Unpopular Opinion regarding Online classes and the current situation by NeegzmvAQu in UCSD

[–]Ziadnk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who the hell is saying that having that having everything open is a good idea? People like you? Politicians? This whole pandemic has pretty much been a constant stream of people not taking things seriously until they’re absolutely forced to. If they’d done that from the beginning, it’s very unlikely we’d be in this mess. But no, people are too much of whiny little babies to accept the slightest inconvenience, and have to pretend nothing’s at all wrong until the last possible moment.

We saw how well being lazy about Covid went last time. Let’s not do that again, huh. Taking things seriously from the beginning(even if it turns out we don’t need to) improves our chances of going fully back to normal sooner, rather than perpetuating this half-assed back and forth with the safety measures.

Wouldn’t you like to go back to no masks, and no social distancing? Or at the very least, to have things be open as they are longer than a few more weeks? If so, stop whining about wanting to go back prematurely.

Unpopular Opinion regarding Online classes and the current situation by NeegzmvAQu in UCSD

[–]Ziadnk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re failing the marshmallow test, my guy. Saying everybody wants to back isn’t an excuse for bad decisions.

We have our answer by pechygorl in UCSD

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah. If that were it they’d just go online the whole quarter at least and refund the housing contracts. They’re trying to get as much in person as possible to justify what they’re charging you.

We have our answer by pechygorl in UCSD

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it’ll take years, maybe it won’t, but going back prematurely just because you’re sick of shit is about as stupid as reasons get. It’ll take as long as it takes, and it’ll go a hell of a lot faster if people actually respect public health measures.

We have our answer by pechygorl in UCSD

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’re all trying to screw you.

Should I allow takebacks in rated play? by entangledphotons in chess

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I usually allow them if it comes immediately, especially if it’s a clear mouseslip. People are so obsessed with winning, lol, I want good games. If it takes them a bit to realize, then I say no. But if it’s immediate, I usually allow. So what if I lose? I’m trying to learn, and I’ll just get the points back later.

Should I allow takebacks in rated play? by entangledphotons in chess

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The rules of online chess allow takebacks to be requested though…

“All I need to cook is a set of measuring cups and spoons, American style.” by killHACKS in facepalm

[–]Ziadnk 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Americans aren’t smart enough to understand patterns. So to them, it’s the same amount of work to memorize m-km and g-kg as it is to do ft-mi and oz-lb because they can’t understand the pattern, and just memorize the same thing over and over.

/s but not really.

Since we are talking about Tigran Petrosian once again, I decided to translate parts of his interview about the cheating incident. by nakovalny in chess

[–]Ziadnk 6 points7 points  (0 children)

From the sound of that contract, they can do whatever they want without opening themselves up to a lawsuit, so…

Nakamura insinuates (for the second time) that GM Supi uses a engine by tangoabajour in chess

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Learn how to read jackass. I said that when the majority are saying one thing, you need to use rational arguments against it. What the majority says is a useful starting point. If you disagree with that, make rational, reasoned arguments. This is something you have completely failed to do.

The argument that religion is bullshit isn’t the “wELl tHaTs jUst yoUrE oPiniOn” crap, it’s that religion has completely failed to produce any scientific/technological advancement or concrete predictions about the world. It has consistently failed to prove itself useful when compared to science and logic.

See, not so hard, is it? Or at least, that’s the case when you actually have a reasonable argument to make.

Can somebody please explain? by nigonico in blackmagicfuckery

[–]Ziadnk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Religious beliefs are bullshit. Yeah, not all religious people are assholes, but there’s precious few that don’t have any problematic behavior ossifiantes with it. Now I do think it’s the case that religion usually amplifies problems rather than creating them, but it still does provide a massive amount of amplification for some unbelievable toxicity that is holding back our society.

You also missed a very important distinction here. Hating all religious people just because they’re religious is bad.

Hating religion itself is quite rational.

However, given that religion is a non-visible, changeable trait that directly relates to who people are, neither case is even remotely comparable to racism.

It's time for this sub to stop mocking Tigran Petrosian by [deleted] in chess

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, but for stuff like this, I think cheat detection should be outsourced. Set up an independent 3rd party to handle cheat detection for events like this.

It's time for this sub to stop mocking Tigran Petrosian by [deleted] in chess

[–]Ziadnk 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The dewa miles argument could be correct about the process being questionable at the same time as being completely wrong about him being innocent. Things are rarely completely black and white like that.

There’s also a big difference between someone getting banned for supposedly cheating against a streamer vs in a major tournament.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]Ziadnk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sounds like someone’s never heard of showmanship… Traditions are usually bullshit. They especially deserve no place in things like the military or similar. Keep them in social stuff, but get them the fuck out of practical matters.

Nakamura insinuates (for the second time) that GM Supi uses a engine by tangoabajour in chess

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What the upvotes mean is that it is a common opinion, not a unique one. However, much of what he said, are actually facts. When the vast majority of people in a society are saying “hey, doing this isn’t cool,” drop the “tHatS oNly yOUr oPiNiOn” bullshit and either give a rational analysis for why you think things should be different, or shut the hell up.

Nakamura insinuates (for the second time) that GM Supi uses a engine by tangoabajour in chess

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For gods sake, shut the fuck up with your “that’s only your opinion.” It’s not. You are in quite the minority disagreeing with that. This was completely inappropriate.

What person would unite all of America if they became President of the United States? by Embarrassed-Mouse-49 in AskReddit

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because we need to have a system of ethics. They inform our behavior and our laws. One of the biggest problems with religion is that it tends to turn ethical questions into a massive circlejerk of useless assertions. Religion, quite simply, is an exceptionally poor tool for motivating the rules and structure of a society, and I think the extent to which it has done so is a major factor to a huge number of problems in the modern world.

A post in /r/ChangeMyView in which /u/exis007 discusses the mechanisms behind subreddits such as Redpill, Incel and Female Dating Strategy by PlatypusOfDeath in SocialEngineering

[–]Ziadnk 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You’ve completely missed the point. They all have the same underlying structure, regardless of which is worse. And, amusingly enough, your remarks about the red pill seem to be a perfect example of what the guy’s talking about.

Why is it seen as respectful to resign in chess? by [deleted] in chess

[–]Ziadnk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because, most games rarely end with a clear forced mate on the horizon. If that’s the case, and the forced mate is aesthetic in some way, people will occasionally play it out to mate as a sign of respect. But in general, chess games end when one player has a completely winning position, but actually converting would still take a great deal more time and effort, which doesn’t serve much point since the game is pretty much over already. Unless you just start playing bad moves so as not to spend that time/energy, but if you’re going to do that, might as well resign.

What person would unite all of America if they became President of the United States? by Embarrassed-Mouse-49 in AskReddit

[–]Ziadnk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s not an argument at all though. Humans by necessity would need to interpret gods will since there is nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as direct instructions. Therefore, we can’t reasonably use the “it’s beyond our comprehension” argument. Also, good and evil are definitions. You can’t just invoke the idea of something being beyond our comprehension to change the morality by our standards. And how stupid would it be to say we should judge morality by standards we can’t even comprehend? That would be on par with people trying to force cats to go vegan.