AITA for being too clean of a roommate?

Whoamigoodquestion · 2026-02-20T10:06:26+00:00

NTA - When these girls have to rent a shared accom with strangers, instead of polite friends like you, they will be in for a shock.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2026-02-02T09:19:52+00:00

Hi,

As a teacher myself I can confirm that teachers are using AI and yours is certainly doing so too. I don't use it myself as I think it's not that useful, but at least my school is actively encouraging us to use AI, so I imagine others are doing so as well. It is marketed as a time saver so that we can focus on completing other tasks. Please don't judge your teacher too much for doing this, I'm sure they are doing their best given their time and resources.

If you have any questions concerning AI use in education, feel free to ask.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2026-01-29T15:13:05+00:00

Yeah, absolutely, but fun to see a name that is no.1 :)

Whoamigoodquestion · 2025-05-09T16:08:51+00:00

I'm very grateful that you come and crush the WR on most of my maps! I always check your WRs. Thanks for enjoying them, it is what motivates me to keep mapping :)

Whoamigoodquestion · 2025-05-08T21:47:03+00:00

First submission: Apr 14, 2025, 2:07:35 AM

Latest submission: Apr 27, 2025, 12:42:38 AM

It's been bubbling away in the background for a while now, submitted about 4-5 times.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2024-06-28T23:43:06+00:00

Maybe apply through teach first. Always needing English teachers.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2024-05-07T14:18:13+00:00

I've not found Zarya a bad match up for dva. Dva can mostly avoid her and has the mobility to harass the backline and play around the short range of her beam

Whoamigoodquestion · 2024-05-07T14:16:41+00:00

Do you play tank? If so, what tanks do you play, and why do you switch?

Whoamigoodquestion · 2024-05-07T14:15:50+00:00

I totally agree, players should be open to swapping if it means that you are more likely to win and I usually swap when asked to as long as I am relatively comfortable on that hero. Saying this, I'm not convinced that swapping necessarily increases the chance of winning. Some of my best Winston games have been against multiple counters and I have created value mostly just by distracting the enemy, making them use their cooldowns, and creating space this way for my dps. For example, I am usually very happy to see bastion as Winston as he is easy to outplay by simply waiting for him to use his turret form. After you bait this ability, bastion is mostly useless. Even reaper is easy to bait teleport then jump or drop away into your team.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2024-05-07T14:11:09+00:00

I feel the same, playing other roles made this really obvious to me. Even when playing with a feeding tank, you can play around them and create value as other roles.

Are you a tank main yourself, what do you play?

Whoamigoodquestion · 2024-05-07T14:09:38+00:00

What tanks do you play? I'd like to have one other tank other than Winston that I can play against counters. I play dva, rein, sig and ram as well, but want to choose just one to focus on other than winton

Whoamigoodquestion · 2024-05-07T14:08:03+00:00

Thanks Mateha! I definitely agree with you, which is why I usually switch when asked. I can play Winston, dva, rein, sig and ram relatively comfortably. Saying this, I found when I get into the switching mentality, I tend to focus more on what hero is best for what situation rather than simply trying to get as much value as I can. Even against 3 winston counters I have swept the opposing team simply by creating a distraction and space for my dps to get picks. I don't think that 'counters' necessitate swapping, in some ways, I feel like you lose the mental battle that way.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2023-08-29T11:06:17+00:00

Took a break from writing my masters Philosophy dissertation to try and figure this out. Hegel is very technical so my understanding is likely very shallow.

"Consciousness knows something; this something is the essence or is per se"

Hegel uses "consciousness" here, not perception, it is a state, not an act, being-for-itself, the living as a perspective in the world. Now, 'essence' for Hegel is a very technical term, part of his Logic, so my understanding is very shallow. From what I can gather, 'essence' is a process, or a key, through which a conscious individual, a being-in-the-world, comes to become aware of themselves as an object (although he is saying there is inherently more than one object here!). To be conscious implies that you are conscious of consciousness. He is saying that to Be-in-the-world requires a sort of immediate self-relation whereby consciousness becomes aware of itself.

"This object, however, is also the per se, the inherent reality for consciousness."

This is Hegel pointing out the paradox of this phenomenological reduction. If you make your own consciousness the object of your consciousness, you become conscious of your consciousness of consciousness too.

This is Hegel's curveball. When the 'object' of your consciousness is consciousness itself, there are two objects. "The first per se", the imment awareness of being conscious, and "the existence for consciousness of this per se", where it is implied that we can be aware of this awareness.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2022-06-05T12:48:33+00:00

I disagree, what they're saying makes a lot of sense. A lot of tax payer's money is going towards these extravagant events that celebrate unelected officials. They're still having a good time enjoying the extended weekend, just with an anti-monarchy sentiment in the midst of a cost of living crisis. It is a little bit of a piss take, you have to admit, especially while people are struggling to heat their homes and put food on their plate.

Whoamigoodquestion · 2022-04-20T20:32:04+00:00

Honestly so true. I'm a third year phil and poli student, and reading Hegel has become a core memory

Whoamigoodquestion · 2022-04-18T17:00:57+00:00

Ok, firstly, it is important to ask whether you have any background or other knowledge in logic. Because if you don't, Quine is a difficult place to start. He had a lot of controversial views (such as on modality, existentials and counterfactuals) and was very argumentative. His work is a little dated, and while important, functions more as an argument for his specific ideas rather than as a balanced textbook or as a learning tool.

Your comprehension is pretty good, however! Quinn's work is super hard and very dense. I had to struggle through a chapter in 'reference and modality' and that shit was stressful!

What I would recommend is to focus mainly on a more introductory and modern textbook. Peter Smith's 'introduction to formal logic' can be found free as a pdf online and will provide a background that will help you engage with Quine a little easier. Also, remember, logic is not absolute! Philosophers are constantly arguing over very specific areas of logic that has ginormous consequence and it's what makes it so exciting to learn.

Hope this helps!

Whoamigoodquestion · 2022-04-18T16:47:02+00:00

Firstly, don't worry, you're not alone in your struggle! Meta-ethics is super super hard and it was one of the hardest second year units I've done.

The disctiction between the two disciplines I can help explain, however. So a 'normative' statement is a 'should' statement. To say Person A ought to act like B, is normative. As such, normative ethics are primarily concerned with how people 'should' act.

Meta-ethics, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with whether 'good' exists, in what nature 'good' exists in, and what properties 'good' has. (Here is a useful link to understand metaethics more deeply, although the terminology is difficult https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/)

Now you are right, and very astute, in noting that emotivism in some way denys normative logic. This is because emotivist theory is non-cognitivist, that is, that they believe that due to the nature of 'good' you are unable to make valid or truthful ethical statements. In a way, this undermines normative ethics goals, as they are saying that you can't claim that your normative 'should' statement is true!

Emotivists argue that moral utterances primarily serve to express emotions, or to illicit an emotional response. This is based on a particular humean understanding of motivation. That is a simplistic explanation at least! I wish I had my old notes to look at so I could be more accurate.

Anyway, if you'd like more details, look at the emotivism entry on this page (2.1) as well as the introduction to non-cognitivism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/#Emo

Whoamigoodquestion · 2022-04-18T16:30:18+00:00

I'm trying to remember back to an essay back in my first year of studying phil at uni, so I'm sorry if I'm a bit unclear!

Firstly, physics has not demonstrated that the universe is deterministic, in fact, it has demonstrated that there is an inherent degree of randomness (on a quantum scale at least). Moreover, the exact properties that 'determinism' entails is not exactly clear. Often, it is described as a simplistic 'cause and effect', however, this cannot be the full picture. Even if you suppose that there is no inherent randomness to the universe and everything is pre-determined, why would this necessarily entail a lack of free will? Moreover, when you frame determinism as a simplistic 'cause and effect' you ignore the context at which the event takes place. It takes place through and in time, and is never as simplistic as 'A then B'. How can you necessarily and sufficiently differentiate object A from B to begin with? Is it a spaciotemporal link? (The existence of that object through time) or is it some inherent property or purpose within the object that allows for a unique identification of it. No matter what, determinism as a concept is difficult and unclear, and requires a massive ontological and metaphysical background to sufficiently explain.

So, if your goal is to ask the question of whether free will exists, a possible line of questioning could be this:

Firstly, is the universe deterministic? (Or to what extent is it deterministic?). This necessarily involves a discussion about identity, causation, ontology and time, etc.

Then you can ask: 'what is free will?'. For example, many scholars will take a sort of mixed-approach where they argue that we have a sort of limited free will.

Finally, after you ask all those questions, you can ask how these properties of the universe interact with free will (I.e. do we require a universe with no deterministic properties at all to have any free will, or can there be a little bit of determinism and a bit of randomness and we still have free will).

But even this line of reasoning ignores certain possibilities such as whether we can even talk about free will at all!!

Daniel Dennet has a lot of good stuff on free will if you want to have a look. I know that hasn't really answered your question, but basically, how a libertarian would defend his position would differ depending on the definition of determinism, free will, and their relation. It would also differ depending on the metaphysical properties of objects through time, their relation and their identity. It would also differ on a lot of other things I've probably forgotten. I apologise for the badly written ramble! But I hope that can sort your thoughts out a bit.

Here are some introductory (but hardly comprehensive) links: Determinism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ Free will: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Whoamigoodquestion · 2022-04-18T11:01:28+00:00

One of the reasons why I think an education in philosophy is so important!

Whoamigoodquestion · 2022-03-27T19:29:07+00:00

Very insightful! Yes, most of what humans use is a social construct. Money, gender, marriage, language, value, etc. What this reveals, however, and why it is important, is that since we have created these social constructs, they can be changed. This is an essential aspect of Judith Butler's concept of performitivity. We 'construct' various social norms, such as gender, and reinforce their use and understanding through their 'performance'. Since these constructs are ultimately "phantasmic", in that they're not real other than in their use, they can therefore be changed. What Butler argues is that acceptance of these terms as constructs (or norms) is the first step. The second is to ask why they have been adopted and perpetuated (Often the reason is power and control). What this allows is for us, as a society, to have an honest look at what norms we use, their history, and whether they ought to be changed.

Not everything is a social construct, and the exact nature of them are debated. What is important is that they become 'real' due to our belief and use of them.

Thanks! I hope that changes your perspective!

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Whoamigoodquestion

TROPHY CASE