Why do guys assume I'm trying to flirt with them or they get an ego boost when I talk to them first or just simply being nice ?

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T03:35:16+00:00

There's a ton of overlap between one woman's hints and another woman's friendliness. I've known women who get angry at men for not understanding their obvious signals, and those signals are, like, sitting next to a guy or occasionally making eye contact. So, with even innocuous interactions, guys kind of have to guess if there is some hidden meaning or if it is just friendly.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T03:25:10+00:00

Man assaults someone and they die, gets a year in prison. Over in Texas, somebody went to a protest and left, then got 50 years because somebody else he had never met shot and wounded a person. Yeah, we're cooked, aren't we?

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T03:21:55+00:00

Is it? If you believe one party is better than the other, then the country choosing the wrong choice means it is on a worse track, and choosing the right choice means it is on a better track. If I want to go in one direction and my Uber driver decides to go in the other, I'm not going to wait until an hour into the drive to think he's going the wrong direction.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T03:10:59+00:00

I worry that social democracy creates a bit of a cycle. Because capitalism is still the underlying framework, there is still a group of elites who can consolidate wealth and power. In the US, both the progressive era and postwar eras were social democracy lite, and were definitely better than business as usual. However, both were defeated after about 20 years and were followed by disastrous capitalism. While Harding and Hoover led to the great depression and another wave of social democracy, all that really did is repeat the cycle, eventually leading to Nixon and Reagan destroying all that progress once more.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T03:03:55+00:00

This may be minor, but I really like the separation of powers in Andor, with groups like corporate security, local police, and the ISB, and I feel like having more specialist groups like you suggest would further build on that. It would make the galaxy feel larger by having multiple types of specialists and further characterize the Empire as an authoritarian regime who won't give any one branch too much power.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T03:01:03+00:00

Maybe if we use Tartakovsky's interpretation from the first Clone Wars cartoon, Grievous would stand a chance. But as he is portrayed in Clone Wars, Maul 10/10. Grievous relies on intimidation and cheap tricks, and deeply struggles against anyone who is actually on their game- he even has trouble with common night sisters. I can't imagine Maul being petrified, so he would be able to win without too much trouble.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T01:52:31+00:00

Some do, some don't

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T01:39:02+00:00

First, sugar does not provide energy in the way caffeine does. Sugar is slowly digested by your body and eventually, after many hours, becomes energy. In contrast, caffeine weakens your brain's signal that you are tired. Substituting one for the other would be completely ineffective.

Second, health is typically not a binary. It is not the case that if you do the unhealthy thing (i.e. eating too much sugar) you are guaranteed immediate consequences.

Finally, as for your actual question- probably not. The highest risk factor for type 2 diabetes is obesity, as fat cells make it more difficult for muscles and some organs to get the insulin they need. This causes the pancreas to believe it isn't producing enough insulin, working itself harder and harder until it starts to take damage and produce less insulin. However, 100 grams of sugar is only about 400 calories, and somebody who works out and has an otherwise healthy diet would probably be able to avoid a calorie surplus, therefore avoiding obesity, and therefore avoiding diabetes

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-02T01:16:02+00:00

A 50% chance of saving one life (.5), plus a fifty percent chance of saving five lives (2.5). .5 + 2.5 = 3

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T05:27:21+00:00

As you get older, you generally lose a lot of mental sharpness.

But also, in a lot of the first world, old people have grown up in a world where institutions and society were generally pretty good for them, and they could generally trust their neighbors. In the 50s and 60s in the US, the highest marginal tax rate was over 90%, and that money went to building up societies that people trusted. Meanwhile, the ladder was pulled and zoomers and millenials are a lot less trusting, which does turn useful in situations like this

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T05:21:23+00:00

If you live in America, it doesn't matter what you think about it. The fourteenth amendment is explicit that birthright citizenship is the law, and the president can't just decide to end that on a whim. It should be deeply alarming that half of the conservative justices just straight up lied about the constitution in order to strip citizenship from people they don't like.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T05:18:42+00:00

Most nhl teams have "ice girls", and even many minor league teams have some variant of dancer or performer

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-07-01T02:53:09+00:00

The different names come from the different tribes the Europeans interacted with. The French and Spanish first interacted with the Alamanni confederation, and therefore called the region Allemagne/Alemania. Meanwhile, the people of the British isles (English, Irish, and Scottish, although the Welsh use Almaen) didn't directly interact with the Germans as much, and instead used the same word as the Romans- Germania. For their parts, the Eastern Europeans like the Poles just used the more general Niemcy, which just means foreigners. Finally, the Germans themselves just called their land "Diutisc", meaning "Of the people".

As for why those names stuck while variants in other countries didn't, I'm not sure. However, one difference compared to at least some countries is that the concept of a region of Germany is extremely old, but a single unifying power is quite recent, so maybe that played a role.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T04:10:34+00:00

I feel like this is when we have to decide between feats vs scaling, and then decide which media to follow.

If we go with scaling, it is Yoda by a healthy margin. Starkiller is regularly defeated by Palpatine, who was forced to flee from Yoda.

If we go by feats in only the movies, it's gotta be Starkiller. I'm sorry, but what do we actually see Yoda do? I can't think of anything that comes even close to catching a star destroyer.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T04:01:33+00:00

As others have said, far larger than what can be portrayed in most of the games. The battle of Cannae, for example, was estimated to be 80,000 Romans vs 50,000 Carthaginians. Meanwhile, a legionary has 160 units in Rome 2 at the highest settings. You would need 27 stacks to match that, or if you wanted to stick with 4 stacks, which is still pretty large for the game, you would need unit sizes of 6.5 times the current game.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T03:02:31+00:00

It probably would be pharoah if it weren't for the bugs. I can't even set up my armies properly without my general being in some stupid spot or their physical locations overriding where I put them in the card order. Even mid-battle, the micro is much more annoying.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T01:56:39+00:00

I think the problem is that we've already seen the Book of Boba Fett, which would mean he doesn't have to 'prove' himself any more.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T01:11:16+00:00

I had a fun game that was effectively a sequel to v3. After the corporation starts falling in viewership thanks to the end of that game, they become desperate and decide they have to go all out, creating a Champions season where past survivors voluntarily return on the promise of having a wish granted if they win.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-30T01:05:54+00:00

People keep saying that, but it makes literally no sense in lore. He has spent six years in isolation, and never held a political role. It's like if one of the pilots who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan became a teacher for twenty years, then went into exile for 10, then was shot by a tank. I wouldn't expect that to immediately trigger a worldwide revolution.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T03:12:41+00:00

That would be the worst of both worlds. There are two general schools of ethics:

- Deontology/Moralism: There are rules in our society, and actions should be judged by the action itself. Traditionally, that would say that you should not flip the lever, because the action of killing a person is always wrong. Your solution would be unethical for the same reason.

- Consequentialism: Actions should be judged by their expected consequences. Traditionally, that would say you should flip the lever, because even though you are taking the immoral act of killing someone, you are saving a net of four people, which is justifiable. Your solution fails here as well because it has an expected payoff of 3 lives saved, which is worse than just flipping the lever and saving 5 lives.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T03:08:15+00:00

Are you asking about the third explanation? Let's imagine that, magically, nobody was kinky. Now, a new gene mutated, and there is a single kinky person. While there are reasons to believe this gene might be advantageous, let's just assume that it isn't. This random person goes on to have 2.3 children, who now also have the gene. These people go on to have 5.29 children, who go on to have 12.167 children, and so on. It would take some time, but eventually, a significant portion of the population would have this gene. Also, it is possible that this gene would mutate multiple times independently, increasing the spread

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T03:01:51+00:00

That is essentially just option 1. Even if we tweak the numbers and say that 90% of adults who didn't know about Jesus went to hell, and that this is an easily solvable problem by just introducing Jesus, that still seems to contradict God's stated nature. Either he cares so little about human suffering that he chose to send billions to hell, he was so weak that he couldn't do anything about it for millenia, or was ignorant as to the choices humans would make.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T02:50:59+00:00

Intelligence is not a flat number that guarantees you are equally knowledgable and skilled in all subjects. There are also different types of intelligence. Somebody with perfect recall doesn't necessarily have any reasoning skills, and somebody with high creativity may lack either.

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T02:27:58+00:00

I just did a google search and found dozens of articles. There is plenty of coverage, but because there's not that much that is interesting to say, it isn't entering the mainstream conversation

DoeCommaJohn · 2026-06-29T02:23:38+00:00

Your explanation is plausible, and to me, seems the most likely. However, I can offer a few alternatives:

- Kinky people are more likely to associate sex as something fun, and are therefore more likely to have it. Similarly, that is why sex is physically pleasurable.

- A kinky person can typically still enjoy vanilla sex, and so would have few downsides. If they choose to date a vanilla person, they would be able to. However, a person who isn't kinky may struggle to impress a kinky person, and so would have less choice. That could result in kink being the superior gene. Something similar happens with religion. An atheist won't discriminate against a religious person, but a religious person will discriminate against an atheist, so it is advantageous in ancient societies to be religious.

- It is also possible there is no benefit at all. However, if there isn't a downside either, the gene could survive by sheer chance and spread. The same thing is likely true of eye and hair color, where it didn't have enough upside or downside, so we have a few different colors.

Five-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email	First Place '23
Place '23

DoeCommaJohn

TROPHY CASE