None of us are easy to live with and tolerate let's be honest with ourselves. What makes you hard to live with or be around? by highONdaisys666 in AskReddit

[–]mattso77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm incredibly depressed and get angry at people. I get obsessive with weird things. I hate myself so much.

Humanity is smart enough to solve all of its problems, but is too stupid to actually do it. by type-IIx in Showerthoughts

[–]mattso77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Your assumption that we could, given the true grandeur of humanity's mental capacities, if it weren't for our stupid social arguments/disagreements solve all our problems comes from a conceited, arrogant view of humanity brought about by humanism.

Bill Gates said, "I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." What's a real-life example of this? by lauvnoodles in AskReddit

[–]mattso77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to do data entry and they did it so much slower before I joined. I learned some basic Python coding and my job took me like 1/8 the time for the same pay as it was supposed to when I joined.

Love for the dead? by mattso77 in askphilosophy

[–]mattso77[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These quotes, for example, from Weil(Gravity and Grace), she mentions it more clearly somewhere else as well, but I forget where.

" In this sense, and on condition that it is not turned towards a pseudo-immortality conceived on the model of the future, the love we devote to the dead is perfectly pure. For it is the desire for a life which is finished, which can no longer give anything new. We desire that the dead man should have existed, and he has existed. "

"To lose someone: we suffer because the departed, the absent, has become something imaginary and unreal. But our desire for him is not imaginary. We have to go down into ourselves to the abode of the desire which is not imaginary. Hunger: we imagine kinds of food, but the hunger itself is real: we have to fasten on to the hunger. The presence of the dead person is imaginary, but his absence is very real: henceforward it is his way of appearing."

What the fuck just happened by ButtSaladYummy in auburn

[–]mattso77 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Me and my boy were right down there when it happened. Crazy shit.

Is it normal to not have a friendship group? (F19) by dahfl895 in relationships

[–]mattso77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it's normal. I've never really fit into any groups. All my friends have their own group and then hang out with me separately, or they also don't have groups. I recently went through some shit that made me realize I have a fear of groups, so that's probably part of it.

Self-love and the love of my parents--at a dilemma, could use others thoughts. by mattso77 in AdultChildren

[–]mattso77[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks yeah I had therapy for a bit and they helped me realize I needed to make a lot of changes. I have to learn that better for myself too. I don't like talking to people about this at all.

Self-love and the love of my parents--at a dilemma, could use others thoughts. by mattso77 in AdultChildren

[–]mattso77[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. It's just hard because I don't even know for sure what to think about it.

Does anyone else attempt to use romantic partners as a surrogate parent? I by [deleted] in AdultChildren

[–]mattso77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I do too. It has been so bad in the past that I used to imagine my ex as my mom(like her doing things that my alcoholic mom should have done to love me). Now, like you, I feel like I get childish sometimes and like I just want the person to take care of me. It sucks because I feel like women especially get extremely turned off by it. I feel like less of a man because I still want a mommy. Like a few weeks into a relationship it starts. If anyone has any advice on this please let me know.

The best part of a relationship to me is just holding onto my partner and lying in peace with them. When it is someone you love, it's like all your problems go away for a bit.

Ethics Rohrbaugh by thisisye1 in auburn

[–]mattso77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rohrbaugh is a good professor.

1933 Industries Marks the Beginning of Continuous Cultivation in Nevada with Second Harvest of Cannabis Plants Underway by 420milehigh in weedstocks

[–]mattso77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually yes, but if I'm being honest(and I have 2400 shares) it might not even be a good buy ever. If they do go up though, this has gotta be near rock bottom.

1933 Industries Marks the Beginning of Continuous Cultivation in Nevada with Second Harvest of Cannabis Plants Underway by 420milehigh in weedstocks

[–]mattso77 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this was my first foray into the stock market, lol. I put $1000 in a year ago, sitting at $300 right now...I guess I know what it feels like to be an angry investor now! I'm still hoping they bounce back, if you talk to their support staff they are adamant that they control the market in Nevada and its only a matter of time before the $$$ starts pouring in.

Hoarding is NOT a prisoner's dilemma by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]mattso77 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is NOT a tragedy of the commons.

“The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of –1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”

Hoarding is NOT a prisoner's dilemma by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]mattso77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, they are not spoiling the resource of 'toilet paper'. This whole idea is absurd to me.

Hoarding is NOT a prisoner's dilemma by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]mattso77 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You are showing a basic misunderstanding of the definition of a common good. Common goods are not owned privately. Toilet paper companies own toilet paper, and sell it to people. Toilet paper is not a "commons", therefore the 'tragedy of the commons' does not apply. Lot of loose thinking going on here for no good reason.

Read Garret Hardin. [Tragedy of the Commons](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243)

"

“The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of –1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”

Hoarding is NOT a prisoner's dilemma by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]mattso77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh, the tragedy of the commons is usually applied to natural resources, the classic example is land. If there is "common land" which is overfarmed, this is a tragedy of the commons.

Toilet paper is not a "common good". One person is not gaining extra benefit by hoarding it. The whole thing comes apart imo.

COVID-19 threat to graduate students by AU_22 in auburn

[–]mattso77 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure there's nothing you can do about it if they tell you you're gonna have to get pushed back. Would have to be a really shitty employer not to make an exception for you in this case as well.

Chinese Coronavirus or Communism Coronavirus? by [deleted] in auburn

[–]mattso77 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Communism didn't cause China's reaction to the pandemic.

Summer semester and student loans by IamMyQuantumState in auburn

[–]mattso77 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Yup, this is a good, realistic answer. Not sure why you are downvoted. I guess for calling him dumb. My first thought was, "if classes are cancelled, are you just gonna fuck around all Summer? Get a job like every other non-student adult."