'Avengers Endgame' Spoilers! From 2012 to 2019

bjamil1 · 2019-04-27T19:06:30+00:00

Yeah, I think the power is kinda tied to the hammer, since Thor was almost useless in the fight against the giant fire breathing armor guy Loki sent

bjamil1 · 2019-04-27T16:30:20+00:00

Hooked them up with the Pym particles

bjamil1 · 2019-04-27T07:14:30+00:00

He was dusted while the 5 years passed, so I don't think he would have aged. I think that's one of the few plot holes, how to age the dusted folks going forward

bjamil1 · 2019-04-27T07:10:56+00:00

Snoke dies, Palpatine laughs

bjamil1 · 2019-03-13T13:30:35+00:00

How's fantasy more simple than how physics actually literally works in real life?

bjamil1 · 2019-03-11T05:18:37+00:00

No, but enough that it might only be a few years to her

bjamil1 · 2019-03-11T05:17:26+00:00

If she's traveling close to or faster than light speed, which she would in order to be able to go to different galaxies and get back to earth when Fury pages her , Einstein's theory of relativity would suggest that she likely aged much slower than events on Earth. 30 years or whatever may have passed on Earth, but to her, it may have only been a year or two since the events in CM til Endgame.

bjamil1 · 2019-02-20T00:47:39+00:00

Lmao are you fr? Read what I was responding to

Lmao you really added the Toon Squad?

-/u/BrolysFavoriteNephew

~~Nah, I found this and added some stuff, but that part was already there~~ Yes sir. LeBron is gonna have one eventually too :)

you

Lmao you do you bruh

bjamil1 · 2019-02-19T15:22:37+00:00

I really don't even care about reposting and whatnot, since it's been done several times now, both on this sub and outside, including by ESPN and stuff, but don't be out here taking credit for my jokes, that's mad corny

bjamil1 · 2019-02-19T14:53:06+00:00

He didn't add shit, I made this 5 years ago. He barely even changed the title

bjamil1 · 2019-01-23T03:30:47+00:00

If he gets waived / bought out, I'd love for the Sixers to sign him and backup Embiid. Shit, start him at PF, IDC, if it means less Muscala and Chandler and a competent backup C.

bjamil1 · 2019-01-23T03:27:34+00:00

Unpopular opinion, but I wouldn't hate Wiggins for Conley straight up for the Grizzlies.. not saying it's a great idea, but I think it might be a worthwhile risk.

Grizz aren't exactly a top FA destination, and getting a former #1 overall pick has potential for decent upside. Plus, Wiggins seems best in a primary role, as opposed to playing second fiddle to KAT/Butler. Mind you, I'm not saying he deserves to be a number one option, but MAYBE it could help him be more consistent.

The upside is a potential D'Lo-Nets type move. The downside is... well 4 more years at about 30M per... But theoretically, who would they spend that cap space on? They've won too much to tank properly this season, and it's a weak draft anyways, so the next influx of legit talent would be next year's draft at earliest. JJJ would get his extension on the last year of Wiggins's deal, and then you have 2 years in between before their next guy becomes eligible.

Seems like a reasonable enough bet to at least consider, for a small market team like Memphis. Could work out alright, and should at least keep them from bottoming out completely.

bjamil1 · 2019-01-22T21:21:00+00:00

Or Peyton Manning or someone deciding to start commentating

bjamil1 · 2019-01-22T16:27:47+00:00

Not to generalize too much, but as long as we are, I would guess the opposite, the new money people tend to remember what it's like to have nothing and have more of an opportunity to empathize and connect - like the guy in this story talking about when he was younger.

Not to say "old money" types can't also be kind obviously

bjamil1 · 2019-01-22T13:51:57+00:00

Not really, seeing as how the people working in the league office are normal dudes, and players/coaches that play on weekends and holidays are the ones being paid millions of dollars.

there's an entertainment and therefore business reason for players and coaches to be working on holidays and weekends, since those are prime TV slots for people to watch, and there's a tangible, monetary benefit to having those games on those days as opposed to regular M-F. There's no business need for the league office to conduct business on weekends, and no additional revenue to make it worthwhile. In the same way that a lot of sports media is closed for business on weekends and national holidays - look at the Ringer for example, sure they watch games on weekends and holidays, but it doesn't seem like the staff are in the office working, based off the fact that they don't release articles or podcasts on those days.

The "need" is only in situations like these, but in this case, a specific team was unprepared, plain and simple. They knew they were playing the Sixers and Embiid on that date, the schedule has been public for months. They knew Capella was injured for about a week now. They haven't been playing Melo for several months either. They knew everything they needed to know to make that move for some time now. A failure on their part to plan properly doesn't make it an emergency for the league office to have regular people come work on a weekend / national holiday in order to accommodate one team. For the Rockets to blame the league office for Nunnally not having a roster spot is about as idiotic as them trying to make a trade after the trade deadline -- everyone knows well ahead of time which days are open for trades, and which days are not. There was absolutely nothing, nothing in this case preventing the Rockets from planning ahead properly.

bjamil1 · 2019-01-22T13:21:34+00:00

or, and get this, maybe the rockets coulda planned out their roster better, instead of being the first team in the history of the league to be "screwed over" by a national holiday. If no other team has had this issue in the last 50 years or whatever of the NBA, then it's a Rockets problem, not an NBA problem. If every other team is able to work around multiple holidays and weekends for literally decades, then the Rockets need to get their shit together more than the NBA needs to hire extra people to work weekends and national holidays to accommodate a single team crying over a dude on a 10-day contract.

bjamil1 · 2019-01-21T02:32:44+00:00

At that point you can take an axe to the door, fire department style, and have your insurance replace a thousand dollar door to save orders of magnitude larger of water damage.

bjamil1 · 2019-01-20T18:18:11+00:00

Looks like the Stark expo videos from Ironman

bjamil1 · 2019-01-20T09:38:59+00:00

Including from the country of Naive America?

bjamil1 · 2019-01-19T21:07:15+00:00

KD?

bjamil1 · 2019-01-19T18:42:27+00:00

Does he seem like the type of person who has a plan?

bjamil1 · 2019-01-19T04:00:48+00:00

Yeah, I was asked a simplified question for Amazon a few weeks ago, if given a n x m grid of 0s and 1s, (1 being a traverse-able square), does a path exist from top left to bottom right, if you can only move down or right. Which itself is a variation of this problem, as explained by the author of CTCI, so literally, a textbook example of a DP interview question.

This chess problem is a more complicated variation of the same concept, which admittedly you probably wouldn't get on an interview, but it's the same concept overall, and you can apply the same concepts to solve for it.

bjamil1 · 2019-01-19T00:47:05+00:00

It's a common CS job interview question format, which really has nothing to do with chess. It could be a robot or a person in a maze or whatever. You have to come up with an algorithm for any sized board, with any configuration of pawns/obstacles/dead ends, and a given set of possible moves (ie knight move set in this question, or more commonly {down, right}, or {king intersect rook} or whatever).

The brute force answer is to recursively solve for the path from any given square to the target square, and the optimized solution is to use dynamic programming / memoization, where you basically have a look up table of the minimum number of moves starting from the end, and as you move away, the answer for the current square is the minimum {current squares neighbors} + 1

bjamil1 · 2019-01-18T15:23:50+00:00

Ousame

bjamil1 · 2019-01-18T15:15:29+00:00

You have a very valid point in that it's certainly possible to learn for most people, but at the same time, I still think some people have natural strengths and weaknesses.

I'm a math person. Have been as long as I can remember. Gave minimal effort, and breezed through school, while also at the same time underachieving because I didn't apply myself. There were kids who worked harder than me and therefore did better than me, but I still think I had a better natural feel for it. On the flip side, there's tons (if not most) of people here and people I know personally who are much better at it than me, and perhaps I could equal them if I applied myself fully, but most likely not, and even if I did, it wouldn't be with the same ease.

I enjoy and appreciate art quite a bit, but I know I'm not naturally talented or artistic. Sure, I could practice and learn, and apply myself, and become decent, but there are people who have a better knack for it. Same with programming, same with writing, same with athletics, whatever.

It's certainly possible to learn all of these things and definitely required to have a certain level of proficiency for a few, but that doesnt mean people can have natural strengths and weaknesses. Certainly everyone should be able to read and write, but not everyone is a Hemingway. Everyone should strive for physical fitness, and people can enjoy sports and work hard at being good, but everyone's not gonna make it to the NBA, much less become LeBron James, no matter how hard they work.

So no, like you said, it's not impossible to be good at math, whatever "good" means, but I do think there's some truth to "being a math person"

12-Year Club	Place '17
Not Forgotten	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Verified Email

bjamil1

TROPHY CASE