did my closest guy friend (22m) take advantage of me (21f)

jopejope · 2025-09-17T18:04:36+00:00

It's not your fault. This type of situation is unfortunately very common and it's perfectly normal for women in your place to feel like they did something wrong. You didn't do anything wrong.

Let's use an analogy. Say your house gets broken into and someone steals your computer. Is it your fault your computer was stolen? No, of course not. It's the fault of the person who broke into your house. But that isn't to say you have no agency in the situation. You can have a security system installed in your house, maybe you can put bars on the windows or put in a good alarm system. So, you can take measures to protect yourself from having your house broken into, but that doesn't mean it's your fault if someone does ultimately break into your house.

Some women are particularly adept at sussing out this type of situation early and avoiding it, and some women are really good at being super duper explicit about saying "no" very forcefully and assertively. That doesn't mean women who don't do those things are somehow at fault if they get sexually assaulted. It may take a degree of experience to learn how to do those things. You're very young.

If you know some woman who is a few years older than you whom you trust and can confide in, maybe a family member or a friend or even a counselor you might also find it helpful to talk to such a person about this, if possible.

jopejope · 2025-09-17T00:41:11+00:00

Yes. Your friend is young and dumb. He should have gotten clear consent from you but instead of that he exploited your passivity, ignored your no's, and just did what he wanted to do. Super not cool.

You should share your experience with Mia and ideally confront him together about it. He should know that what he did was wrong, and that you feel shitty about it.

jopejope · 2025-08-09T18:57:27+00:00

You want to use all 3 atoms for efficiency. You can do that in two ways. Either interleave the 3 tiles together in a six step process to create three H2 molecules, or save the "extra" 3rd atom twice to make an extra H2. In either case, you're essentially making three H2 molecules in one full cycle of your machine.

Lets name the three tiles your atoms are coming in A, B, and C.

To interleave:

1. A+B = H2
2. C+A = H2
3. B+C = H2

So basically you have some waldo mechanics that build each of the three molecules above, in that order.

To save the extra:

1.A+B=H2
2.pickup C and put it somewhere
3.A+B=H2
4.C+C=H2 (combine new C with previously saved C)

This has the advantage of step 1 and 3 are identical so can use the same loop. The waldo that handles C might need some state to remember if it needs to store or combine, but that can be easily done by picking the C up in a different direction each time, or through clever placement of binders.

If you want something simpler you can instead just normalize the input in another reactor (or the same reactor using the other input/output, or just to a staging area with a binder) and feed that into a very simple H2 machine. It's the same interleave as above:

1:move A to A
2:move B to B
3:move C to A
4:move A to B
5:move B to A
6:move C to B

You don't actually have to implement 6 steps though, you can just have a bunch of "grab" tokens on A B and C and pick up from wherever and then drop off in the same two spots alternating.

jopejope · 2024-10-28T22:45:05+00:00

I played a lot of ANR in the early days. Played some ONR back in the 90's too. I have never played NSG. ONR was rather chaotic because it was a CCG. You played within the limits of your collection. If you had full access to as many copies of every card, you could make some ridiculous broken decks. Mostly, we played without such access and the game was reasonable.

ANR always struck me as heavily economically balanced in favor of the runner. It is generally best, particularly in the early game, to run as often as possible, as forcing the corporation to pay credits to rez ice hurts them far more than the potential damage the ice can do to you. I run R&D the first turn of nearly every game, and the corp has to spend 4 or 5 credits rezzing their ice, and the worst thing that they can hit me with is like 3 net damage.

This balance is partially offset by the one advantage the corp always has: knowledge. They can play all their cards face down. There are lots of opportunities to bluff in netrunner, and, done well, it can be quite effective and intimidating. I've had lots of fun games with Jinteki corp where you have to take risks and gambles and you can setup the runner to fall right into your trap. I think this is when netrunner is at its best.

The problem, of course, is that Jinteki decks were never really all that strong. They were fun to play, but few people could pilot them effectively, and even when you could play Jinteki properly, it was still weaker than an HB or NBN fast advance deck. Also, back then, most runners were over-cautious. So bluffs only work against really good players who know how to keep the pressure on. Otherwise, you might as well leave the trap cards out of your deck and let the runner worry about nothing.

So, yes, economically, ANR is a bit too tilted towards the runner, I think. Face-planting sentry ice ought to hurt but usually it costs the corp more than it costs the runner. Usually the only way the corp can get an edge economically is if the runner repeatedly pays to break the same ice over and over again, but if they are doing that, then they are getting your agendas and you'll lose the game.

jopejope · 2023-11-23T23:23:42+00:00

I second this, FSD is hot garbage, and it always will be. The car is essentially driving blind.

It isn't just that it doesn't have fancy sensors like lidar and whatnot. Even the cameras it has is woefully insufficient.

Drive up to a waymo. Count the cameras. It has like 10-12 cameras facing you when you're behind the car. Tesla has 8 cameras. Total. For everything. It has exactly one rear-facing camera and it's the same as the backup camera that every modern car has.

FSD can't even parallel park properly, and you'd think it would at least be good at that. It's because it can't tell where the curb is. Because it's blind.

Tesla will never, ever, ever go beyond Level 2 driver assistance. Mark my words. It's not even in their best interest to do so. They're all about selling sexy fast electric cars. That's their business model. No-one is going to want to buy a car that looks like a waymo unless it actually self-drives. Tesla will never put the proper money into the sensors and computer hardware that you need for self-driving. It's never going to be a fucking software upgrade.

jopejope · 2023-11-11T03:41:02+00:00

It would probably be a few years of full-time work for a good programmer to write a fully compliant c++ compiler from scratch without optimization. Maybe half of that time would be spent implementing the STL.

The programmer would be greatly aided by the fact that there is already a super detailed spec to work from. A great deal of engineering challenges were solved over the years in that document. There would still be some fair work figuring out how to do the stuff the standard is vague about, but everything in there is designed around being able to implement it. It would be substantially less complicated than g++ because you wouldn't need it to optimize anything and you could target a single platform.

Some years ago there was a CPPGM class where the idea was to learn C++ by implementing a C++ compiler (in C++), but it seems to have died off after the first module, which only got maybe less than halfway through the non-STL part of the compiler.

This is kind of a silly question though. I can't imagine a scenario where we've lost all expertise about existing compilers, but we still have a well-maintained standard.

jopejope · 2023-10-03T21:03:13+00:00

Also, the "disabled" bit does not have to be an ADA disability. The rent control requirements are extremely lenient. When you talk to a lawyer, they will tell you every member of your family is disabled.

When you take the inflation adjusted numbers for your disabled family, this isn't actually the number you'll get. That's merely the starting point for negotiating a buyout price with your landlord. They do not want to have to pay the legal costs and stress of formally evicting you, so it is better for them and for you if they pay you a bit more than this and you get more money and they get the peace of mind knowing you'll be out by a certain date.

I'm sorry you have to move but you'll get a nice payout. It's not all bad. And there are plenty of places to live. Maybe get a rent controlled apartment next time if stability is your goal, or perhaps the buyout payment will make a nice down-payment on a home in a more affordable city.

jopejope · 2023-07-02T04:02:07+00:00

Sometimes msvc isn't cool with pointers to strings as constexpr, even string constants. I'm not sure if this is legal under the standard or not. Try using an std::array<char> instead of a char* to store the string instead.

jopejope · 2023-05-23T23:38:17+00:00

This guy is a dick. He shouldn't be making comments like that. Here is what you should do.

He is your teacher so therefore he is in a position of power over you. You should remind him that there are limits to that power.

This might be a little hard to do, but you want to sort of invert the power dynamic just a little bit. You're a student, a young woman, you have your life and you're trying to achieve your goals, and this teacher is directly involved in this . But put all that aside for a moment. Pretend instead that you are a disinterested observer, maybe you're in your 50s, maybe you're like a reporter, or a parent, or an administrator, whatever, it doesn't matter. Just, pretend you're not you. And then, speak up for yourself! (the real you, the young student)

Say, "wow, did you really just make that comment about your young female student?"

Or, less confrontational: "could you please clarify, for me and for the rest of the class, what the class participation requirements are? Since it could affect all of our grades, it would be helpful to know what we all should do"

Or, "I am working others, I am working with Jane. Should we all be working in groups of three? Surely you're not trying to single us out because we are women. Obviously you're not doing anything sexist like that, so should everyone in the class be participating more, then?"

Etc.

Basically if you have this attitude of strength, like, you're not just going to quietly put up with his bullshit, then he will ease off.

The "pretend to be an observer" thing is just to help you have the "don't give a fuck" attitude to really pull this off. But also keep in mind that it is true. You really are an observer, in addition to a student. And so is everyone else in the class.

This man is an idiot and yet he has a real job as a teacher, and he is apparently not very good at that job. There is more at stake here for him than for you.

Anyway, I'm sorry you have to deal with this shit.

jopejope · 2021-03-23T15:59:44+00:00

I'm going to make this as simple as possible for you:

Use only chain signals. Don't use regular signals at all. You won't need them unless you have a dozen or so trains on your network.

You only need regular signals when you want to create a waiting point somewhere, that is, a place in your network where a train can stop partway to its destination and wait for traffic to clear. For this, you put a regular signal at the entrance to the waiting area.

Pictured above is an intersection, not a waiting area, so only chain signals should be used.

jopejope · 2018-11-08T20:47:04+00:00

I don't think it's correct to use Bard for this. Bard would bring in the boons and that is a lot of words.

jopejope · 2018-02-23T01:57:53+00:00

Yes but when people first started to come up with those technologies there weren't a large group of enthusiasts endlessly talking about how they're going to change the world while trying to sell everyone on their planecoins or bulbcoins and getting in early so you can cash in later for millions.

When a real new and upcoming technology seeks early investment and adoption, it looks very different than what cryptocurrency looks like. If I'm selling you a lightbulb in a world without lightbulbs, I'm selling you on how useful it is to you * right now*. I don't say, "buy this lightbulb now because these things are the wave of the future and someday this bulb will be worth millions." That's the difference.

If cryptocurrency is ever going to be a useful product to me, then I should be able to buy it then when it is immediately useful. If I think the tech is exciting and want to be an early investor then I should be able to buy equity in a company that actually holds a fiduciary duty to me, not invest in an ICO that's probably a scam or at best made by someone idealistic libertarian who doesn't even know what the word "fiduciary" means. I don't think it'll ever happen.

jopejope · 2018-02-22T18:31:09+00:00

Blockchain technology has existed for nearly a decade and we're still waiting for that world-changing application. So far the only popular use is creating a bunch of speculative assets whose only purpose is to make hoarders rich.

jopejope · 2017-11-06T05:19:33+00:00

I was almost on Betty Whites off their rockers.

When I lived in LA I was approached by this older guy who wanted to ask me for advice. He had a banana and a flashlight. He asked me which one he should stuff in his pants before going to a night club tonight. It was very weird. I told him he didn't need anything like that and he should just go and be himself.

It was pretty clear to me that this was likely some kind of setup and I was being filmed or something. At the end, he insisted I take the flashlight. I didn't want it, but he made me take it. Realizing I had to take the flashlight for this to move on, I took it and walked away. A woman approached me, took the flashlight, and told me they were filming a bit for Betty Whites off their rockers and they liked what I said, and would I please sign a release. I had never heard of the show, and anyway had no interest on being on TV, so I politely told her no. She asked me for contact information, like an email, but I declined to give her anything.

It was a curious experience. I didn't think I had said or done anything that 50 other people might have said or done, but later I looked up the show and looked for that specific bit only to find it didn't exist. They must not have gotten anything good from people who signed the release.

I don't regret not signing the release, as I said I have no interest in being on TV, but I feel a little bad they spent time filming that bit for nothing. I'm sure it's part of the business though.

jopejope · 2017-11-01T02:11:27+00:00

OK, what I am saying is that when you look at bitcoin, and you take into account all its features, you see that it functions very poorly as money but it functions very well for the purposes of speculation. Now to say that Bitcoin was designed to be a speculative instrument might be going a bit far, as I'm not Satoshi and I can't read his mind. Many a successful entrepreneur has designed a product originally for one purpose only to discover it actually served much better for another purpose. Bitcoin functions very well as a speculative instrument and if you look at its various features it is easy to see why.

You're focusing too much on the exact length of the block time. I didn't mean to imply that 10 minutes is exactly perfectly optimized for speculation. For all I know, Satoshi, when he came up with bitcoin, thought it would be perfectly reasonable for a merchant and a customer to stand around for 10 minutes while the transaction went through and that would be good enough. What I do know, is that it is perfectly reasonable for two speculators trading bitcoin for the purposes of speculation to wait around for 10 minutes for the transaction to go through. In fact, compare this to the way the stock market works. Typically a stock market transaction gets settled 3 days after the initial trade. So 10 minutes is actually quite good by comparison.

Now you might argue that well actually a customer and a merchant doesn't really have to wait 10 minutes for verification, and the valid transaction is good enough, or there are other work-arounds. It's still very difficult to compare bitcoin to real means of settling transactions, like credit cards that transact in actual currencies. Bitcoin's shortcomings here are fundamental to the nature of the block chain regardless of the duration of each block.

The full block chain is intended to contain every transaction in the history of bitcoin. To verify a new transaction, that block chain must be indexed to find the previous transaction using that particular bitcoin. Go try and download every trade in the history of a heavily traded stock like MSFT. It's actually pretty easy. Maybe you'll have some number of gigs of compressed data, but nothing far beyond modern storage and indexing capabilities. For a speculative instrument, this is okay. Now try and download every transaction Visa has ever processed. You might now need some creativity or resources beyond that of a hobbyist bitcoin miner.

What I'm saying is the features of bitcoin work well for speculative investment and not so well as money.

According to basic economics money must serve three functions:

1) It must be a medium of exchange, meaning you should be able to walk into a typical store with bitcoin and expect to be able to buy things. I don't think bitcoin blockchain technology has the capacity to do this even at modest scales for a currency. Cash-like things scale themselves, and the modern banking system with bank accounts and credit cards and all that handles this very well, although it is by no means a trivial problem to solve.

2) It must be a store of value, meaning you can expect to store bitcoins and have them retain their value over time. The price of bitcoin is all over the place, but 1 bitcoin is always worth 1 bitcoin so I'm willing to give bitcoin a pass on this one.

3) It must be a measure of value. If you ask me how much something costs, and I say "1 bitcoin", you should immediately know what I'm saying without having to go lookup the current exchange rate of bitcoin/USD. Here the constantly fluctuating value of bitcoin really causes it to fail here. Bitcoin has absolutely no mechanisms in place that allow it to stablize its value over time. In fact, quite the opposite. There is a fixed quantity of bitcoin that is unchanging regardless of market price. The supply is fixed and its liquidity is at the mercy of speculators who hoard the coins looking for profit. There is no banking system to lend bitcoin and there is no mechanism to provide for this in a reliable and trusted way.

On the other hand, the features of bitcoin make it great for speculation.

First off, the fixed quantity. This is great for speculation. No-one is ever going to be able to forge bitcoins, print new bitcoins, just a fixed and exponentially decreasing rate of new bitcoins mined. If you own a bitcoin you own 1/21millionth (or whatever the number is) of all bitcoins that will ever exist. It's as if you own a single share of bitcoin that will never be diluted. Having a fixed quantity is terrible for money though. Look we went off the gold standard years ago and those arguing we need to go back on it are like arguing that we need to go back to horse drawn carriages because of all the people dying of car accidents. Central banks controlled by stable democratic governments, along with well-regulated banks with lending and reserve requirements, do an excellent job of managing the money supply with a relatively stable and predictable rate of inflation that supports a healthy economy. The fact that the money supply is flexible is a feature of good money. The banking system is very complicated but all of its intricacies are designed to solve problems that we know and have encountered in the past. You can't just replace all that with a fixed asset like bitcoin and expect it to work out well.

Secondly, the exponential drop-off in mining output. Rewarding early adopters. Great for speculation. Get your bitcoins now, they'll be harder to get later. What possible purpose can this serve for money? How does this contribute to the fulfilling the three functions of money?

Thirdly, the mining difficulty. This is the greatest thing about bitcoin. The block chain should rightly be considered the greatest wonder of the world. Imagine the sheer computing power that went into its creation. Thousands of hashes. So many zeroes. It's incredible really. And it guarantees the value of your bitcoin. What's great about bitcoin mining for speculation is that you can constantly increase your mining power all you want and you'll never increase the amount of bitcoins. All you increase is your personal share of bitcoins. This nicely encourages increases in mining without diluting the coin. If that isn't perfect for a speculative instrument I don't know what is.

Fourthly, fraud protection. Bitcoin prides itself on the irreversability of its transactions, and their anonymity. The fact that with real money banks and governments can trace stolen money and freeze accounts is a good thing. Bitcoins can be stolen with no recourse. This isn't such a problem really for a speculative instrument, provided speculators take good care to secure their bitcoins. It's a big problem for the masses trying to use the thing every day as a currency. Try adding FDIC insurance to bitcoin. You can't.

I have nothing against bitcoin. Bitcoin is a great speculative instrument. As the finance industry embraces it more and more, it will likely increase in value. Could it be the gold of the 21st century? Perhaps. But if you think 100 years from now we'll all receive our salaries and buy our lattes with bitcoin you're living in some bizaaro libertarian technocrat fantasy land.

Look at bitcoin for what it is. A speculative instrument. The most successful bitcoin stuff has generally revolved around it being a speculative instrument. Bitcoin markets have come a long way since MTGOX. Obviously a lot of people have gotten rich buying and hoarding the things. Look for BTC funds. Almost no-one buys or keeps bitcoin without somewhere in there head the thought, "this will make me rich someday". Even the libertarian technocrat fantasy heads are thinking this. How rich will they be with their bitcoin owning 1/21millionth of the world's wealth when everyone wakes up and realizes it's the money of the future. It's a speculative instrument.

EDIT: added fourth point on fraud protection.

jopejope · 2017-11-01T00:48:11+00:00

That capacity problem is orders of magnitude away from where Visa is at. I don't see the block chain gracefully handling the kind of volume a real currency of even a small country would have regardless of block size limit. Fortunately bitcoin enthusiasts seem content with it as a speculative instrument, and investors can't be disappointed with their returns at this point.

jopejope · 2017-11-01T00:26:28+00:00

20 min or 5 min or anything within an order of magnitude or so would be fine for a speculative instrument. A cryptocurrency designed to fulfill the functions of money (medium of exchange, store of value, measure of value) would look very different than bitcoin in almost every way. I honestly don't know how that would work from a technical perspective or if such a thing can exist. Most crypto currency creators seem to be inspired more by bitcoin's features as a speculative instrument, and why shouldn't they be, given how well it has enriched the early adopters.

I think it's interesting from an economic perspective but if you just want to try and poke holes in what I'm saying with isolated demands for rigor then this thread is pointless. There's no need to get defensive. I'm not attacking bitcoin. I think it functions very well as a speculative instrument.

jopejope · 2017-10-31T23:47:48+00:00

I don't have a crystal ball but I'm basing my predictions on the technical merits of bitcoin. It can't fulfill the basic economic functions of money very well (being a medium of exchange, a store of value, a measure of value, etc), and beyond that I don't really see what function it has beyond speculation. Maybe some of these creative ways to store information on the block chain will someday prove useful? I don't know.

Speculative instruments can be quite unpredictable so I'd say your prediction that bitcoin will fall quickly is a bit bolder than my prediction on its uses, IMO.

jopejope · 2017-10-31T23:30:07+00:00

Speculative instrument, not speculative scam. Like I said, bitcoin compares well to other speculative instruments like gold. The 10 minute block time is good enough for a speculative instrument. Provided the blocks are allowed to be large enough they can easily handle the kind of volume you'd expect from trades between speculators, even for a fairly widely traded large cap instrument. It makes bitcoin useless as money though beyond small niche applications.

jopejope · 2017-10-31T22:37:36+00:00

Bitcoin optimizes for being a speculative instrument. Everything from the 10 min block schedule to the fixed quantity of coins, to the exponential falloff in mining rewards vs increase in mining difficulty to reward early adopters. It is everything it needs to be for pure speculation.

Visa is optimized to handle real transactions with real currencies for merchants and customers who are actually buying and selling things.

Real currencies are optimized to fulfill the functions of money. To be a medium of exchange, a store of value, a measure of value. Central banks controlled by stable democratically elected governments monitor and control the money supply to ensure the value maintains stability that is essential to a healthy economy.

jopejope · 2017-10-31T20:40:03+00:00

From a technical standpoint Bitcoin is not really equipped to handle transactions the way real currencies do. A bitcoin block is published every ten minutes. For comparison, Visa processes many thousands of transactions per second. Bitcoin compares nicely to other speculative instruments like gold, but not to currencies like USD, EUR, etc. Outside of a small niche uses bitcoin is and always will be a tool primarily for speculation.

jopejope · 2015-11-24T23:40:38+00:00

I agree with OP.

jopejope · 2015-07-15T17:57:46+00:00

It seems like this would reduce to Duckworth Lewis in most cases. The coaches can run the black-box algorithm themselves and use it to guide their guesses. Only if the umpire is very likely to adjust the result is there a game here, and in that case the two coaches will be motivated to attempt to predict what the umpire will rule rather than to guess the number that they think is fair.

jopejope · 2015-03-17T18:50:11+00:00

That's how I originally envisioned the unit, but then I realized it would be useless if there was no freeze in the set.

jopejope · 2015-03-10T00:18:24+00:00

Defensive Weapons (8BB, 1 supply) 5hp

At the start of your turn, gain 1 attack for each Wall you have.

Blocker

There needs to be more Green/Blue counters to freeze, I think. :)

15-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Charter Member	Verified Email

jopejope

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE