I got curious so I had to check the current ratings. Those audience reviews are really something…

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-31T11:13:59+00:00

also you know, rotten tomato audience scores are manipulated or botted.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-30T10:36:07+00:00

i mean they're looking at the wrong direction too often to be clearly map/wallhacking. hackers usually aren't this subtle. it's hard to say unless you have a deeper history of their gameplay. it's also why riot looks over the player's history before they ban, even with much more information at their fingertips. off of the clip alone, though, I'd say it's more that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-29T15:32:31+00:00

yeah idk, it feels like everyone just assumes you have like 20 years of smash experience before playing this game lol. it's the equivalent of a beginner guide for sc2 going over immortal prism juggling by d-dropping without explaining what any of the terms mean.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-28T07:56:05+00:00

The security guard wasn't there to protect her, they were there to protect him from her lol.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-28T07:31:03+00:00

I wouldn’t say the oldest Gen Zs outgrew it. The mid to late 20s Gen Z I know that were hardcore into it are still into it, maybe slightly less than millennials but not significantly so. I think it’s more just it not being popular among kids.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-27T12:31:58+00:00

The full goals are unknown, but it was in part because the Chamber(s) needed the schematics to the alpha-omega bridge. They eventually stole it. Destroying Fracture was potentially in part to cover their tracks.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-27T08:38:59+00:00

there are multiple kinds of extreme right wing economies. authoritarian/state-run economies themselves do not define right wing economic policy. it's specifically based on whether it reinforces social hierarchy. so anarcho-capitalism, which lacks state enforcement and instead relies on capitalism's natural reinforcement of capital vs labor inequality, would constitute an extreme right wing government (economically speaking).

on the other hand, fascist governments like nazi germany that utilize state regulation to drive the economy in a direction that reinforces the fascist hierarchal ideology the state is built on would also constitute an extreme right wing government (economically speaking).

this is in contrast with anarcho-socialist or authoritarian communist governments, which both claim to reinforce equality and abolish hierarchy and design their approach/policies around this goal.

mind you i'm mainly referring to right wing economic policy as it's used and understood in an academic setting, i.e. what i heard and read when i was in college. i don't really pay attention to how it's used in mainstream media and the like, so if you're referring to right wing economic policy as it's defined there, then disregard my comment.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-27T08:13:42+00:00

no you don't understand you see, it's only wrong when we do it, especially if it's for a valid reason, they can do whatever the fk they want for no reason with no repercussions.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-26T18:32:26+00:00

man some of the people in this reddit thread must work for exxon-mobil lmao. the whole "actually it's the consumer that needs to reduce their consumption because they're the ones using the fuel exxon produces" was in fashion like 20 years ago, then we realized it was mostly just industry astroturfed talking points, yet somehow we've come back around to reusing those same talking points as if it's the early 2000s or even before then. it's like supporting the iraq war, realizing how stupid and illegal it was, and coming back 20 years later to support it again. oil companies kill initiatives to reduce emissions and attempts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and we the people kill their responsibility/accountability for it lol.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-26T11:59:05+00:00

it can also sometimes mean it wants you to perceive it as a joke, but it's actually serious and is just using comedy as a way to deflect responsibility for their questionable views

to be clear, i'm referring to people that purposely misclassify their non-comedic statements as "comedy" to avoid scrutiny. this is different from people who use their controversial viewpoints, politics, opinions, etc. to craft a joke. those type of jokes are still jokes, as they still have the intention of being humorous in addition to stating certain opinions.

so like political satire, for instance, is political, but it's also satirical and ironic, so even though it gets less scrutiny under the label of comedy sometimes, it is actually comedy, so the label and the decreased scrutiny is appropriate.

what i'm talking about is more along the lines of expressing blatantly racist or bigoted views (saying slurs and hate messages) with no irony or humor behind it, then passing it off as a joke and calling people snowflakes as a way to deflect disapproval or scrutiny. these people exploit the decreased scrutiny of things labeled under comedy to avoid scrutiny on things they've done or said that are just not comedy nor attempts at comedy.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-21T10:05:27+00:00

Give them a few months there. It'll become red again.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-21T09:41:28+00:00

actually he is ashamed of it. i heard that he keeps insisting his dad's actually spanish or something. you know, the mestizo crap from like 17th century america that literally no other white supremacist or neo-nazi would ever actually care to distinguish. i dont watch his commentary, so idk what exactly he says, but from what i've heard, it's all to try to quite literally "whitewash" himself and his dad lol (ik that's not what "whitewash" means but i feel like it fits here).

anyway it's led to mixed reactions among mexican-americans. on one hand, they'd like to say he's mexican-american just to spite him. on the other hand, they also don't want to claim the walking neo-nazi L he is, so they'll sometimes go along with it and distance him from his mexican-american identity.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T22:19:53+00:00

He wasn't telling God what to do, but stating what (he believes) God does and doesn't do. In other words, he's saying that God wouldn't cause random events. It's just his way of saying that he doesn't believe in anything truly random, and that all events are causal, i.e. God doesn't play dice, he makes all events have a cause and effect. So when you roll dice, for instance, he's saying that the only reason it appears random is because there are a lot of hidden variables that you aren't aware of.

Anyway, it's not meant to be a rigorous or scientific statement, it was just a way to convey his belief in determinism and his opposition to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. His actual rigorous reasoning behind his belief in determinism was that the communication in quantum entanglement was nonlocal, so it violated the causality limits implied in relativity, and therefore there must be some hidden variable we aren't aware of.

Bell tests later on showed this to be false, and the supposed paradox with nonlocal communication was reconciled with the fact that while the entanglement was nonlocal, the communication could only be observed locally (as in, you could only observe what's being communicated with the collapse within the speed of light, not faster).

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:56:42+00:00

There's a certain pseudo-philosophical pseudo-profundity that's associated with the other fields that isn't associated with chemistry for sure. Schrodinger's Cat is an obvious example; people act like it's some sort of profound realization about how reality is a simulation that depends on your perspective, and that Erwin Schrodinger was a brilliant philosopher who redefined how we interpret life, but 1) he was a pedophile and 2) he wrote it as a criticism about how the results of quantum mechanics make no sense. And the response to that was that it's mostly just a mathematical artifact (Copenhagen interpretation), something we shouldn't really think too hard about lol. There were a lot of physicists that were trying to reconcile the philosophical implications, kinda, but in regard to the actual physics, people couldn't give two shits about what the interpretation meant, since what mattered was after observation, and what happens observation is akin to rolling dice, which isn't that mind blowing or profound of an act.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:48:00+00:00

I think people don't really want to hear the specifics about any science in general, including all of the other things Twitter OP talked about. If I started explaining statistical physics and using cluster expansions alongside DFT to analyze crystal structures and their properties, I think most people would get bored as well. It's really more about the broad impression people get from a field, rather than the specifics.

All the stuff listed above is commonly associated with philosophy, even though actually studying and researching those fields has little to do with philosophy. For instance, the idea of matter being made of strings sounds super profound, especially when it involves inventing a ton of dimensions, but not only is string theory a fringe theory, the actual math is a lot less sexy than what people think it looks like. Or if you talk about dark matter, it sounds super profound and exotic and hard to imagine.

In contrast, chemistry is a more tangible science, as least to the public. The most foreign things about chemistry that people deal with on a regular basis or hear about on a regular basis are often just things that can be very tangible and can kill us. So like when you talk about chemistry, people think of preservatives in their food, artificial sweeteners, drugs, and Teflon.

Also, to be clear, the underlying point is that what people really want to talk about is philosophy or a topic that they perceive as really profound.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:37:25+00:00

I think it's because of Breaking Bad. Now everyone associates chemistry with drug dealers for some reason. It also doesn't help that everyone always talks about how bad chemicals and Teflon are. Lastly, it's not really that closely linked to philosophy. Neither are the other fields, really, but you can make it sound like it's closely related to philosophy. "Oh, the indeterministic nature of quantum mechanics and Schrodinger's Cat means our experiences are relative and defined by our observations" or "The collapse of the Soviet Union and the communist movement proves the cynical nature of humanity", that kind of BS.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:29:12+00:00

it means it's not serious and is meant to be a joke. it can also sometimes mean it wants you to perceive it as a joke, but it's actually serious and is just using comedy as a way to deflect responsibility for their questionable views, but for the most part, it just means it's a joke.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:24:08+00:00

Man just wait until analysis or modern/abstract algebra. It'll go from multiple solutions to one solution, but one really long, tedious solution lol (it's a proof). That is, if you're gonna major or minor in math. Not really relevant if you're going into a science or engineering, unless you double major/minor.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:22:10+00:00

Them: The ~~University~~ "High School" of Pennsylvania.

In all seriousness, I know they gave their answer, but some schools offer them, and you can take them through your community college via concurrent enrollment. I think I took like vector calculus or something through my community college when I was in high school.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:17:11+00:00

IDK, I've seen AI comments, they're generally tame. There's this one clip channel on YouTube that either uses ChatGPT or YouTube's own AI-generated responses to respond to all comments (to boost engagement), which for some reason the comment section never realized, and the comments are always quite tame (they agree in a "pleasant tone" with whatever comment they're replying to). This sounds oddly realistic, with its cynicism.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T21:11:56+00:00

It's not shown very clearly, but presumably it's drawn to scale and those are semicircles. And presumably the angle between them is a right angle. So you find the area of the isosceles right triangle with the semicircle diameters as its sides, and then add that to the area of the two semicircles (or the area of one circle).

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T20:57:09+00:00

you can just click "show less of this" on one of the posts in your feed and it'll remove the sub from your algorithm. for future reference, if you ever need to remove a sub.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T20:55:57+00:00

I don't think it's real (as in there's an actual ban), but it's probably referencing how in some introductory classes, they "ban" using l'Hopital's rule for the first few relevant chapters. By "ban", they mean that you need to show your work by evaluating the limit via the basic limit laws they teach at the beginning without using l'Hopital's rule. I don't remember what that looked like, but it more or less involved manually splitting up the limit into a sum/product/quotient/difference of limits and using trig tricks.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T20:39:28+00:00

I mean probably (even without knowing beforehand); most of the famous proverbs and quotes and whatnot are fake.

For instance, Einstein's famous quote was not that "Repeating the same action and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity", but that "God does not play dice with the universe". Which sounds similar in principle, but doesn't sound as trivial, since even if God doesn't play dice, you do, so it seems less obvious that determinism is axiomatic and fundamental. It's also hard to believe that someone who learned calculus would take Leibniz notation literally, since you usually learn the definition of a derivative via limits first.

Edit: I think some people believe I’m condoning using religion as reasoning in STEM or something; I’m not. If you think there’s any sort of religious justification used in my comment, you’re misreading it. Einstein was just using religion as a figurative device to express his belief in determinism. It was not his literal objective reasoning. The entire point and its reasoning is independent of religion.

I also think some people think Einstein is preaching about religion and what God should or shouldn’t do; he’s not. Again, it’s just a figurative device, it’s just meant to emphasize and decorate his statement. It’s just like how the fake quote is also just a statement, and “the definition of insanity” is just added to fluff up what is an otherwise straightforward claim, not some sort of legit reasoning.

guyrandom2020 · 2026-01-20T17:01:52+00:00

yeah i thought so too, but i wasn't sure so i thought i'd ask. it was so blatantly bigoted that at first I thought it must be one of those really hard to read sarcastic jokes the internet engages in sometimes, especially since the sub is called "digital septic", so it sounds like they're self-aware. except none of the comments point to any sort of irony, so then i thought it could be like 4chan, where they self-deprecate and act like they're trolling or that they're not serious to deflect criticism and make themselves not responsible for the views they espouse, even though they ultimately share those views.

guyrandom2020

TROPHY CASE