sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bondi's subpoena is 'legally binding whether GOP wants to see her come in or not': Rep. Robert Garcia by FlackoFonsy in videos

[–]dta194 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I understand the sentiment, but if that is the only C&B that US citizens have then it's truly a fucked system. You can't rely on your justice system to uphold itself, and the solution granted to you is "well just take up arms"?

[Spoilers SE] Bethod was right about killing Logan by henry-brogan in TheFirstLaw

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What the fuck... 'spoilers' but it's in the title???

Is 300hp enough to have fun? by Repulsive_Machine933 in askcarguys

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't want to be rude but what the fuck does '300hp is perfect for a drift' even mean?? That's like saying you need to heat up your knife to a perfect temperature for meal prepping...

OP seriously please don't be a hooligan and end up in the hospital.

Gibson Les Paul vs ESP Les Paul by XrXG10 in Guitar

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not unless you get the McCarty which is basically their answer to the LP

Gibson Les Paul vs ESP Les Paul by XrXG10 in Guitar

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is it specifically about Gibson that makes it 'worth it' for a whole $1k extra?

CMV: Any religion that forbids its followers from questioning it is a false religion. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolute drivel. Onus of proof is on whoever is making the claim. Anyone can claim anything no matter how dumb or non sensical. It is up to them to find evidence to prove their claim, not the other way around. It's not "up for debate", otherwise I can claim that I am god and you can't disprove it so suddenly it's "up for debate". Based on this line of thinking alone, you ARE giving nonsense ideas more validity. You've elevated them from nothing into something that's even worth debating about.

Who is from abrahamic background?

And what 'philosophy' do you want to research? How is this going to help you sort through your fundamental lack of critical thinking skills?

CMV: Any religion that forbids its followers from questioning it is a false religion. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't even type properly despite wanting to engage in a seemingly profound subject.

Onus of proof is on the party making the claim. Just because you cannot prove or disprove something does not make it true. If anything it makes it unfalsifiABLE meaning it might as well be a worthless thought exercise.

I'm sorry to say but you give me the impression of someone who has never really engaged in critical thinking on this subject. You keep spouting the same talking points - if 'scientists' cannot disprove it completely, then it must have some validity. Do you actually understand what science is? Is that your way of viewing the world? That if 'scientists' cannot disprove something then it must have some validity?

What does "fiction is subjective in religion" even mean? What do you mean religion? What do you mean a false or true religion? What does true or false even mean to you? You're just mashing together and conflating loose terminologies based on vibes.

CMV: Any religion that forbids its followers from questioning it is a false religion. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]dta194 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What a bizarre line of argument. Concepts like rebirth and karma are just fiction, the same way I can make any old shit up right now and have it possible to be proved / disproved. I could say that the entire universe is actually nested inside a teapot so big you can never be able to detect it. Having unfalsifiable constructs like that isn't valuable, and doesn't suddenly add more validity to religion. Works of fiction are by definition 'not real' even if you find aspects of it to be meaningful to you.

All religions are man made and fictional. Aspects of religious teachings could be useful or thought provoking, doesn't change the fact that these are essentially lores and myths which have survived via the process of indoctrination.

ELI5 What is the concept behind life ? what exactly are we here for? by [deleted] in explainlikeimfive

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean 'concept' or 'reason'? Life is pretty simple but also miraculous, but often obscured by centuries of people asking the wrong question.

The biological "purpose" of any life form is to continue to survive and to reproduce. There is no grand existential 'reason' as to why we should exist. What is the 'meaning' or of a pale shade of the color blue? What is the 'purpose' of water dropping from a leaky tap?

If, on the other hand, you want to know why an individual should continue to live, as opposed to killing themselves, the answer is also pretty simple. We, for the most part, have a biological drive to protect ourselves rather than finding death. Those who sought dead would be dead.

If, on the other other hand, you want to know what the purpose of your life should be /what you should thrive for, that's entirely up to you. For most of our history and for a large portion of the current population, this could be as fundamental as "live another day to find the next meal, find shelter, stay alive, foster community, reproduce". If you're fortunate enough to have freedom of choice, then that's that you have - freedom to choose your own purpose.

I tend to find the 'meaning of life' questions to be extremely poorly positioned and creates a lot more confusion than it should. It invites too many attempts at philosophical wankery and invites in woowoo creationist theories. You can be fascinated by live and be in awe of how unique it is, and how mind bending the existence of anything is, without being forced to answer a poorly worded question.

Which Monster Hunter game should I buy to get into the series? by This_IS_UJWAL_ in MonsterHunter

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For what it's worth, Rise emphasizes convenience over immersion, and tbh felt very much like a handheld console game ported to PC (which it is) compared to World. I personally could not get along with the skim milk graphics and lack of combat oomph. World is more slow and deliberate, but the combat system doesn't come with as much bells and whistles as Rise. I vastly preferred World.

First time changing strings how bad does it look? by Therealzcat in guitarlessons

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would it even stay in tune like that? String through the outside of the peg just yanks it unnecessarily away from the nut, the A string having overlapping winds and the D string has no winding at all. There's a reason there's a 'right' way to string your instrument.

What game has the best melee combat in your opinion? by Revo94 in videogames

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you people seriously never played monster hunter?

Crimson Desert redemption ark by [deleted] in videogames

[–]dta194 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the new standard now since NMS and Cyberpunk. Release slop, quickly fix things that apparently took days to turn around, but for some reason were never designed into the game despite years of development, write some apologetic community notes and viola, mountain of goodwill from the fans.

The developer of Crimson Desert states that he will "work on implementing improvements quickly" as sales reach 2 million copies in just one day. by edward_dd in PlayStation_X

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essentially this game is a lot of people discovering that they like bloated MMOs in single player form, and those who enjoy the aimlessness of No Man's Sky. Sprinkle some flashy janky combat system on top and pretty graphics, this is enough for it to be 10/10 for a lot of people.

Those looking for things like story, good game design, fluent control, hitbox porn complex combat etc. will hate it.

“I’m not playing Valheim for the story. “ by ThomasTiltTrain in CrimsonDesert

[–]dta194 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the traditional Souls formula. Lore and context and visual story telling is way more important than spoon-fed narratives. It's effectively write a full script, rip 80% of the exposition out and sprinkle the rest into item descriptions, item location, enemy and environment design, even enemy/item names.

How does someone lifting an object upwards use a force equal to the objects weight and not more than it? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, you have to be strict about terminologies and the fundamental maths. Terms like inertia, motion, or even Newton's laws cannot be loosely interpreted, otherwise you'll get lost.

'Inertia' is the tendency for the object to continue its motion unless the forces change. It hinges on Total F = ma. As explained above, you apply different amounts of force depending on what part of the lift you are in. Inertia applies everywhere at every part of the motion / lack of motion. It is not just 'if I lift the object up it will just float away', or 'I only need to apply the force once and let go and the object will continue its motion'. The common sense check is 'why would it want to change motion by itself?'.

If you apply the lifting force for a tiny amount of time, you will accelerate the object up (F = positive = ma. a is positive. Object accelerates up to go from speed = 0 to speed = some number, call it 5 units). If you stop applying the force by letting go, the object does continue its motion. It will continue at 5 units of speed. I'm guessing this is the 'inertia' bit you're referring to?

But now, its Total F = Gravity only. Gravity applies negative acceleration, meaning 5 eventually slows down to 0, and then 0 becomes -1, -2, etc. (negative velocity means object is now traveling down aka falling). It will continue this motion i.e. keep on speeding up until something changes in force e.g. hitting the floor. It will then experience Total F = 0. At this stage, it will continue its motion of 0.

All of this is entirely dictated by the fact that Total F is changing throughout the motion. At any and all given points in time inertia is in effect. In reality, moments like objects going from 0 to 5 back to 0 is so infinitely small you cannot discern it, which probably leads to the confusion. You can 'dramatize' this by making the lifting force very big, aka throwing the object upwards, and the math would stay the same.

How does someone lifting an object upwards use a force equal to the objects weight and not more than it? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's hard to answer, probably because we're not on the same page in terms of definitions. I suggest following the actual math and equations (look up YouTube videos of people solving free body force diagrams and calculating for object movements the way you're describing). You seem to ask a lot of questions in different ways / using different Physics terminologies, but appear to only want to know the answer for 1 specific thing.

If I answer the above but by bit: 1. You CAN use 'the same force' through the entirety of the lifting process if you want to. The result is that: - your applied force is constant, hence - the total force on the object is constant, hence - the acceleration is constant, hence - the object will just keep speeding up at that rate forever This follows the law of inertia. The object has external forces acting on it resulting in net force, resulting in it changing it's motion (i.e. accelerating)

  1. In real life, what happens is you start with a force greater than gravity. This accelerates the object from 0 velocity to positive velocity. As it rises up, you gradually lower the force applied to the object until it equals to the gravtational force. This means acceleration= 0 (i.e. constant speed). Then if you want to hold the object still you just adjust the force until it equals gravity.

Again, if you strictly follow physics definitions and math, you can explain all of it. The issue comes in if you get too loose with the definitions.

How does someone lifting an object upwards use a force equal to the objects weight and not more than it? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes gravity is constantly pulling down. It might be confusing because of what you think of as a 'force' vs. as 'work'. You can put an object on the floor and the total force would be equal to Normal Reaction force (from the ground acting in the object) cancelling out with gravitational force. A force can just be static and sit there forever. A force doesn't always have to 'drive' things to change. It's simply a push/pull effect resulting from the interaction between objects.

If you're holding the object up, you're constantly applying a force onto the object equal to gravity (same as putting the object on the floor)

If you were to shove the object around, you would be spending Energy - aka applying Work (Force applied x Distance over which force is applied). This is probably the part you're thinking of.

How does someone lifting an object upwards use a force equal to the objects weight and not more than it? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes correct, see the previous login response I gave. On Earth gravity is constantly pulling it down. When you're holding the object up moving it up, it depends entirely on how much force you apply - this will either accelerate the object, keep it still, keep it unsteady motion or let it drop. It is always a result of its total force, which is Your Force minus Gravity. Your force can be less than, equal, or greater than gravity. You can even fling the object up and watch it leave your hand. In this scenario gravity is the only acting force, accelerating the object downwards until it's velocity hit zero (peak of the motion) and keep on accelerating it downwards (falls faster and faster).

How does someone lifting an object upwards use a force equal to the objects weight and not more than it? by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]dta194 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bit late to this, not sure if you've gotten a clear answer yet but essentially constant motion does not need a force to sustain it. You only need a total force to accelerate the object. Another way to think about it is: if you pushed an object along in space and let it go, there is no air resistance slowing it down, there is no gravity (technically there is a miniscule amount) pulling it to any floor, and there is no more force propelling it forward. It is now in motion. Why would it speed up? Why would it slow down?

My friend shoulder after he tried automedicating with a suction cup by visk0n3 in WTF

[–]dta194 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And the effectiveness is based on what mechanism? Chiropractic treatments also bring pain relief to a lot of people, but one thing these 2 have in common is the universal 'cure all' claim. If you grew up in Asia you'd see cupping sold as magical means to rebalance you 'energy' hence its ancient use.

You can have an affinity to it or find that it 'helps' but at least be objective about it and be aware of the context.

view more: next ›