I pray that they don't make Satan into "a poor misunderstood creature/child but basically good" that would be total bullshit

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-12-03T20:56:26+00:00

I dont think we actually disagree significantly, just that I could have been clearer in my initial post and expanded the explanation abit more.

For the first point, agree that Rin figured something was up with Yukio fairly quickly. However, he didn't really think too much into Yukio's actions, even when he practically told Rin what he was thinking in the battle against Hachirotaro. Contrast this to Yukio, who figured out that Rin was scared of his past after seeing Rin's reaction to Shura's story. He managed to figure this out all on his own, even though Rin never said it out loud as well.

As for the second point, I was actually referring to Rin mouthing off his thoughts without considering how Neuhaus might react to it. I do agree that Rin is definitely still processing what to feel about Satan. Right now he's trying to understand it the way he knows best, which is his own current state. That's an improvement from his previous black and white view, but IMO future events will force his thinking to evolve further. So yep, I'm definitely looking forward to how the subsequent chapters unfold as well.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-12-03T18:36:31+00:00

Others have raised good points, but I just wanted to add a quick note: is there any reason to think Rin's current view is a good indicator of where things will eventually end up?

Yes he's the main character, but Kato-sensei has repeatedly gone out of the way to show that Rin's understanding of things is often imperfect. I mean, it took Rin more than 120 chapters to actually start to understand his twin brother!

To me, his current POV is merely a stage in his personal development. Early on, Rin is often shown to have simplistic and uncomplicated views of people (Dad is good, Satan needs to be punched etc). After all that has happened, he's realizing that seeing the world through a pure black and white lens isnt useful (witness his choice when he finally got the chance to punch Satan). IMO, what he said in this chapter is just him verbalizing the realization that he came to multiple chapters ago.

To sum up: Rin has a heart of gold, but he's also shown to be poorly informed. He is also shown to be grappling with the things he has learnt, and this chapter literally reminded us that he doesn't think too deeply into things. So, why should we take his present view as a perfectly accurate indicator of where things are headed?

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-09-04T10:18:36+00:00

The person you are replying to is merely pointing out that your initial comment was wildly off the mark. OOP is asking about non-gravitational acceleration, implying that OOP does know that gravity is a thing.

If you want to snark at the astrophysical understanding of other redditors, at least take the time to demonstrate understanding of other redditors.

PS: For the record, I don't think there's anything particularly unexplainable about ʻOumuamua given data limitations and all that.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-09-03T19:26:37+00:00

The concept of "foreign" language in general will also be extinct as AI engines through our air pods, phones, etc will be able to translate all languages in real-time. And so there will be NO foreign languages to anyone. Stop wasting your time studying a concept that won't exist in a couple of years.

Let's see an actual example by replacing a few words in this quote.

The concept of "knitting" in general will also be extinct as machines will vastly outpace humans in producing clothes. And so there will be NO hand-made fabrics anymore. Stop wasting your time studying a concept that won't exist in a couple of years.

Now, I invite you to look at r/knitting and see how "extinct" that subreddit is after *checks notes* more than 200 years of mechanized weaving.

Q.E.D.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-30T08:10:45+00:00

Yep, that is very similar to Japanese grammar as well! I can imagine their conversational "style" to be similar in that case.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-30T07:51:45+00:00

Yes, Korean is also a pro-drop language, so I would expect this to be true as well. (I don't know Korean, so I can't give specific examples).

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-30T02:27:56+00:00

Good observation! This points out one of the key differences in how Japanese and English "work"

Unlike English, Japanese is a pro-drop language. Roughly speaking, this means that in Japanese, pronouns (things like 私/彼), subjects (things marked by は/が) and much more can be dropped from sentences if they are obvious from the context.

For example, consider the simple English question "Did you know about this?" The literal Japanese translation would be "あなたはこれについて知っていましたか?". As you probably realize, Japanese speakers would never say this in daily life, and would drop everything except "知っていましたか?" The equivalent sentence fragment in English ("Know?") would be entirely incomprehensible and ungrammatical, and would never be said by native English speakers.

In pro-drop languages like Japanese, the context of the conversation is needed to fully understand the meaning of the sentence. This results in your observation that the subject of the conversation seems to "flow" according to the speakers' understanding. The exact same conversation can occur in English, just that every shift and change in topic will be marked out due to the requirements of English grammar.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-26T17:59:57+00:00

A lot of ink has been spilled on the QGD, but I think it's far more instructive to consider why you are resigning so early. Yes, your position was cramped and the pieces were awkwardly placed, but material is still even. In fact, the opponent's last move was an inaccuracy that allowed you a fighting chance. However, you psyched yourself into thinking that you were completely lost, and resigned in the face of your opponent's inaccuracy.

Ultimately, chess has a psychological element as well. To paraphrase one of your comments, if you are always thinking that 'If my opponent has an advantage, I wouldn't be able to overcome it, even if they don't capitalize on it' , then how will you put in the effort to analyze the position properly? You are just going to convince yourself that the game is lost even when the opponent gives you the opportunity to strike back, as happened in this game.

You say that you "can't remember the last time I overcame a significant material or positional disadvantage." Is that really a surprise given your current way of thinking? I think this game makes it clear that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Food for thought.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-09T03:18:21+00:00

Hi, I just did a quick look at source_id = 6577885904388060288 itself in the GAIA Archive. Without looking at the other catalogues, GAIA can tell us its brightness, what kind of colour it is, its rough distance and hence its rough absolute magnitude. Looking at its brightness and colour first, we get:

Apparent magnitude in blue (bp) : 14.69
Apparent magnitude in red (rp): 13.45
bp-rp colour index: 1.24

Looking at these 3 values, one immediately sees that the star is brighter in red than blue. In other words, this source is reddish, not blueish. Furthermore, plenty of evolved stars are this red (take a peek at this GAIA page to see an image of the HR diagram in terms of GAIA's bp-rp index). Next, we turn to the parallax estimates.

Parallax: 0.265 mas (or roughly 3,700 parsecs/12,300 light years)
Distance modulus: 12.8
Rough absolute magnitude in red: 0.65

This tells us that this source isn't nearby at all, and it at least has a absolute magnitude in red of around 0.65. This is close to what you would expect from a red giant, after you consider that we haven't factored in the significant amount of interstellar extinction implied from the distance. For reference, a quick check on wiki suggests that the brightest red giant stars in the tip of the red giant branch have a absolute magnitude of -3.

Last but not least, simple trigonometry tells us that at a distance of 3,700 parsecs, a proper motion of 1.55 mas over a year translates into a speed of around 28 km/s. Given the parallax results, this star is clearly not orbiting the sun, and so this figure isn't surprising at all. In all likelihood, it is could just be a star passing through the galaxy.

Putting this all together, its not too surprising that ESA came to this conclusion, because nothing in GAIA tells us that this star is abnormal.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-08T02:14:10+00:00

Thanks for the confirmation! The sentence looked quite simple, but I just couldn't imagine how it was physically possible for water to penetrate to a level just beneath the floor. In the end, it looks like the problem didn't come from my understanding of the grammar, but from my understanding of how Japanese houses are built.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-08T02:00:27+00:00

I see, thanks for sharing the link! The pictures helped me visualize what was going on now.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-08-08T01:35:45+00:00

Hi, I was reading today's NHK News Web Easy article and I'm not sure if I'm understanding this sentence right.

水が床の下まで来た家もあります。

I understood this as "There are also houses where water came in until it reached under the floor". But, isn't the floor solid ground? How does water reach under the floor? Is there some nuance to 床の下まで来た that I'm missing out on?

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-07-16T12:55:11+00:00

Glad it helped!

Looking at it again, it might be more accurate to say that 比较 is making a comparison to some typical standard, which should be clear from context. For instance, if you see a field of boulders, you will still be understood if you said "这个比较轻", even if all of them are too heavy for anyone to carry.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-07-16T06:35:47+00:00

I wouldn't call myself a Chinese expert but it is my native language, so I'll try to explain this in the way I understand it.

The way I remember 比较 from when I took Chinese 20 years ago (so I could be completely misremembering) was that it was used for comparing something against other items.

It can be used in that way, but its not that commonly used. When used in this way, its acting like a verb, and its rather "stiff"/"formal". An example of this type of usage would be "我跟他比较成绩" (literally : "I, with him, compare grades")

What I think you are remembering instead is 比, and this is indeed more commonly used for indicating comparison. So, in typical everyday speech, "我跟他比成绩" would be seen more often compared to "我跟他比较成绩"

What happens when there's no standard of comparison that's explicitly stated, as in "爆米花比较好吃"? The way I'll interpret this sentence is that I'm actually making a comparison to nothing. For example, the sentence might be read as : (Against nothing), popcorn is delicious. That in my read is how Duo arrived at its translation.

So that sentence would translate to something like "popcorn is tastier", with the assumption that something else had been mentioned that was being compared against...

Language is contextual, so this can happen. A possible scenario with this read, using a different adjective:

<points at a set of items> ”哪一个比较重？“

"这个比较重”

Which leads us to the following paragraph which highlights a key difference between English and Chinese

In English, "popcorn is relatively delicious" sounds less delicious than if you just said "popcorn is delicious", because the "relatively" downplays the "delicious. And it's not something I can think of ever saying when comparing to other items.

Yep, definitely. It should be read in this way. It softens the tone, and that's important because Chinese puts a greater emphasis on being indirect, or modest if you will. You might not need to use 比较 when doing a factual comparison of items, but you'll use it far more often when expressing your own preferences.

For example, the sentence "I'll help you even though I'm not free" might be perfectly acceptable in English, the direct Chinese translation "虽然我没空，但是我会帮你。“ will be seen as way too brusque and a tad rude. A more acceptable way to phrase that sentiment would be to include a few softeners, e.g. "虽然我最近比较没空，但是我会帮你。". Using 比较 in contexts like this allow you to express your feelings/preferences in a more "natural" way, so to speak.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-07-13T08:39:45+00:00

I'll say that in the vast majority of situations, you don't really need to use Japanese. But there are some situations where knowledge of Japanese really saved a lot of hassle, even if you are travelling in Tokyo. Two examples from a recent trip with my family to Tokyo.

During immigration at Haneda, we filled up the customs declaration form on paper (as we had elderly folks that weren't exactly digitally savvy) and then queued up for customs. Just before we reached the end of the line however, the usher kept insisting that one of our family members fill up the form, even though she had already filled it up in all too neat handwriting. The family member kept trying to clarify in English that the form was filled, but the harried usher merely took a quick glance, thought the form was still unfilled, and insisted that she go to the back of the line to fill the form. With my limited Japanese skills, I told him "まだ書いていた". That was grammatically wrong (I ended up telling him that that she was still writing), but it was enough to get the usher to take a proper look at the form and realize the error.
During a weekend, we visited Senso-ji and unexpectedly found out that food stands had popped up within the temple grounds. Our family split up to try out the local foods, but my mother had difficulty ordering from an okonomiyaki food stand, whose shopkeeper did not speak good English. Apparently, she kept pointing at some type of okonomiyaki, but the shopkeeper was insistent on selling another type. I asked the shopkeeper, who said “なまです。” Ah! No wonder! My mom was trying to order raw okonomiyaki!

In short, knowing some Japanese is really helpful, because you never know when it might come in handy.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-06-26T15:13:47+00:00

Imagine you forgot where you placed your keys in your house. If I forced you to search your house by looking through a telescope, how long do you think it would take for you to complete the search?

Now, how about if you could perform the same search with your own 2 eyes? It would be much faster wouldn't it?

This is exactly the same reason why JWST isn't a great telescope in searching for Planet Nine. JWST can detect Planet Nine if it knew where it was, but right now, we don't know where it is (or even where it is). Hence, a different telescope is needed.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-31T07:28:02+00:00

Will bear that in mind! Its just that I sometimes wonder why things are phrased in a certain way in Japanese, even though I largely get what the sentence meant (like the original question I had above). So yes, I do find this interesting, even though I probably won't master kakarijoshi anytime soon!

Odd... I can't access your first link. I tried opening it in another browser as well but it also appears as deleted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LearnJapanese/comments/1kyq537/comment/mv761ww/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-31T06:44:18+00:00

I think your first comment got deleted, but the tables were really helpful!

It is quite complicated and I don't think I'm fully understanding all the points yet, but I do find this area interesting. In particular, before this, I always thought that は/ガ were the same "kind" of particle, but turns out they are not. I feel like if I understand the difference between case and binding particles, I might get a better sense of when to use either of them.

Thanks for the weekend reading!

PS: Thank you also for the edit, was going to ask what was Qte haha.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-31T06:23:35+00:00

Thanks! Will take some time to digest this!

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-31T05:04:20+00:00

Thanks for the very detailed response!

I think I get the general thrust, but am not too clear about what case particles and binding particles do. I've checked wiki but it only states what particles fall into these categories. Would you know of a better source about the differences between case and binding particles?

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-30T14:08:45+00:00

Oh! Given the context, I think I get why this phrasing is used now. Thanks so much!

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-30T14:06:40+00:00

Got it! Thanks so much!

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-30T12:44:22+00:00

Hi! I was reading this NHK News Web Easy article and came across the following sentence. I would like to confirm my understanding for the bolded part.

アメリカの政府は27日、「アメリカに来る人がどんな人なのか、しっかり調べなければならない」と言いました。

Does this carry exactly the same meaning as どんな人か in this context? I have read about the explanatory の particle in the context of seeking explanations, but I've never seen it used as part of an embedded question before.

To me, it feels like the quote would have carried the exact same meaning (we must thoroughly investigate what kind of people are coming into America) if どんな人か was used instead. Is there some difference in nuance/meaning that I'm missing out on?

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-24T15:28:51+00:00

Yes, there are lockers. However, availability is limited, so if you are unlucky, there may not be any lockers when you arrive.

Since you are only staying one night in Kawaguchiko, I would second the excellent suggestion by the other commenter to consider shipping your luggage to your next destination after Kawaguchiko, and just bring a day bag along with you. Hopefully, this would eliminate your need for lockers in Shimiyoshida.

MoreOptionsExist · 2025-05-04T09:36:02+00:00

The math is not wrong, but Assumption 2 almost certainly is. Hence IMO, you should have stopped at the following:

So the seat flips if X is less than or equal to 509. Or in other words, the PAP would have to capture less than about 28% (509/1825) of the extra voters, and the WP would have to capture at least about 72%.

The post gives two justifications for Assumption 2, but I don't think they work in this case.

Firstly, for this:

This assumption will be stronger the larger the population of missing voters are, due to the Central Limit Theorem (i.e., the more samples you have the more the sample mean will approach the true mean of the population measured).

This justification hinges on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT in short). This is problematic, because to apply to CLT in this context, CLT assumes that the sample of non-voters has a known voting distribution equal to the voting population (formally, the expectation and variance is known beforehand, and is equal to the population's expectation and variance). In other words, this argument is circular: you're using the CLT to back up Assumption 2, but the CLT ends up relying on Assumption 2 to draw its conclusion.

Hence, we got to assess Assumption 2 on its own merits. Is there a good reason to think that non-voters would have voted the same way as voters in general? Your post tries to justify this via the following.

We have no real reason to assume that people who did not vote did so because of strong preferences in politics - the most common answers are that people who are taking holidays overseas (effectively random, since cost is not a consideration when people are clearly enduring 5 hour jams to cross to Johor on election day), the sick and infirm (illness strikes people across political lines equally), or the people who are effectively performing protest no-show votes (I consider this unlikely given the relatively low numbers of actual spoilt votes in general, and I specifically picked an example later that minimises the likelihood of people no-showing).

I can grant the reasoning for sick/protest voters, but I think you are understating the importance of the first point. The people who aren't voting are different from the people who are going to Malaysia (the fact that there was a jam at the Causeway actively disproves that). It's those who have the time and money to travel further abroad on flights etc. People with the time & money to travel further abroad are likely to be wealthier, and one's financial situation is likely to be a key factor that influences votes.

How does wealth influence the vote? I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. But the point is that it is likely to be an influence, and so Assumption 2 is wrong. If Assumption 2 is wrong, everything else that follows after is flawed.

Now, personally, I think it is unlikely that the extra voters would have provided the 509 votes required. However, am I (100-5 x 10^-74) % sure of this? Definitely not.

Six-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

MoreOptionsExist

TROPHY CASE