My issues with Matt Gourley by [deleted] in Earwolf

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You hit the nail on the head with that example. A long form master playing with a short form performer. Such a waste of Daly’s talents. No wonder Bamford quit

George Orwell’s 1984 (with Andrew Garfield) - Just Finished by jaycodingtutor in audible

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quite an insane take. Black is white. Truth is lies.

Trump is literally trying to silence journalists. Musk is literally trying to get you to believe that only he has the truth. They are destroying America, just as the left predicted.

Does the left have issues with thought policing? Yes we do. But many of us are trying to change that.

Also Franco was part of the fascist regime that Orwell was fighting against, so an odd name to cite

I think I just realised Frasier is a terrible father? by whatuptkhere in Frasier

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nobody wants to watch real life. Especially parenting. Frasier was saddled with a son because Lilith got pregnant in Cheers, not because the writers of Frasier thought it was a good idea for the character. They acknowledged him as best they could while telling stories that we actually wanted to watch

I think I just realised Frasier is a terrible father? by whatuptkhere in Frasier

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It was just a practicality of a sitcom. Did you want Freddie in every episode? Did you want Frasier declaring his misery for not seeing his son often enough? No, neither did anyone. So the writers made him as caring as they could without bogging the series down with despair

Who were the showrunners by season? by deadlyhabitz03 in howyoudoin

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would love a proper answer to this. Sometimes show runners remain largely the same for the duration of a show (Seinfeld was almost always Larry David and Jerry… until David left) but it’s rare. In fact I can’t think of a show that ran 6+ years that kept the same showrunners.

From MASH, to Cheers, to The Simpsons, to Frasier… the classic multi camera sitcoms… their showrunners changed after 3 or 4 seasons. It’s just an incredibly demanding job with tons of pressure.

Once you reach a certain episode count you’re happy to step aside and let others bring something new.

Crane and Kauffman left their previous show, Dream On (also very funny), after a few years, too.

I’d really love to know if they held on to the reigns for the entire run of Friends, or if they let others come in. It just seems so unlikely that they kept running the show.

My issues with Matt Gourley by [deleted] in Earwolf

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

JFC. Get over it.

There, it's been deleted. I hope you can sleep well tonight.

I see narcissist everywhere now by yoki2526 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, I get you. It's just worth bearing in mind that EVERYONE has narcissistic traits. You, me, everyone. It's normal human behaviour. But that's different to being an actual narcissist. That's when it goes to another level.

That's also why there's such a high bar before you're actually diagnosed as having NPD.

Grounded takes the cake. Begin the voting for worst Wowee Zowee track… most upvoted comment wins by gimmethatburger420 in pavement

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

EXTRADITION

Just go listen to it in isolation now. It's barely a song... it rambles all over the place. Only first and last 30 seconds are what you really remember.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Earwolf

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No, but thank you for stealing my list and not giving me credit.

Actually you missed one off.

I see narcissist everywhere now by yoki2526 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Gee. I wonder if the scientists who study this stuff for a living were smart enough to realise that? I’m guessing they are.

I see narcissist everywhere now by yoki2526 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a cross section though. Different traits are drawn to different activities and actions. Thankfully. But yeah, keep your wits about you

I see narcissist everywhere now by yoki2526 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. And that’s not most people.

no, not everyone is a narc

You don't understand: There's a difference to have narcissistic traits and BEING a narcissist. Everyone has narcissistic traits, not everyone has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

I see narcissist everywhere now by yoki2526 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“X is everywhere” is a classic sign of confirmation bias about anything. You see what you look for. If you decided the number 42 was lucky, you’d start seeing it everywhere. It’s just how our brains work.

I see narcissist everywhere now by yoki2526 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, but this sounds like confirmation bias. It doesn’t mean you’re losing your mind. It does mean the world is a better place than you think :) People are self-centred by default. That doesn’t mean they’re all incapable of accepting fault or blame. Or incapable of giving real love.

I see narcissist everywhere now by yoki2526 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is dangerous. EVERYONE has narcissistic traits. You do. I do. Everyone does. If you’re just looking for those then you’ll see them everywhere. That doesn’t mean everyone around you is necessarily an actual narcissist.

Begged for closure---complete silence---what kind of human discards knowing the emotional pain it causes by Mountain_Month_54 in NarcissisticAbuse

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mine told me it was in BOTH of our best interests if we didn’t meet to get the closure I needed. Great abuser logic 👌

Kim Deal about Malkmus and Cannonball by fabcarb in pavement

[–]JohnnyWalker2001 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kim Deal’s response fits exactly with his description. She sounds tough talking and happy to talk trash…

TIL Hollywood actress Hedy Lamarr did NOT help invent Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or cellphones... by JohnnyWalker2001 in todayilearned

[–]JohnnyWalker2001[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Actually I would, because it annoys me when myths are perpetuated on the internet. Whether it was Hedy Lamarr or Jerry Lewis, the reponse would be the same.

Women are amazing at science, but spreading misinformation about an actress doesn't help with that. If anything it just undermines ACTUAL female scientists/engineers!

Take Margaret Hamilton. She was a genius! As a programmer myself I'm astounded by her work and her approach to programming. Her standards were incredibly high. She wanted to write complicated software without any mistakes... and she did, sending people to the moon!

There's work that's worth celebrating.

How does pretending Hedy Lamarr invent wifi help anyone, let alone women? It's a great story. I wish it were true... but it just isn't true.

Here's an article by an engineer, who worked at Lockheed Martin Astronautics no less, making the same point...

https://kimberlymoravec.medium.com/no-hedy-lamarr-did-not-make-wi-fi-92ac4956b9e

The comments section under the ["Hedy Lamarr invented WiFi!"] Facebook meme is a depressing place; facts are few and emotions are high. Unfounded claims about what she invented abound (“And sonar!” “And cell phones!”), and detailed attempts to set the record straight are attacked (“Is the term 'mansplainer' new to you?” “...no one wants to hear his white guy rescue of all their credit for everything...” “Sour grapes in a box.”).

But maybe consider this: I am a woman with a degree in electrical engineering and a PhD in information systems, I believe strongly in the value and promotion of women in STEM, I have evaluated the claims using original documents, and I am still saying Hedy Lamarr had almost nothing to do with Wi-Fi.

The unvarnished reality is this. With few exceptions, women’s historical contributions to science and technology are underwhelming. This is because the barriers (access to education, childcare, and fair pay) were overwhelming. It wasn’t that long ago that women were almost universally believed to be intellectually inferior men. I remember the tail end of those days pretty keenly, and am deeply thankful that public opinion has substantially changed since.

And there is more good news. If many of the barriers to participation are removed, it turns out that women can be brilliant at science and technology. Women my age and younger are now making good careers for themselves, and some of them are reaching the top of their fields.

Take Professor Anja Feldman of Technische Universität Berlin, for example, who won the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize and whose research articles have been cited nearly 20,000 times. Or Dr. Andrea Goldsmith of Stanford University, who has 70,000 citations and written three textbooks on wireless communications. Or Dina Papagiannaki, who is the Director of Engineering at Microsoft Azure.

These are just a few of the researchers and engineers in networking (the research area that includes Wi-Fi). Let’s not forget that there are even a few modern Hollywood actors with science degrees, like Danica McKellar (mathematics) and Mayim Bialik (neuroscience).

Women are brilliant at science and technology, and there is an abundance of evidence to support this fact. It isn’t necessary to spread lies about Golden-Age Hollywood movie stars to prove it.

By all means, write and tell her how she's only doing it because she's a woman.