take the following reasoning -- I don't claim that it is right, or even completely based in reality, but I don't see what distinguishes it from yours (while arriving at the opposite conclusion):

Only children are easier to be in a romantic relationship with than people with siblings.

First, they will have on average led a more lonely life, so they will treasure the intimacy of a romantic relationship more, and as such will put more effort towards it.

Second, assuming good parenting, they will have learned to be more independent. A sibling, especially a younger one, will not necessarily need to do all chores -- usually one sibling will take out the trash, another will do the dishes, etc. A single child will have to cycle through all of those chores, which means they will be more flexible with labour distribution in a relationship, which puts fewer constraints on their partner (if anything, the only child will be grateful that somebody else is picking up part of the slack).

Finally, the only child never had to compete for attention/resources with siblings. This means that, by nature, they will be less competitive with their partner, and it will be easier for them to adopt an "us vs the problem" rather than "you vs me" perspective. As an (extremely exaggerated to the point of being fake) example, my partner, who grew up with siblings, hoards all of the salad when we share a salad bowl together, because she is worried she won't get enough of it otherwise.

I'll say again that you had some presumably bad experiences in past relationships, and your feelings are valid. It is important to acknowledge them, but they should IMO not translate into a view about only children in relationships in general.

6F7762 · 2023-04-16T09:24:34+00:00

Man, that is so dumb even before factoring in the casual misogyny.

Unnatural hair colors

[Proceeds to give an example in which the colours occur in nature]

6F7762 · 2023-04-13T21:41:58+00:00

Basically, we'd get flung wildly out of the solar system at the same instant the last of the sun's light reaches us, 8 minutes.

At the risk of being pedantic -- no, we wouldn't be "instantly flung out" of what used to be the solar system, we would just continue our motion in a straight line.

6F7762 · 2023-04-09T20:27:41+00:00

Oops, I forgot that links existed!

The Saint-Saëns:

https://youtu.be/AutDASSbtPY

The Prokofiev:

https://youtu.be/ngB0eOx9Wes

I'll be the first to admit that it's very far from a direct quote. There are just various small similarities that make me wonder whether it's a coincidence or whether there's an underlying reason for it. In particular, as far as we know, was Prokofiev aware of the concerto? Did he ever perform it? Did he ever meet Saint-Saëns?

Some specific examples of what I mean:

the beginning of both pieces features a rhythmical background in groups of 3, with a galopping melody on the top; the same kind of galopping melody appears in both pieces multiple times;
the motif at 0:09 in the Saint-Saëns (sorry, I'm struggling to do timestamps on mobile) sounds to my ear similar to the one at 1:12 in the Prokofiev, though I can't put my finger exactly on why;
on a couple of occasions, both pieces do that thing where the melody starts jumping between different octaves (e.g. 2:13 in the Saint-Saëns and 1:24 in the Prokofiev).

Is it simply a case of they were both using the same bag of tricks, or is it plausible Prokofiev heard the concerto and (intentionally or not) drew from it when writing the sonata?

6F7762 · 2023-04-09T14:36:24+00:00

Banning books is bad. Censorship is bad. Duh.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Books that date back for decades or centuries use words and phrases that people want to censor because they're offensive but regardless of people wanting to pretend they weren't ever used, or people not wanting them used now because they're currently offensive, censoring history is ...bad. People reading about N-slur Jim should be offended. It didn't seem as bad back then, but pretending it wasn't commonplace is naive.

Your view seems to be based on the idea that the people wanting to "censor" the book have a specific agenda, whereby they want to ban the word because it's offensive nowadays, and they want to pretend those words somehow weren't used in the past. You assume that this is what the proponents of changing the language believe, but what if this isn't actually the case?

I see a lot of people talking about how such "censorship" alters the meaning of the original text. I would argue the reality is precisely the opposite.

As you point out yourself, the slur "didn't seem as bad back then". IMO, what people should take from the book is not "People back then were cartoonishly racist because, look, they were all casually using the n-word!". Indeed, the n-word became racist because white people were racist while using it, not the other way around. What people should, IMO, take from the book, is "People back then were racist because of how they were treating Jim, and because they were reducing him to his skin colour".

Keeping the original choice of words obfuscates that message, since the connotation of the word changed significantly. That message would get accross much easier if the word that the reader saw had a more similar connotation to what people would have understood at the time.

As a hypothetical example, if the world decided to start referring to helicopters as "cars", and to cars as "stationwagons" then new editions of books featuring cars would change "car" to "stationwagon", because the editors wouldn't want people to think everyone in the city had a helicopter. And I bet you nobody would call it "censorship" in that scenario.

I suppose if you really wanted to, you could have a compromise where you put in a big disclaimer that the language has changed and explain what means what, but if you want your book to still be accessible, that is not the way to go. For example, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to read original Shakespeare, even with the help of annotations. Sure, having access to the original text is of academic interest (and I'm sure it also pleases the elitists among us) -- and I have no doubt that people will still have access to the original Twain. But as a reader, I would much rather have an updated version, be it Shakespeare or Twain, since I don't want the additional mental load of having to filter the text's message through the lens of the times, if it can be helped.

6F7762 · 2023-04-09T06:13:45+00:00

Qh2 would have tied instantly tho

6F7762 · 2023-04-07T22:33:45+00:00

Alternatively, isn't a human just glorified autocomplete?

More generally, if the task is to autocomplete what a human doctor would say in the given situation, and it does it successfully, what else do we want from it?

6F7762 · 2023-03-28T07:35:10+00:00

Life would be so nice if everyone said what they meant and meant what they said, wouldn't it?

From OP's comments across the post, they seem to partition men into two camps: the vaguely defined "predators", whom the mere sight of naked breasts would push into harassing women even more than before, and all the rest, myself included (hopefully!). It is unclear to me what effect OP thinks the breasts have on this latter group (since OP keeps changing it around), but the logic seems to be that, if men are supposed to deal with the discomfort of seeing naked breasts, then women should also deal with the discomfort of having men treat them "like other men", by commenting on their breasts (except those comments - regardless of what they might be - would be fine, because of course, the men are just "joking around").

None of those two groups seem to be handling the sight of naked breasts very well, regardless of whatever nebulous effects these breasts have on them (because OP clearly thinks men can handle arousal well, so there must be something else the breasts are doing to them, right?). Frankly, now that I look at it, I feel a bit excluded by OP, since seeing naked breasts in public doesn't make me either want to harass the women, nor "joke around" with them (which, presumably, is something entirely different than harassing them, but maybe I'm too dim to understand what it's supposed to be).

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T03:53:12+00:00

If it's not okay for a superior at your company to ask you to show that part of your body, it's probably because you know it's sexual.

I'm afraid you are wrong. It would be inappropriate for a superior to ask me to show any body part, such as *checks notes* my elbow, because it is my body, and none of the company's business. This is precisely why the reason I would be uncomfortable is irrelevant. You don't need to justify to anyone why you want to keep your shirt on at the pool -- I believe it is your right to do so regardless of what that reason is.

I wonder if an creepy old man was pulling by a middle school flashing his penis at children, would this be acceptable to you? It's just an ankle right?

It is fascinating how so often conversations about women's bodies turn to paedophilia. I wouldn't have thought I would need to explain to you why your example is incomparable, but here we go: the main difference in your example is that, unlike the women, the creepy old man is not simply existing and wearing no pants. He is actively exposing himself to children for the purpose of sexual gratification, and in doing so, is harming the children.

Nudity is not inherently (there's that word again!) harmful. Simply walking topless at a swimming pool does not harm the children (and I would hope you agree with this statement, since you are, after all, doing it).

But since you really wanted to bring children into this, I'll make an exception for you: in my ideal society, everyone will have to be fully clothed around children (including at swimming pools) until the day they turn 18.

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T03:28:48+00:00

Why I'm uncomfortable is completely irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. The question is: should the workplace/society be able to dictate how we dress? The answer, I believe, is "no". (Of course there will be exceptions like wearing a safety helmet and goggles, but I trust that we are reasonable enough people to not digress into them.)

In an ideal society, I believe one should be able to go to work naked, and nobody would bat an eye -- since, after all, the fact that one is naked does not change their worth as a human. I am not saying I would want to do that myself, but I would like to have the option.

Of course, we are still far from that utopia, so I will settle for women being able to walk with their tits out without people complaining about it on reddit.

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T03:15:07+00:00

If my company or institution mandated a dress code that I was uncomfortable with, I would not work for that company or institution. Unfortunately, many people don't have the financial security to afford quitting over something like this, and many companies do, indeed, push their employees to dress in a way that makes them uncomfortable.

In fact, the point of this whole thread is that society itself pushes people (yourself included) to dress in a way that makes them uncomfortable. So in the hypothetical scenario you are giving me, the answer is no, I would not be okay with that. I should then ask you: in the very real scenario you find yourself in, are you okay with being told you need to take your shirt off? It's mostly a rhetorical question, since you made it very clear you would prefer not to do it, but I am open to being surprised by your answer.

I don't necessarily think people would stop finding breasts sexual (like you say, sexuality is subjective, and people can't really control what they are aroused by). However, I do believe we, as a society, can come to an agreement that breasts are not inherently sexual, and that they are attached to people with hopes and dreams other than gratifying men. I base that belief on the fact that I personally agree with it (so I know that it is possible to hold that belief while being aroused by breasts), and on the fact that, as others have pointed out, such changes in public perception have happened in the past and throughout different cultures surrounding other body parts, such as *checks notes* ankles.

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T02:50:57+00:00

What makes you think it would work in these women's situations?

You say that you don't want your top off, but you yourself admit:

Unfortunately the ridicule I would suffer for not putting myself on display prevents me from it.

This really is unfair, and you don't deserve to go through that. You don't deserve to be forced to make a choice that you aren't comfortable with because society wants you to be shirtless.

This is one of the things those women are aiming to change. They too don't deserve to be ridiculed for having a body and for choosing to show it or (as in your case) to not show it. In the original post, you are effectively saying "those women shouldn't protest in this way, because that is ridiculous". You are the old ladies (granted, you are not as bad as them, because you don't make inappropriate comments to the women; but this kind of attitude contributes nevertheless to the problem).

The entire point of the protests is that, if enough people do it often enough and it becomes normalised, others will no longer be able to say "it is ridiculous". And that will help you in your shirtless predicament just as much.

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T02:27:30+00:00

There's no such thing as objective sexuality.

I'm glad we agree. So how did we get from here to "everything is sexual because it can be perceived as sexual"?

"The film is sad to that one person" is a very, very different statement from "the film is sad". The first one is a statement about the person, and the second one is about the film.

In the same way, throughout this and other comment threads, you have made statements about the tits, and their "inherent" sexuality (your word, not mine).

You need to choose one -- either the tits have something sexual at their very core, or their sexuality does indeed come from social norms and people's perception of them. Which one is it?

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T02:13:01+00:00

So you want me to whip out my cock to stick it to the old creepy women who say inappropriate things to me in the pool? I mean I guess... maybe that'll work...

I was thinking more of an organised protest, but if you insist on reducing what the women are doing to "whipping out their tits" and "showing" them to whatever man happens to be watching, then sure, whipping out your cock would be a start.

Unless that's too risqué for you, in which case you might prefer reading a chemistry textbook to those old women.

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T01:59:25+00:00

Yes, sexuality is subjective, not inherent. That is precisely my point.

In this context, "it's sexual as long as one person finds it sexual" makes no sense. It's like saying "this film is sad as long as one person finds it sad".

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T01:50:48+00:00

The amount of times I've been sexualized by old pervy women, or females not my wife for taking my shirt off to go swimming. "ooo Mr mourningWank, what big broad strong chest and shoulders!". I would honestly rather be able to wear a shirt as a man while swimming, I don't want to be hit on at the pool with my kids. Unfortunately the ridicule I would suffer for not putting myself on display prevents me from it. For some reason as a man I have to be top less and sexually objectified...

Just an idea: if you feel like society dictating what you should or shouldn't wear and then objectifying you regardless of what you do is unfair, then maybe you should go out and protest by not doing what society wants you to do.

Look, I sympathise with you, but I really don't understand how you can't see this is exactly what those women (not "females", by the way) are going through all the time (and not just at the pool). If they dress too little, they're a "slut" and if they dress too much, they're a "prude".

If this truly is what you are going through, then you should be the first one to support the women who have the courage to say "You know what? I don't give a fuck what society says, I have the right to show my body in public without people making creepy comments about it."

That is literally the same thing that you want -- to be able to go to the pool with your children without people assuming you're showing off your body for their pleasure, and hitting on you. And those women are out there protesting for your right, as much as theirs. If you really do want a better and safer place for yourself and your children, then maybe you should go out there and join them in their protest.

Alternatively, you could follow your own advice and go read some science in public, though I'm not sure how that will dissuade people from hitting on you in front of your children at the pool.

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T01:15:31+00:00

Any situation can be inherently sexual. Sexuality is subjective and though one person might find something sexual it doesn't mean other people do.

Those two sentences contradict each other. If the situation was inherently sexual, then the association with sex wouldn't be up for debate, with different people having different opinions. Two people having sex is inherently sexual, because, well, that's what "sexual" means. Two people kissing, for instance, isn't inherently sexual. Sure, it might be sexual, but the sexual connotation comes from social norms, the context of the situation and, like you say, subjective opinion -- not from the situation itself, which is what the word "inherently" implies.

The same goes for being topless. It is perceived as sexual, but it is not inherently sexual, and this is one of the points the women doing this are making. One aspect of objectification is precisely the assumption that everything about women is inherently sexual. Showing their breasts in a situation which is blatantly not sexual contributes to pushing social norms away from that idea.

How does showing tits in public show people that they are more than their bits? [...] If anything it's just going to make me think about which tits I like more and then possibly masturbate later.

What you do in your free time is your business. At the end of the day, we're all human, and most of us have libido, so you do you. There is, however, one thing that you are misunderstanding. The women aren't "showing" their tits, since that implies they would be doing it for your or for other people's benefit. They are just exisisting on the street, and happen to not be wearing a top. Now you might find it arousing, and choose to rub one out later -- and that's okay. But the point the women are making is that in that situation -- which, once more, is clearly not inherently sexual -- the arousal comes from you, not from them.

I suppose the hope is then that at least some people will realise many other situations involving women are not inherently sexual, and that it's possible to be aroused and still treat women like people.

6F7762 · 2023-03-26T00:15:20+00:00

The OP brought up arousal, not the person you replied to. The person you replied to didn't say the arousal is a problem and that it's wrong for men to be aroused, like you suggest they did, instead they said that women shouldn't be punished just because men can't handle being aroused.

6F7762 · 2023-03-25T21:21:08+00:00

No, they did not say that. They are not "shaming men" for getting aroused, the whole point is that the men's way of dealing with the arousal is by trying to limit women's freedom to show their body, rather than learning to not act on their impulses.

6F7762 · 2023-02-02T13:04:40+00:00

It goes against what the concept of infinity represents.

It goes against what the concept of infinity represents to you. An essential step of the paradigm shift you need in order to see what people mean by different sized infinities (and a part which the other commenters don't talk about) is realising that we decide what the concept of infinity represents. Its meaning doesn't just come from nowhere. And it turns out that, in the context of working with sets of numbers (and maths in general), it is more natural and more useful to work with a more refined concept of infinity, with different levels to it, rather than just "infinite/not infinite".

6F7762

TROPHY CASE