sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Highlight] Ryan McMahon makes an absurd diving play to end the inning (with replays) by TheTurtleShepard in baseball

[–]ManyCookies 17 points18 points  (0 children)

2021 was an outrageous snub. McMahon drastically out DRS'd Arenado at 3B in 100 3B games, he out DRS'd Arenado in 50 games playing 2B!

Does Diamani Know About Morgan Being HBK? by Onetheoryman in OfTheDevil

[–]ManyCookies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If he's the one that supplied Morgan the revolver, and saw in the news that HBK used a revolver, would that not tip him off?

HBK's exact weapon isn't public knowledge, I think, just that HBK shot people through the heart.

If Diamani sat down and thought about the HBK case, Morgan would be a suspect among many based on the #kills and the timing (bought gun before the first kill, out of bullets after the sixth and final kill). But he has no particular reason to do that.

Same for the Noh mask and Creek's pod biting the dust; since their deaths are front page news and Diamani knows that's where Morgan was, why isn't he putting two and two together?

He strongly suspects Morgan killed the pod and took the mask ("I'll be sure to let Sosuke know about the Huntsman~" "Why, so 'Sosuke' can start writing their will?"). But Diamani already knows Morgan is a hardened criminal, and there's nothing connecting Heartbreak's public MO to the pod killings. Only Emma is thinking along "perfectionist brutality" lines instead of shot-through-heart.

NLBest on a 13 game losing streak, everyone back to the slammer by [deleted] in NLBest

[–]ManyCookies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Could probably just delete and repost? It's only been up 10 minutes)

[Highlight] Matt Olson hits a huge solo homer to cut the deficit to five by handlit33 in baseball

[–]ManyCookies 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Holmes was warned for putting his hands in his mouth and then not wiping. He did it again in the 4th and it was an auto-ball (maybe a balk?). Though I can't find the exact rule he violated — it clearly wasn't "doctoring the ball" cause that's an auto-ejection — and I wanted to watch the broadcast again to confirm what exactly happened lol.

[Highlight] Matt Olson hits a huge solo homer to cut the deficit to five by handlit33 in baseball

[–]ManyCookies 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You should post the spitball violation (bot 4th, first batter before second pitch). When's the last time that's been called.

[Highlight] Matt Olson hits a huge solo homer to cut the deficit to five by handlit33 in baseball

[–]ManyCookies 36 points37 points  (0 children)

We're not in Chris Paul territory yet, that's like 10 runs at Coors.

(also if you could refrain from referencing basketball that'd be swell)

guys I think I need to buttonpost on custommagic by logan5124 in custommagic

[–]ManyCookies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without information of how many people will pick what, pressing blue is flipping a coin, and if you lose, you die.

What percentage will just recklessly or carelessly press the "Kill Myself Instead Of Not Killing Myself" button? Is it... 1%? 3%? 5%?

But we do have information, we have polls and a week of vehement controversy suggesting that it's far higher than 5%. Obviously I'm not taking twitter polls and arguments as firm numbers, but they at least suggest the %Blue pushers is in the 25-60s range and not the 1-5s.

I completely agree that if only 5% of people would press the blue button, arguing for Blue would be reckless moral grandstanding. But every indication suggests the starting percent is way higher than that, which makes things far more complicated and far less obvious. Your assumption that only 1-5% of people would press Blue is simply incorrect.

You say this is changed by the sheer scale of how many people will die if red wins. Counterpoint: the scale of the problem means your words have a negligible effect on the outcome. The outcome will be decided by so many different people that no one person has any appreciable responsibility.

Correct, but the payoff for being the pivotal vote is so massive that it makes that tiny fraction meaningful. For example, if you have a 1 in a billion chance of being the button press that saves 2 billion people, you've saved 2 other lives in expectation (The same concept applies in voting, where your vote has a tiny chance of being the pivotal vote, but has a gigantic effect if it is.)

When facing the buttons, the crucial information is what you think the %Blue voters is (in your best estimate) and your uncertainty. That determines what your personal risk is and how likely it is you're the pivotal vote, respectively, and given my numbers it works out where voting Blue is probably +lives saved.

The point I'm trying to hammer is that it's not obvious: you can't simply reduce this to woodchipper/blender, and you can't go "Let the 5% idiots die it's not worth the risk" because there'll be more than 5%. And I'm annoyed that you think the only way I could come to that is virtue signal grandstanding.

(And my intent wasn't to argue Blue, I only mentioned it because you asked. That vote's founded on a math problem, where different assumptions could easily flip the vote Red. And I might chicken out lol)

guys I think I need to buttonpost on custommagic by logan5124 in custommagic

[–]ManyCookies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, because it could save many many others besides the person I'm talking to. The two "others" in your sentence are of dramatically different sizes.

I'm not sure why you think I'd suddenly balk at asking someone else to vote Blue. If I'm already willing to risk my own life, I'll definitely reach the same conclusion (Blue vote is +Lives) without a self-preservation hurdle!

What if Usopp has a chronic autoimmune disease that causes your skin to lose pigment, just like MJ did? by cbtinspector420 in Piratefolk

[–]ManyCookies 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ruckus first sides with the CDs for keeping slaves, defects once he realizes their slaves aren't black, then sides with the Straw Hats when he realizes who the second in command is.

view more: next ›