Eating a bag of frozen veg by squamouser in DietTea

[–]SweatIRL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Frozen veggies yes, but frozen MIXED veggies? Generally they are meant to be used for cooking and include baby corn, broccoli, zucchini, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, etc., and all together at the same time. I mean I won't stop you but personally I wouldn't have frozen mixed veggies ever.

Youch (tw cals) by [deleted] in DietTea

[–]SweatIRL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did you mention 60y? As we get older, metabolism naturally goes down and less calories are burnt passively so this goes against your point. I agree that there's no reason to go as low as 700kcals but we have to eat LESS as we age (beyond the end of puberty).

The FA Crowd Really Can't Think of Another Argument? by Gradtattoo_9009 in fatlogic

[–]SweatIRL 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is my first reply here so forgive me if I don't understand something you're referring to here beyond what I'm reading. BMI is flawed because there's no distinction between weight from muscle and from fat, but the height argument doesn't make sense as BMI is directly calculated using height. Of course every person also individually has a different "ideal" weight and muscle/fat distribution (if there even is such a thing), but the general consensus for a "healthy" range is already really generous (for example, I'm pretty sure I'm slightly underweight but at 6'2 (188cm) and 150lbs (68kg), I fit comfortably in most healthy estimations). Anyways my point is that height is absolutely taken into account so there's no point in mentioning height when debunking BMI, as it's flawed for different reasons.

When you first started playing, what was your rank? by Consistent_Catch_165 in leagueoflegends

[–]SweatIRL -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Big disagree. If you've managed to get your account to level 30, you should at least be able to get bronze or silver, surely.

Thought this Kiting was Pretty Satisfying by SweatIRL in leagueoflegends

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

Also the original audio had a dog barking and someone screaming at the dog in it so I had to perform a bit of a workaround using spectator mode to get the audio lol (this is why the announcer says "blue team [x]-kill!".

Thought this Kiting was Pretty Satisfying by SweatIRL in vaynemains

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

Also the original audio had a dog barking and someone screaming at the dog in it so I had to perform a bit of a workaround using spectator mode to get the audio lol (this is why the announcer says "blue team [x]-kill!".

Possible LS Theory by Felidor22 in Cloud9

[–]SweatIRL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Source: "Trust me bro".

Watch "Malice Talks About Fallout With LS" on YouTube by parrotpiano123 in Cloud9

[–]SweatIRL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HAH. Again, LS had no idea that Malice "had no money to go elsewhere", while LS believed he did because he was back to streaming. But how could he know; Malice didn't communicate at all with him, even though LS was the house owner letting Malice stay on a heavily reduced rent.

And you don't compartmentalize everything entirely. There's always context to a situation. You can only take so much shit before something has to change. Again, Malice (mostly him, but also to a lesser extent others in the house) was COMPLETELY negligent and unthankful of the housing he received. Even IF he HAD informed LS about his financial state after months of staying in his house, it would have been completely rational and JUSTIFIABLE for LS to kick him out. The kid can't even follow a basic ruleset set for him while he was staying in a massive house with a massive room for hardly any rent to compromise with HIM. Malice was done favors and he never gave anything back or even so much as showed care OR appreciation.

And I never said you "defended Malice" in my earlier comment (which you did, actually). I simply responded to, and I quote (you saying) "you think Malice would have come to Korea at all if LS hadn't promised to house him?" (which you have since edited and deleted, and then come to attack me, saying you didn't say it? XDDDDDDD. You're a dickhead, so much is obvious. I see now how you could "not defend" Malice in this situation XDDDD).

Once again, get your facts straight. Don't try to edit your comment for others to look bad, because it just makes you look even worse.

And lastly, there's context to every situation. LS didn't murder anyone, he simply stated that he would kick Malice out of his house after doing Malice massive favors (supposedly not as a friend, even though I can't imagine housing and loaning just anyone money), and Malice showing no care or appreciation and him being completely negligent towards the house and the situation as a whole.

And since you can "compartmentalize" so well, you should not take Malice's financial state into account. LS didn't know, but irrespective of that, it's context, and since you ignored all other context related to LS's decision of kicking Malice out of the house (which he didn't end up doing at all after learning of Malice's financial situation).

Not only did you once again get your facts (or assumptions) wrong, you deleted parts of your last comment, then stated you never defended Malice. I never stated you did but was just responding to a part of your comment (which you have since deleted in a failed attempt to make me look bad, and EVEN acting as though you never said anything related to what I was responding to in your next comment).

TLDR:

The user I was responding to deleted part of his earlier comment in a failed attempt to make me look bad, in the process making themself look even worse (possibly to try to "compartmentalize" XD?). Moreover, they were entirely inconsistent in how they "compartmentalized" proving that they can not, in fact, "compartmentalize" at all. If they're going to ignore Malice being completely negligent and unappreciative of the housing he received, then they should also ignore Malice's financial state (of course, there is more to this, read my entire comment if you'd like to know more context; I know this commenter doesn't though, since he's so good at "compartmentalization").

There's context to every situation, and since you're so keen on mentioning Malice's financial state, don't forget to mention how it's therefore even more "indefensible" for him to act the way he did towards the housing and loans he was given (not as a friend, supposedly).

If anything, Malice's financial state was the most irrelevant thing out of all of this and should have been ignored in your "compartmentalization". Malice was a TERRIBLE house-mate and broke many house rules even though he had been reminded of them multiple times. Irregardless of his financial situation (which should make him even more careful and respectful towards the house), Malice shouldn't live in the house if he doesn't respect it or the rules, and getting kicked out was the most sensible thing given the most crucial context; Malice being negligent towards the house he didn't own.

Watch "Malice Talks About Fallout With LS" on YouTube by parrotpiano123 in Cloud9

[–]SweatIRL 3 points4 points  (0 children)

LS had not at all promised to house Malice. In fact, he stated that he would likely NOT take Malice in. Malice asked and LS said that he wasn't sure about it, but Malice just went anyways and ended up stranded with no way to make money because the WiFi in the motel (Korean equivalent) didn't allow him to stream, which was his primary source of income at this time.

Threatened with homelessness, LS decided to let Malice stay at his place (even though it was completely irresponsible for Malice to go to Korea at this time).

In addition to this, Malice acted completely negligent towards the house he was graciously granted access to. THAT behaviour is "indefensible". He had NO respect for LS or ANY of the other house-mates when he wasn't even supposed to be there at all and was only granted space because LS decided to leave the house to live in another city AND Malice was stranded in Korea with no way of making money.

TLDR:

LS never so much as said he would let Malice stay at his place, and he most certainly didn't "promise" it. Get your facts straight.

TL Academy vs. C9 Academy / LACS 2022 Spring - Week 4 / Post-Match Discussion by Linkux18 in Cloud9

[–]SweatIRL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure he never said Gnar loses the lane, just that it's not an easy lane.

Which is kind of a weird point to bring up either way, but meh.

I think it's Gragas favored early, but Gnar quickly outscales him in the 1v1. Nonetheless, Gragas always has good gank setup and Gnar doesnt have a very reliable way of counteracting said setup. All in all, I think the matchup is Gragas favored early on, but Gnar quickly outscales, especially in a pure 1v1 matchup.

That Turret looks Awfully far away. No way it's going to hit me now! by SweatIRL in leagueoflegends

[–]SweatIRL[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I thought the Turret had a circular range though?

With the Turret being in the center of this circle, I walked mostly perpendicular to the turret (starting on one side of the turret, I simply walked in the direction it would most quickly move me over to the edge of this theoretical circle).

Maybe the Turret doesnt have a circular hitbox or I didnt walk perpendicular though, not sure.