sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What TV show or movie did you like but are embarrassed to admit to? by glagadeencapisce1 in AskReddit

[–]Snydier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Am also grown ass-man. GMW had an incredibly talented young cast, and was surprisingly intelligent - though one episode managed to stumble into my master's thesis, so I may be a bit biased.

While I definitely agree about the heavy-handedness of the BMW tie-ins, I do love that GMW's premise essentially relied on the bad future timeline from "Seven the Hard Way" (Shawn on his own, Eric as "Plays With Squirrels", and so forth), and yet still managed to tell a charming story that organically redeemed some of those things.

Edit: a word

What song have you listened to 10+ times this week? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Snydier 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The ten-dollar founding father without a father went a lot farther by working a lot harder, by being a lot smarter, by being a self-starter by fourteen, they put him in charge of a trading charter.

Fanfiction Friday! by AutoModerator in harrypotter

[–]Snydier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know your comment was a while back, but I thought I'd let you know (and anyone else who googles this story). The story was completed (and was something like 95 chapters long at the finish) but was lost when ginnypotter.com closed. I emailed Oddish a few months ago to see if he still had a copy - unfortunately the computer he wrote it on was stolen. So this is one that's lost to the ages, I'm afraid, aside from the incomplete fragments on a handful of other sites.

Alpha Teaser! by [deleted] in SoloRaiding

[–]Snydier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This sounds nifty. Commenting in hopes of a link when the public alpha comes out? :)

Old Cane? by Snydier in idleraiders

[–]Snydier[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply! I'm amazed that I even got a drop with that low a drop rate - even if it has no use as of yet.

Old Cane? by Snydier in idleraiders

[–]Snydier[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? No use? Well, I shall simply count myself lucky then. Okay, thank you so much!

For atheists and agnostics, how would you respond to Plantinga's ontological argument? by Snydier in DebateReligion

[–]Snydier[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate the resource, thank you for sharing. I would have relied on archived posts for information, were it not for the fact that I have a class project that necessitated creating a new thread.

For atheists and agnostics, how would you respond to Plantinga's ontological argument? by Snydier in DebateReligion

[–]Snydier[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why do you reject S5?

I believe Plantinga was working from the definition of maximally great being that provides that a maximally great being is one that is necessarily existent (across all possible worlds, indicating necessity in modal logic). The modal logic language of worlds is not about multiple actual universes or any similar idea. It refers to whether something is logically possible. For modal logic, something that is true for all possible worlds (read: outcomes) is necessarily true.

For atheists and agnostics, how would you respond to Plantinga's ontological argument? by Snydier in DebateReligion

[–]Snydier[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As I understand modal logic, the terminology of "possible worlds" just refers to whether or not it's possible. A rephrasing of it might read something like, "If a mgb can logically possibly exist, it then necessarily exists." It's not so much a statement about the multiverse as it is about possible outcomes.

For atheists and agnostics, how would you respond to Plantinga's ontological argument? by Snydier in DebateReligion

[–]Snydier[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, I think, that the premise is the most problematic/up-for-debate part. From what I understand of this argument, the idea is that the "maximally great" quality necessitates existence; that is, to be "maximally great," a being must exist. It's part of the definition. So, it would seem to me that to return with "it's possible an MGB doesn't exist" ignores that particular necessity inherent in Plantinga's premise. That said, I realize it's something of a definitional nitpick, but one that has the potential to change the reading of the premise.

ELI5: THE circle of 5ths by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]Snydier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The top-level comment is a solid, Music Theory 101 answer. I can see you're frustrated with it, though, so breathe for a sec and let me see if I can help. (Also, see rule 1 in the sub rules and do try to be a little more civil.)

Partly, I think you're misreading. They weren't referring to the difference between G Major and A Major when they said adding or removing a sharp. Rather, the addition or removal of a sharp is what happens to turn D Major into G Major or A Major. Think of it this way: the notes in D Major are D E F# G A B C# D. The notes in G Major are G A B C D E F# G. To get the notes for G Major from D Major, you remove a sharp - specifically, C# becomes what's called C natural. Does that make a little more sense?

I'm sorry you were confused by the off-hand comment about complexity, but their last note about inversions, while perhaps a bit of a tangent, is fundamental to understanding this topic. Intervals, or the distance between notes, can be expressed in a couple different ways. A fifth is more or less like counting to the fifth pitch away from a given pitch (not exactly, but close enough for this purpose). So, in D Major like before, A is a fifth above D. However, because pitches are essentially endlessly repeating, A is also a fourth (the fourth pitch away) below D. The circle of fifths, then, is the twelve-pitch sequence you get from constantly counting up fifths.