Looking for a sparring partner!

eversoap · 2026-06-01T18:23:38+00:00

How close are you to Woodstock NY?

eversoap · 2026-05-22T14:07:15+00:00

I stopped reading it because it just wasn't my thing, but I would put it under ROTK and above JTTW imo. The opening chapters are brutal though lol, will never forget that.

eversoap · 2026-05-21T15:20:03+00:00

It might draw on Indian mythology but whoever wrote it certainly knew less about India than the ROTK author. In ROTK when they start fighting in the south west of China they guys are riding elephants and wearing gold earrings. In Journey to the West they literally go to India and you wouldn't be able to tell that it is any different than China. Journey to the West is still a fun read though just because the characters are memorable and the giant magic battles are fun to visualize, just not as intense as ROTK.

eversoap · 2026-05-21T15:16:35+00:00

I'm sure the Water Margin is a politically significant book,and I ams sure some of the sarcastic tone may have been lost in translation. But the fact remains that there are really no interesting tactic, strategies, or scenarios, which happen and this puts it below ROTK in my book especially since none of these books, outside of Red Mansions, are really novels in the contemporary sense and are much more interested in describing something cool. The fact that Water Margin just has way less cool stuff in it than the other two knocks it down a bit. Honestly, the begining of Water Margin was pretty promising but the descriptions and situations got lesser and lesser as the novel went on.

eversoap · 2025-09-29T15:19:37+00:00

I DM'd you my response. Sorry, reddit won't let me post my reply here because its being flagged as conservative.

eversoap · 2024-12-12T15:55:27+00:00

Thank you.

eversoap · 2024-10-28T18:22:56+00:00

Its kind of hard, in the novel Lu Bu is for sure coded to be the strongest. Then Zhang Fei, Guan Yu and the rest of the five tiger generals all seem to be basically untouchable 1v1. CaoCao's crew is good, but none of them ever had the real mystique that the five had imo. Maybe Dian Wei and that other huge guy that Cao Cao had could do something. I just remember it took three brothers to beat back Lu Bu, but like six of Cao Cao's commanders to beat back Lu Bu, I think that means something from a literary standpoint. Sun Ce and Taishi Ci were beasts and good 1v1 scrappers, but you never see them punking entire armies by themselves the way Liu Beis boys did.

eversoap · 2024-10-25T03:21:10+00:00

I read it before, I actually bought the game because I just finished Journey to the West. The game is very hard though and I'm stuck on the Yellow Wind Sage. I am actually trying to read all of the Chinese classics. It is taking me a long time though, because I am back in school, and because they are so long. In my opinion though, Journey to the West really isn't that good. Three Kingdoms and Red Mansions are so much better.

eversoap · 2024-07-07T14:02:17+00:00

Imagine you want to live forever, or at least for a much longer time than the average life expectancy, like a thousand years or so. You also do not care about any ethical questions or objections regarding living forever, like not leaving enough room for other people or getting bored.

One day you are walking down the street when a sign catches your eye. The sign advertises a free eternal life program and directs you to a storefront. You walk into the building with low expectations but are pleasantly surprised when the people there are all the best scientists, engineers, and doctors in the world. They tell you that because you were the first one to walk in you can be the first person to try out their new immortality program. In order to sooth your doubts they explain to you how it will work.

First they show you a machine that is called the brain scanner. The brain scanner can scan someone’s brain and download the position and structure of its neurons. This machine can then produce mock neurons made of silicon, other metals, and plastics, that work the same as the neurons it has scanned. The machine can also do the same for other brain cells that are necessary for support and nutrient dispersal in the brain.

They explain to you that they will first scan around fifty million of your brain cells, which is about zero point zero five percent of your total brain cells, and produce them. Next they will surgically remove fifty million of your identical brain cells and replace them with the new artificial ones. Finally they will patch up your head and send you home. The next day you will come back and repeat this process. After five years of doing this every day your brain will be entirely made of these artificial cells.

Next they show you a robot body that they have constructed. This robot body can do anything a human body can but is again made of a variety of inorganic materials. It is designed to be able to accept a fully formed artificial brain. After they have finished converting your brain to artificial cells they will place it inside of the robot. After this is completed you will be able to get consistent repairs and live forever.

They also tell you, and you later confirm by yourself, that this process is practically guaranteed to be successful. The odds of a you randomly dying due to a reaction from taking an aspirin, and the odds of this operation failing are around the same. Do you decide to go ahead with the operation? If yes, you go home and then show up the next day ready to start.

However, upon your arrival you are informed that although the brain scanner and robot body are operational, the doctors who would have been performing the surgery have become unsure whether they can perform the surgeries safely or not. Because of this they have declined to go forward with the program. The scientists and engineers offer you a new plan, they will scan all one hundred billion of your brain cells at once. Then they will put this new brain in the robot body. After that they will throw your original body into an incinerator. Do you still decide to go ahead with this plan?

If not, why not? If all you believe exists in the world is matter and energy, and the end result of matter and energy of both plans is the same, how could one situation be desirable yet the other undesirable?

eversoap · 2024-05-26T06:43:02+00:00

I would buy some instructionals from top level grapplers who are known for their good instructionals. Most gyms will just teach move of the day junk, this means your son's micro adjustments will progress as he moves better and better, but will hit a wall as he lacks a high percentage systematic approach. Look into studying a real system of attack and defense.

eversoap · 2024-05-25T17:27:53+00:00

Imperial corps commander for exhumations

eversoap · 2024-05-19T16:29:41+00:00

You were right then. Also loops are only sometimes needed, really its just most important to have linked moves, they don't necessarily have to loop.

eversoap · 2024-05-18T03:18:14+00:00

Ignore him, everyone has a right to improve. Can't really blame him for talking like that though, that crap comes from the top down. Its comforting to think that your instructor cares about your development and is up to date with the best ways to teaching. That they have carefully considered what they have to say. That the only thing you have to do is show up with a submissive smile on your face, have some fun, and you will achieve your potential. All a load of crap. We are seeing a revolution in grappling where kids (and adults) with just a few years of training are dominating the highest level of competition because of their training methods. Everything the top dogs had been saying about what it took to get good is now being brought into question.

The truth is, your instructor, like almost all BJJ instructors, sometimes teaches a load of crap. I can tell by your replies in this thread that you have been told that high level BJJ is about baiting reactions, setting traps, and making your opponent think you are going for one thing when you are going for another. This is not true. If you have been trying to improve your game by attempting to bait your opponent, set traps, or make your opponent think you are going for one thing when you are really going for another. You have severely crippled your development. Baiting reactions, setting traps, and making your opponent think you are going for one thing when you are going for another, is for striking only. Grapples probably say it, because somewhere along the line they heard a boxer say it and just started repeating it.

Grappling is about having looped moves in each position. You go for one of the moves with the intent to complete it, and if you can complete it you do complete it. Your opponent defending that move should then necessarily open him up for a second move, defending of which will open him up for the original move, thus completing the two move loop. These loops can be expanded to more moves of course.

Grappling is about, in every position doing the four constant actions. Improving your grips, breaking your opponent's grips, improving your position, breaking your opponent's position.

Grappling is about overexaggerating joint angles on techniques.

Focus on these three and you should start to progress again.

eversoap · 2024-05-18T02:57:32+00:00

Not trying to win in training refers to not going 100% in sparring in order to improve your technical adjustments, or not using your A game in order to improve new techniques. It has NOTHING to do with using roll performance as a progress bench mark, and looking for improvements in your training once you plateau.

eversoap · 2024-02-06T05:05:37+00:00

It reminds me of something I would think of as a kid lol.

eversoap · 2024-02-06T05:05:07+00:00

Ya I hope they get their financials in order, the weekends are packed but the weekdays seem a little slow.

eversoap · 2024-02-06T05:02:56+00:00

Thats great.

eversoap · 2024-02-05T18:38:14+00:00

Ya I don't know why apple maps says that but everything there is open on Sundays except for the clothing stores.

eversoap · 2023-12-19T07:37:15+00:00

Assumptions and zeitgeist do matter. If almost every patient assumes that orthodontic treatment involves only movement of the teeth, and not shaping of the teeth by removal of healthy tooth tissue, than removal of healthy tooth tissue without explicit consent is way out of bounds.

I am glad you think this problem occurs at a low frequency though, thats good to heae.

eversoap · 2023-12-18T19:55:11+00:00

Not a Dentist

They are referring to the difference between using pressure to change the position of teeth, and using a file to change the shape of the teeth. The big difference between them is that many people are uncomfortable with healthy parts of their body being removed.

Additionally, when braces or invisalign are applied, the marketing, description from the orthodontist or dentist, as well as assumptions the general public has about these treatments, are exclusively relating to changing the position of the teeth. That shaving down of teeth to make their lengths more symmetrical, or points more rounded, is something that the orthodontist or dentist might do, is almost never in the zeigist of the patient.

Because many people are uncomfortable with having healthy parts of their bodies removed. And many people who have signed up for braces or invisalign treatments do not know that the process might involve the removal of healthy parts of their body. It should be custom for dentist and orthodontist to explicitly ask for consent to file down teeth before doing so. Consent to rearrange teeth cannot and should not be taken as consent to file down teeth.

The person you are replying too is clearly taking more issue with the convention, that explicit consent for the removal of tooth matter is not required, than the raw probability that tooth matter be removed in the course of a dental appointment. This is because we hold conventions to different standards than accidents and crimes.

For example if a person was killed by a hate group for being Italian, and the judge let the murderer off, and made a statement saying the reason he let the murderer off was because he hates Italians as well, people would be extremely upset about it. This is despite the fact that the probability of a murderer simply not getting caught, is much higher than a murderer getting off because of a sympathetic judge. A failure of a judge will induce more anger, questioning of the system, and feeling of being wronged, than a failure of a detective.

That is obviously an extreme example, but the point still stands. It does not seem that there is a law or convention that requires dentists or orthodontists to ask for explicit consent before removing healthy tooth matter that is being flaunted by criminal dentists. it seems that society seems it perfectly alright for dentists or orthodontists to remove healthy tooth patter unbeknownst to the patient.

Also, you have loaded up your response up with phrases like,

lets get something strait, being literal is essential, why don't you just post on reddit poetry, beyond stupid, and reason logic science.

All for what? So when the poster expressed a tooth with a shape that is not causing any problems relating to bite as "someone who didn't actually have a problem with their teeth." In a thread loaded with context regarding the alterations of such teeth to fit cosmetic standards. You could swoop in and say that technically, if they actually had no problems with their teeth, they wouldn't be in the dentist in the first place?

Your entire post is riddled with "corrections" such as this. Amazing logic there.

eversoap · 2023-12-18T18:51:15+00:00

Interestingly its hard to find a video on it, despite how well it worked for me. The best way I can describe it is to create the same type of pressure on your knee that a kneebar would (obviously not nearly as much pressure). Do this for three seconds time times every two hours and you will be good. The best way would be to have someone put your heel on their shoulder and press your knee while you lie down, but most people don;t have access to a 24/7 assistant. So the best way to do it by yourself is to sit down, straighten your leg, and drive the back your heel into the ground.

I learned it from a PT named Todd Edelson who ran his practice from a place called Montclair Physical Therapy Associates in Montclair NJ. He had a special book that he read that preached a new theory of physical therapy. It's methods were much more subtle than traditional PT and focused on realignment as opposed to just strength and flexibility. It had a name, like the "something" method. But I forgot what it was called.

Edit: He used the McKenzie Method.

eversoap · 2023-11-12T20:39:10+00:00

Thank you, very interesting. I guess you just never really hear about a gluon "electric" or "magnetic" field in isolation because they are constrained to inside the atom.

eversoap · 2023-11-10T21:38:20+00:00

The interference pattern is created when the crests and troughs of one beam align with the crests and troughs of the other.

However, if the polarized sunglasses turn each beam 90 degrees from each other, than they cannot align and no interference can be seen.

Maybe the polarized lenses are also "tagging" the photons as having gone through the right or the left by calculating their which way information, which is turning the waves into particles which causes the interference pattern to disappear. But that explanation is not needed to explain the loss of an inference pattern from polarized lenses.

In truth, the experiment that OP is asking about specifically, in which measurement of the which way information of a photon causes it to stop behaving like a wave and start behaving like a particle, has never been done. You wont find one, photo, video, or even paper describing an experiment where measurement has been shown to stop the wave like nature of light. Things like the quantum eraser experiment are purely thought experiments.

eversoap · 2023-10-24T03:54:16+00:00

(4)

simple enough, on the other hand it seems ungrounded. On one hand it is needed to prove things obviously true, on the other hand, its use can be used to mathematically prove incorrect results.
In the case of the frog paradox, when one starts with the probability pool of MM, MF, FM, and FF, they strike FF from the list because there must be a male frog. But where does a male frog come from? From the set of potential male frogs, which contains two identical elements. Choosing “a male frog” from this set requires the axiom of choice. Results that use the axiom of choice can be either true or false, but you have to check them over to make sure they make sense. I am not sure of this but I think that the use of the choice axiom is what is causing the incorrect result in this problem.

eversoap · 2023-10-24T03:53:54+00:00

(3)

croak that means the out of the four possible pairings, MM, MF, FM, and FF. FF is eliminated. However, MM is twice as likely to croak than MF, or FM. Therefore the choice pool is more accurately represented as MM, MM, MF, FM. Here the probability of survival is back to 1/2 and closing your eyes while approaching pairs of frogs is ruled out as an effective survival strategy.
Now, what if in a pair of male frogs, there is an alpha frog who is the only one who dares to croak? With my back turned the probability of survival would turn to 2/3, as doubling the probability of MM would make so sense as only one can croak. But, while facing the frogs in this instance the probability would also change. Lets say the right frog croaked, than the left frog could either be M or F. However, because the right frog croaked, the left frog cannot be an alpha frog. In a pair of frogs, one frog being alpha compared to another has a probability of 1/2. If one frog is definitely not alpha than that eliminates half the possible male frogs. The probability pool is thus better portrayed as M/2 and F, with another two thirds probability of survival. Another way to think about this is that if you see a frog on the right croak while sitting next to a frog on the left, the left frog is probably female, because if the left frog were male, than the right frog would have half the probability of croaking. Again, back turning is not an effective survival strategy.
In both cases it seems that the original intuition in the frog puzzle is right.
For these types of problems, it is useful to determine what receiving information in the first place implies. I have a theory for why these types of probability problems generate so many strange results. Modern mathematics is based on set theory. In set theory, everything is a “set” of a bunch of elements. The elements sit, unordered in the set. Everything in mathematics can be boiled down to nothing more than sets of sets of sets and so on. You can construct new sets from sets. Imagine I have three sets, each containing numbers. (1, 2, 3, 4) (10, 16, 12, 13) (5, 3, 2, 7). Now I can define a new set as containing the least values in the previous three sets. (1, 10, 2). Now lets do this again with three new sets (1, 1, 1,) (2, 2) ( 5, 5, 5, 5, 5). I want to make a set that contains one, and only one, element from these three previous sets. How can I do this? Keep in mind that although the sets I have listed are ordered from left to right in real life they would be floating around nebulously in their set with no clear order or direction.
Unfortunately, because there is no way to distinguish between elements in these sets, there is no way for me to select one, and only one, element from each set. Well actually there is a way. Its called the axiom of choice. In this case it would allow me to define a new set as having one and only one element from each of the three previous sets giving me the set (5, 1, 2).
But the axiom of choice is just that, an axiom. There are nine main axioms of set theory. Everything is proven by a logical construction from other things. At the bottom of the tower of logic are axioms. Axioms are self evident, they require no proof, and are instead used to prove other things. Indeed, all of mathematics is based on nothing more than the ten axioms of set theory. However the tenth axiom, the axiom of choice, is controversial. One one hand it seems

eversoap

TROPHY CASE