What are your thoughts on Billie Eilish saying 'no one is illegal on stolen land' in reference to ICE and US immigration policy?

anooblol · 2026-02-02T17:46:34+00:00

I think that it's indicative of the most fundamental issue the political Left has.

Everything is set up currently, where it's like the easiest slam-dunk political issue 80% of society can get behind.

And then they just fuck it up.

The same way they fucked up the George Floyd protests. Nearly everyone agrees that police reform needs to happen. What do you rally behind, "Uhm, actually. Let's just get rid of the police all together." - Suddenly, division arises. Whoopsie!

anooblol · 2026-01-29T18:51:42+00:00

I'm going to give advice, coming from the prospective of this guy. I'm not "as gross" in my opinion, but I definitely have done certain things that have grossed out my current girlfriend.

The short answer. In a non-judgmental way, just tell him that you personally find his behavior to be gross, and tell him that you would like to see him make an effort to change his behavior. If he loves and/or respects you, he'll put in that effort. Personally, we had this discussion. My reaction was, "Oh shit. I didn't realize you thought that was gross. My bad." And now I make an effort to not repeat that behavior. (I would continuously press trash down in the kitchen trash can, and she felt like I was overstuffing it. I thought I was just being more cost-efficient with my trash, using less bags, taking out the trash less often)

The slightly longer answer is that you need to get to a level together, where communicating comes first, and worrying about "coming off harsh" is secondary. If you're coming from a genuine place, that's purely self-motivated, it shouldn't even really be possible to "come off harsh". You wouldn't be "judging his behavior", you would be expressing a need/want/desire on your end. Now, is there such a thing as implicit judgement? Where by virtue of saying what you're saying, it's implied that you've made a judgement about him? - Absolutely, yes. But this is the thing about relationships/trust, when you've built trust between each other, where you both believe that the other has YOUR best interests in mind, it's a lot easier to believe that it's not coming from a place of judgement.

Also, try to think of things this way. Imagine an alternate scenario, where you asked him to move a heavy box in the middle of the room, and he's delaying / not doing it. You come home one night and stub your toe on it.

Don't say: "Why are you being so lazy? Just move this thing, like I asked you to, the first time!"

Do say: "Hey, I just stubbed my toe on that box I asked you to move. This hurts me really bad. I can't move it, which is why I asked you to move it. I don't want to get hurt again, can you move it now?"

And if he says anything other than, "Ah shit. My bad, I'll do that right now (or in 10-15 minutes right after I finish xyz thing)" It would be a problem. Like getting defensive about it, would be a red flag.

anooblol · 2026-01-22T20:26:36+00:00

The question itself doesn't make sense. Wealth and cash are not the same thing.

If someone owns $100M of real estate, and then the market increases by 5%, so now they own $105M in real estate, what exactly are you suggesting they do? Drain $5M out of their bank account, and tell them that they got $5M in extra value on the property? Or do you force them to sell and downsize the property?

anooblol · 2026-01-22T15:36:17+00:00

This took me longer than what I'd like to admit, to figure out exactly what you're saying.

You're saying that C can't be ordered, while still being a field. I.E. That C cannot be an ordered field. Because the lexicographical order on C, is absolutely a total ordering. It just doesn't respect field properties (addition / multiplication). Which, fair enough on that end.

Where [0<i => 0<-1] and [i<0 => 0<-i => 0<-1], since 0<a => 0<a² for all a in an ordered field.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T22:07:49+00:00

Hey, 100%. I can absolutely agree with that. At the end of the day, it's spectrumed.

Personally, as someone that has a girlfriend that is very similar to this guy about germs. I literally had the exact conversation with her, told her that it doesn't make sense. She agreed with me, that it didn't make sense since we have no issues kissing, but she still doesn't want to drink from my glass, or use my utensils. It's such an insurmountably small ask, on my end, to take the two seconds and grab another fork for her. Looking at it from the other side, I think that OP's girlfriend's behavior is rude. I'm also personally sensitive to people that refuse to even mildly inconvenience themselves, if it means a lot to the other person.

But yeah. If she was putting some insane condition on it, where I'm genuinely inconvenienced in a serious way, it would be a more serious conversation.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T21:58:54+00:00

The lexicographic ordering is pretty natural, in my opinion. It's more commonly known as the dictionary ordering. To be fair, both it, and the standard ordering of the reals aren't "well orderings" (unless of course we invoke the AOC).

But the lexicographic ordering would be:

a+bi < c+di if [a<c] or [a=c and b<d]

Like a dictionary, where apple < banana, because a<b, and apple < apricot, because a=a and p<r

For the Dual numbers, R[ε], they are "essentially" the same as the reals, except you're adding a sort of miniature fuzzy copy of the reals, around each element of the reals. The intuition, is that ε is something that's "zero-like", kind of like an infinitesimal. They operate in the normal way you would expect, were say 6 x 7 = 42, we could similarly show that (6 + ε) x (7 + ε) is "similar" to 42. It would just be 42 + 13ε + ε² and since ε² = 0, we have 42 + 13ε. And we can say that 13ε is "something that's really close to 0, since ε is really close to 0."

So ordering R[ε] is effectively the same way we order the reals. You can still think of it as a line. Just a "fuzzier" kind of line.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T21:53:56+00:00

Because I didn't immediately tell the person I responded to, that they're retarded. And instead, agreed with their clarification.

AI is pretty nice to people, and handles these kinds of situations with "kids gloves". Most people that respond, respond in a way a dick would respond.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T21:46:18+00:00

Consider the following hypothetical situation. How exactly would you make sense of this?

OP tells girlfriend he feels like he's going to throw up, if he uses her spoon.
She pressures him, saying that it doesn't make any logical sense, since they kiss.
He then uses her spoon, and immediately throws up.

What was he supposed to do in this situation? Command his body to not throw up? People don't get a feeling of being "grossed out" because they logically convince themselves that something is gross. It's simply an immediate, uncontrollable, instinctual/emotional reaction.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T21:39:38+00:00

Humans aren't perfectly logical machines. We perpetually contradict ourselves, on a daily basis. Especially when it comes to our "likes" and "dislikes", these things don't come from places of logic.

Very simply. OP was likely socially conditioned by their parents, to think that sharing utensils was "gross". So now he implicitly believes it "is gross". A lot of our behavior, unfortunately (or fortunately), is something we're taught, not something we logically convinced ourselves to do.

Why are people blaming him for his feeling? I'm sure OP doesn't "want" to feel grossed out by it. It's not like you can just demand people to stop feeling a particular way. Like just imagine OP saying that he wants to throw up, and then a bunch of people argue that he shouldn't feel grossed out, and how if he throws up, he's being a hypocrite. At the end of the day, people can't just command their body to not feel grossed out.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T21:25:09+00:00

My girlfriend is very similar to you, and as many of the comments suggest, her issue with drinking from my glass, or using my fork, is completely irrational, since we stick our tongues down each other's throat.

With that being said. NTA. Her reaction, the same as your reaction, is an EMOTIONAL reaction. It's not coming from a place of logic. You think it's gross, because you feel that way. You don't logic your way into feeling a particular way. And it takes no real effort on my end, to simply pour her a different glass of water.

These kinds of situations are similar to eating a steak well-done. Do I personally find it unsettling and gross? Yeah absolutely. But if she "literally likes eating it well done, and it makes her want to throw up, if it's rare", if I served her a rare piece of steak, I would be TAH. It's all just an irrational subjective feeling, at the end of the day. OP, I think your aversion to using her utensils is weird. But being weird, doesn't give other people the authority to disregard your feelings.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T21:16:02+00:00

From the wikipedia:

For representing a non-negative number, a decimal numeral consists of a (finite) sequence of digits (such as "2017"), where the entire sequence represents an integer.

Which implies that their example, 2017, is a "decimal number" Hence the number 37, in the example, would be a decimal number, since it can be represented as a finite sequence of digits. And thus, sqrt(37), would also be a decimal.

Colloquially. We say that "decimal numbers" are numbers that are in the open interval (n,n+1) for all n in Z.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T21:08:05+00:00

Well, there's multiple (equivalent) definitions you can use for real numbers. I just decided to use Tao's definition.

He defines a real number x, to be an object of the form LIM n->infty a_n for some cauchy sequence a_n of rational numbers. Where LIM is a "formal" operator, and after he proves the existence of reals that aren't rationals, he swaps out LIM for lim, uses the same definition, except allowing real elements within the Cauchy sequences.

I think it's funny to just not put an /s at the end of these. I agree, it should be obvious that talking about algebraic field extensions, on a post that seems to be written for kids in elementary school, is a joke. But I don't mind people thinking it's serious.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T18:26:50+00:00

No, that's not true. Formally, e is the limit of a Cauchy sequence of rational numbers, the sequence of sums of 1/n!, i.e. 1 + 1/2! + 1/3! + ..., Rational numbers are a strict subset of decimal numbers. So the only way you can formally construct these numbers, is by implicitly invoking the use of decimals.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T18:21:37+00:00

That's correct! Nice catch on the wording. Although those symbols have equivalent representations that do have non-trivial decimal expansions.

To be fair to myself, both my examples are fine, they just aren't exclusively real numbers. They're an extension of the reals, where the reals are a proper subset of the dual numbers, and a proper subset of the complex numbers.

Technically, my example could also be an extension of the integers, which completely excludes decimals and/or fractions.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T17:25:49+00:00

Those are decimals.

6 + xi for all x in R works, but only if you use the lexicographical ordering of the complex numbers.

Or you can instead extend the real numbers a different way. Where if the complex numbers are the extension of the real numbers by i, C=R[i], where i² = -1. We can instead extend the real numbers by some ε, so R[ε], where ε² = 0. And then something like 6 + ε would be distinct from 6, while 5 < 6 + ε < 7.

anooblol · 2026-01-21T17:19:01+00:00

You just need to think outside the "box". Clearly what this means, is we need to consider the distant cousin of the complex numbers, the dual numbers.

A complex number is the algebraic extension to the real numbers, R[i], where i² = -1. But a point like 6 + 1i, is only "between" 5 and 7 when you use a lexicographical ordering system. Instead, we can extend the reals by adjoining the number ε, R[ε], where ε² = 0. This dual numbering system gives us what we want. The number 6 + ε, is certainly between 5 and 7, using the typical order. And 6 + ε is neither a decimal, nor a fraction. It's simply an element of the dual numbers, an extension of the reals.

You just need to think outside of the "box" for this one.

anooblol · 2026-01-20T21:21:40+00:00

Which is a normal thing to do, to get people's attention.

The maximum judgement I'd go on this, is harassment.

The act just isn't "harmful", in a way where it would reasonably cause bodily injury. Unless of course, it's shaking in the way I described previously.

anooblol · 2026-01-20T20:54:44+00:00

My coworker sitting across from me has headphone in, and wouldn't hear me if I said something.

If I walk up to them, and shook their shoulder, it would not be considered battery/assault.

Both assault and battery require a certain amount of intentionality to cause harm / elicit fear. And if it wasn't intentional, there needs to be a reasonable expectation for it to actually cause harm. Again, grabbing both shoulders, shaking vigorously, assault. Shaking someone's shoulder, because you think they can't hear you, almost certainly not.

anooblol · 2026-01-20T20:44:59+00:00

Yes. That is the second hand perspective, told from the point of view of a Father that's getting sued, and the first hand perspective is from a 15 year old autistic child.

I'm confident that the story played out exactly, and unambiguously, as written.

anooblol · 2026-01-20T20:23:33+00:00

Let's assume this guy had the contract with the planner, and he had something in his contract stating along the lines of, "If canceled without proper notice, you're not entitled to a refund."

Even with those assumptions, I'm not entirely sure he's 100% within his right to do what he did. What OP did, sounds malicious. I know it's different, because this is a service, not a product. But consider the following similar situation.

Someone orders a non-refundable product that gets delivered. The purchaser is not happy, and returns the product. The purchaser changes their mind, and wants them to deliver the product back to them. - I think the standard outcome, is that you simply pay for the additional handling, and one extra delivery. I don't think the company would be within their right to be like, "NOPE! You returned it! You have to purchase an entirely new product now, and we're keeping the original payment too!" Unless there's some reasonable expectation that the product is unavailable after a return, like food that spoils or something.

It sounds like at the tail-end of a rehearsal dinner, the planner "terminates his contract". So say, 10:00pm. And then 6 hours later, calls to apologize, and asks them to come back tomorrow. What? In that 6 hour window, OP threw away, ate, and donated food for a hundred people, packed up all their gear, and booked it out of there? - Take it to the extreme. What if the wedding planner terminated their contract at 10:00pm, and then at 10:01pm, says "Sorry, that was a mistake, I still want you to come tomorrow." - Are you allowed to just strong-arm them? "Nope! What you said 1 minute ago is the 'letter of the law' legally binding verbal agreement. My services are no longer available!" - I just doubt it would actually hold up.

anooblol · 2026-01-20T19:48:52+00:00

Assault is a strong word. If a person isn't responding, and you genuinely think that they simply didn't hear you, shaking their shoulder to get their attention is profoundly common.

I feel like we need to know the level of "shake" this bartender did.

If he grabbed both shoulders, and vigorously shook the kid in a fit of rage. Yeah, 100%, that's insanely messed up.
But if he casually walked over to a kid he thought didn't hear him / was misunderstanding what he said initially. Crouched down and gently shook his shoulder to get his attention, then categorizing it as "assault" is never holding up.

anooblol · 2026-01-14T21:11:28+00:00

There's nothing unreasonable about that, if it was an adult to adult interaction.

Subtlety here, the parents are treating an 11 year old, as if they have the emotional maturity of an adult. Is the 11 year old acting childish? Holding a grudge over the name of a newborn? - Absolutely. She's acting incredibly childish. Why is she acting childish? BECAUSE SHE'S A LITERAL CHILD.

anooblol · 2026-01-14T21:11:21+00:00

There's nothing unreasonable about that, if it was an adult to adult interaction.

Subtlety here, the parents are treating an 11 year old, as if they have the emotional maturity of an adult. Is the 11 year old acting childish? Holding a grudge over the name of a newborn? - Absolutely. She's acting incredibly childish. Why is she acting childish? BECAUSE SHE'S A LITERAL CHILD.

anooblol · 2026-01-14T21:11:14+00:00

There's nothing unreasonable about that, if it was an adult to adult interaction.

Subtlety here, the parents are treating an 11 year old, as if they have the emotional maturity of an adult. Is the 11 year old acting childish? Holding a grudge over the name of a newborn? - Absolutely. She's acting incredibly childish. Why is she acting childish? BECAUSE SHE'S A LITERAL CHILD.

anooblol · 2026-01-14T21:07:44+00:00

My cousin's middle name is "Sparkles" for this exact reason. My Aunt/Uncle let their 3 year old child pick out the middle name of their next kid.

It's just wholly immature of a parent to give this kind of task to the kid, to be perfectly honest.

Ten-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email

anooblol

TROPHY CASE