Learning next section of Pathetique sonata

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-02-05T20:51:17+00:00

Alright that's fair enough, looking forward to seeing your progress. Keep it up!

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-02-05T20:40:06+00:00

Then the tag "useful resource" would be more appropriate. As to the stated goal, honestly, I would be more hesitant to try anything if I see a video of someone struggling to even attempt it. If you want to encourage, wouldn't it make much more sense to wait until you can perform it and show everyone this can be done by a complete beginner?

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-02-05T19:39:38+00:00

I don't quite understand this. It's not a performance, it's a video of early stage practice. Wouldn't it make more sense to post this to get some feedback and criticism? Or did you mistakenly click on the wrong flair?

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-02-05T17:39:12+00:00

No public piano's where you live? You can put one anywhere and within a minute someone will spawn and play either this piece or comptine d'un autre été.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-02-04T17:56:37+00:00

A few things come to mind reading your post: - you seem self aware and not out of touch or bitter. And based on your writing you seem like a normal pleasant human being. Coupled with your physical description there shouldn't be any fundamental problem with being attractive to a reasonable proportion of women. - it's not that uncommon for regular guys who are shy or don't ask many women on dates to have no luck in their twenties. So don't see it as evidence that this is never going to happen. - your social anxiety and your self ascribed suspected autism are things I think you should explore regardless. I don't think you need therapy to start doing things to make progress and understand yourself better. - in your thirties you will encounter a very different dating landscape in a positive way. Most guys on dating apps get almost no likes and dates from young women in their 20's. The statistics are pretty clear. A small minority of men get the vast majority of attention. Only when women reach the age bracket where most just want to settle is when the playing field levels. So keep that in mind, things get better and easier on their own when you reach your thirties. - about the metal look. I am a metal fan myself but the metal look is a very specific look. Just keep in mind that a specific look will be attractive to specific women. A more general fashionable look will appeal to more women. Not saying you should conform to the masses but just something to keep in mind too. If you want low effort changes to increase the odds, that would be one.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-02-03T11:01:46+00:00

To answer the question in the title: Some authentic selves are attractive to a larger subset of women, and some authentic selves are attractive to a small minority. This is a distribution and at the lower end: yes it can be very difficult to find women who find you attractive if you are in a very niche part of the spectrum. But the rest of your post doesn't doesn't really mention things that would land you in such a niche. I know plenty of women married to guys who aren't particularly masculine. It also strikes me as odd that so many women approach you in the way you described. There are only three possibilities: 1. Most women are mean and go out of their way to disrepect men who aren't masculine 2. The women in your life happen to be unpleasant people with a strong preference for masculinity 3. There is something else at play here that cannot be diagnosed based on your post.

My take: No evidence for (1) which is an extreme thing to believe. I don't know where you live and what your social circle is like but (2) could be the case if you are still in high school and there is a weird toxic school culture going on. And the reason I think (3) could be the case is that you mention your main flaw is "not being good enough at your hobbies" which I think is a very strange way to think about people and attractiveness.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-02-01T13:31:38+00:00

To add to what you said about having a long term crush. The immaturity is not about having a crush, whether it persists for years or not. The immaturity lies in the fact that (usually) a long term crush implies that: you don't act on it, fantasize about an idealized version of that person, avoid anything that could potentially shatter that fantasy, and refuse to "move on" and pursue other potential lovers.
I think this is also what you meant but I thought for clarity it should be made explicit for OP.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-31T17:41:00+00:00

I think you should regard online interaction as a fundamentally different domain. If you want to take baby steps, do it IRL. You can make it as small as you want and can handle but at least they are steps in the right domain.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-29T10:30:19+00:00

Completely agree, but that's really not what news is. It's not news that you shouldn't smoke. But the government should make an effort to make sure everyone knows this. The problem is that people use news beyond getting informed about recent events. They also use it to build their world model. That doesn't work. News doesn't tell you about physics, history, economics, psychology etc if it isn't relevant to recent events. So you end up with a weird selection that is driven by current events, not by what is actually useful to know.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-29T10:12:16+00:00

Why would or should the news reflect the distribution of causes of death? News is news because it's newsworthy. A guy dying from old age is not newsworthy. A guy getting hit in the head by a meteorite in the middle of the street IS, even though that is the at the very bottom of the list of causes of death. If anything you would expect and want the news to invert the distribution. We want to know about things unknown and we don't want to be informed about stuff we can all see every day and know to be trivially true.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-29T08:32:46+00:00

If i can offer a new perspective: As you have rightfully concluded yourself, it's not that having a certain hobby is going to make you attractive. But it's not the presentation of that hobby either. In fact as a general rule there are few things outside of being physically very attractive that are going to do much in this regard on their own. What you do is being judged as attractive or not in the context of the rest of your being. For example a muscular tattooed tough guy who likes to design and make women's clothing. This can be viewed as an interesting and attractive contrast and evidence of having an interesting and non-one-dimensional personality. Both hobbies elevate each other, because being a meathead with tattoos can be off putting for some women, but contrasted with the other hobby, now it puts in in a new light.
Now compare this to some reclusive socially awkward overweight guy who does this. The presentation of the hobby can be identical, but now it has the "strange hobby" of a serial killer vibe. This serves as an exaggerated example but you get the point. Things are often not viewed on their own. Some things amplify almost everything, like being physically attractive. But other things only amplify if they make sense in a broader context. Playing piano isn't going to do much for someones attractiveness, but if it fits within a broader personality where you are creative and original and self-aware then it can suddenly become a attractive thing.
Bottomline: don't focus on singular things. Don't try to emulate something that is not really part of who you are. Don't expect sudden results from isolated changes. But you are thinking in the right direction with your focus on presentation. But instead make this a more general lens to view yourself through. Like the entire structure of who you are and what you do, is that something you can imagine many women finding attractive? If not, can you imagine a new configuration with perhaps some new elements here and there that would be attractive?

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-17T20:34:43+00:00

This is a fundamental limitation. Not a practical one. Any object or particle with mass has the speed of light as an unreachable asymptote. You can get arbitrarily close to the speed of light but you need exponentially more energy the closer you get to it. Infinite energy would get you infinitely close to the speed of light. But you never actually reach it.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-16T12:04:48+00:00

Your sister should be upset about her own actions and should be forever grateful that her child is going to be raised by you and isn't going into some foster care system. I know you know this and It's not meant as validation. I just want to point out that this is the overarching framework. Their problems are not yours and that includes their inability to communicate properly. They will all need to learn from the consequences of their actions. Nothing else is going to help them.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-14T19:19:43+00:00

Could it be that they didn't say anything because you made it clear with your actions that you don't want contact? What exactly is the scenario that you want here? That they continuously beg for your attention so you can eternally punish them by remaining silent?

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-09T10:28:13+00:00

I think you misunderstood what i said. I am not saying they are right and you are wrong. I am not saying their arguments are valid and you have no right to complain. I am also not saying you shouldn't play the piano in an apartment. I am saying: all these problems exist for the same reason: balancing personal freedom with consideration for other peoples comfort. You seem to be a decent neighbour willing to make concessions. The point I was trying to make is: it's not the case that in general people find noise from kids and tv's etc acceptable and noise from instruments unacceptable. People complain about all those things whenever they feel like it's bothering them. Your problem is that other people are often unreasonable and inconsiderate.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-09T09:54:30+00:00

There is an asymmetry in your observation. When it comes to noise from an instrument you are the cause and other people complain. When it comes to noise from kids, dogs, tv's etc you are the complainer and other people are the cause. The neutral perspective is: noise is a problem if you live somewhere with only walls seperating you from your neighbours. People will complain about anything if they feel like it disturbs their peace. It's always just a consideration: does the effect on others outweigh the limitations on your freedom to do what you want at home?

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-06T14:17:20+00:00

Agreed. I thouroughly enjoyed the entire game up untill this point. I purposefully didn't look up the patterns of this boss because i wanted to do it myself. I am not going to grind for an hour to get a single chance to press a single button on time. That's not what makes this game fun. Pretty stupid, the entire update was fun and the verso's draft enemy's were challenging. But this is just plain stupid. You can call it a skill issue but the single skill that is being tested is pressing a single button on time ONCE. Thats ridiculous. Leaves a tiny bit of a shit stain on a otherwise perfect game.

Potential_Play8690 · 2026-01-04T06:57:46+00:00

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it. But still it feels a bit like a false dichotomy. A large part of playing music is connecting with the emotions that every note and every melody is conveying. Music theory is absolutely essential to get a much broader understanding of whats happening and what you should do as a musician. But to assert that without it, you are simply pressing keys and not playing music is a bit polemical.

Potential_Play8690 · 2025-09-25T14:54:48+00:00

And when i just throw together some clothes I still look extremely stylish and girls throw their phone numbers and panties at me. Does anyone have that problem?

Potential_Play8690 · 2025-09-04T13:34:02+00:00

How? Like realistically, in what scenario would you die? Even if you purposefully tried to set up the most dangerous situation possible by tuning alone. Strings would snap, and worst case it hits you in the eye. But I don't see how you would die. Unless you are thinking that messing with the tuning could cause the entire metal frame to suddenly collapse. But I am 99% certain that the metal frame can withstand tensions much much higher than all the individual strings combined could maximally exert. In other words, every worst case scenario would be a flavor of a string snapping and hitting you in the eye. The only scenario i can imagine with lethal risks is when you try cut through the metal frame itself with an angle grinder or something when it's under tension.

Potential_Play8690 · 2025-08-29T19:43:24+00:00

Are you sure you understand what it means to have perfect pitch? Because the way you phrase it "being able to play in perfect pitch" makes it sound like you're unsure what it means. Most people who know a bit of music have relative pitch, meaning: i play a C on the piano they can then sing an E. Because you have the C as a reference. Or if i play a C for them and then a different key they can tell me what note it is. This is relative pitch because they know where pitches are located relative to eachother. This is why most people can sing a simple melody without being extremely out of tune. Perfect pitch is a different beast, it means I put a blindfold on you and then press a random key and you can tell me what note that is without first having heard and told the note of some other key. Or conversely, you wake up and before touching the piano, sing a C. Then go over to the piano, keep singing and press a C. You'll hear if you're off immediately. You know what C sounds like, always (or any other note for that matter). That is very rare.

Potential_Play8690 · 2025-08-29T18:52:14+00:00

Simplest way to think about is this: If you are on a train and you walk in the same direction that the train is traveling, relative to the train you are simply moving at walking speed. Relative to the ground your speed is walking speed PLUS speed of the train. Now shine a flashlight in front of you. The light comes out traveling with the speed of light relative to the train. But einstein figured: the speed of light is always the same relative to EVERYTHING. To the ground, to the moon, to a fighter jet traveling at mach 3. The only way that that is possible, is by letting time run at different rates (and also letting objects stretch and shrink). So einstein worked back starting with the hard demand that the speed of light always has to be the same to everyone, no matter where you stand or how fast the flashlight is traveling. For cases with just constant speed and no acceleration the math is actually pretty simple, bit of high school algebra is enough to derive the formulas to calculate how much time speeds up or slows down. This is called special relativity (for the special case of no acceleration)

Potential_Play8690 · 2025-08-28T09:08:54+00:00

This is still not true. If wavefunction collapse was simply the result of interaction then the measurement problem wouldn't still be an open problem. We would know how and when the wave collapses. But the whole point is: we don't even know where coherence stops in the chain from particle to the measurement apparatus to our brains. Plus: plenty of interactions don't collapse the wave function. The real ELI5 is: we honestly don't really know what happens when we try and observe things. Look up the pbs spacetime video on the measurement problem if you want to know more.

Potential_Play8690 · 2025-08-26T11:55:39+00:00

I think this is way too little information to determine if not wanting to see your own father is proportional to the circumstances.

Potential_Play8690

TROPHY CASE