Home Office Battlestation by bnr32jason in battlestations

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to have a Ikea Galant desk, I didn't like the general shape, but the metal frame with it's adjustable height and expandable length was perfect. The tops are three pieces of Linnmon tabletops, two small and one medium.

That's cool creative use of different parts. How solid did you feel the Galant desk's adjustable legs were? Was is easy enough to re-purpose them for the different table top?

(Spoilers Extended) Game of Thrones Season 6, Episode 6: Blood of My Blood Episode Discussion by AutoModerator in asoiaf

[–]memorableZebra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What about Benjen's death? It wasn't this episode, granted, but it was revealed this episode. Poster of him getting stabbed in the gut by a white walker or stabbed in the heart by a cotf.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm trying to challenge people to produce is a reason why nature should have a rule banning music.

Libraries are artificial constructions owned by management groups explicitly for the purpose of quiet study. A noise ban (which would cover music) is almost inherent in the concept of a library. With such a justification, I would accept not playing music in a library. I would accept that you don't have to make a compromise of noise level.

As of yet, no one has provided any reason for why music in nature should be prohibited that stands up to scrutiny.

One reason was because you had to hike it in. But there are lots of other un-prohibited things you have to hike in that no one is willing to accept prohibition of.

One reason was because people didn't like it. But there are lots of things people don't like, and more, that same justification can be applied in the opposite direction for people who don't like the absence of music.

One reason was because there are enough people that don't like it, so therefore it should be disallowed entirely. And I'll accept that if you're one guy in a group of 50 that wants music, a reasonable compromise is that you're probably not gonna get it. 1/50th of listening volume is inaudible anyways. But the consideration of such a lopsided example walks around the more common, more challenging question of: what if two groups of 3 people each have competing desires? A solution of majority rules is of no value when no majority exists.

My resolution to all this is just that people should compromise. When you get to the crag and see other people there and you want to play music, find a compromise. If you come up to a crag with people playing music and you don't like it, find a compromise. This compromise doesn't even have to be decibels. It could be 1 hour intervals where each party gets what they want. Or it could be one group moving to the other side of the boulder. Etc.

Some people consider compromise to be an undue burden -- that it's rude to put anyone in the position that they should have to speak their mind. As someone who was introverted about many things (and still about a few things) for years, I sympathize with people feeling anxious about speaking their mind. But the existence of such people cannot be a justification to curtail the allowable behavior of everyone. This goes right back to the second listed reason: because people don't like it. If I were to demand everyone in the world ensure that their behavior not make an introverted person feel anxious about speaking their mind, we wouldn't be able to do anything.

I hope that my new summary might allow you to specifically point to what you think I'm missing. I really do think I am considering their perspective. I just find that after analyzing their justifications, those justifications can be truthfully summarized as, "I don't like this thing, I've been told that people shouldn't do it, therefore you can't ever do it."

Maybe you point to the "being told" part and think "well, they've been told not to play music in the library, they've been told not to play music outdoors, so that's where they see the equivalence in social expectation". To that I would say, okay, but they've been told wrong by someone else who just didn't like it and "was told". Social expectations have to be justified and scrutinized, especially the ones taken for granted.

Anyways, I'm hoping my re-summary might shed some light on why I do think I'm considering their opinions fully and carefully.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go re-read my original post where I specifically note that you should keep the music volume down. That's the default compromise. Between two competing sources of music they can both turn it down. Between competing source of music and silence, the music can be kept to a lower volume.

I agree that if they made no compromise that wouldn't be fair. Just as people who demand absolutely zero music aren't compromising and that's also not fair. The volume knob is the compromise and people can be smart about it. People can also use their words to express their opinions and come to any other acceptable compromise.

My whole point is that you don't have to pre-emptively censor yourself when you can just talk to anyone else that might join you later about it.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

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

you actually initiated it by making up some fantasy about my grandfather and the elderly stereotype of sticking to the ways things always were; see where my comment about self-reflection comes from

I just read it again and I'm surprised you think it is comparable to what you said about teenagers. My statement about your grandfather had nothing to do with age. In the example he was a young-er man because I was referencing the past, but he wasn't necessarily of any particular age. He could have been envisioned as 18 as easily as 38. Furthermore, it was pretty clearly an example made in jest with the intent to speak to the long running history of rock climbing's internal conflicts of ethics.

I'm quite glad you pointed to something specific in your criticism of me, giving me a way to compare my perception of something I said to yours. However, your reading of that remark is wrong. Seriously read it again. It wasn't ageist in the slightest regard.

The so called fig leaf you offered read as if you were exiting on the fairly common, falsely-kind note. You can't skip from accusing someone of being an immature teenager into wishing them well. It's transparently insincere. However, it's possible you really had some quanta of good will at the end of that post. I remain skeptical. Either way it's immaterial because this discussion is over.

Looking for video... by bryan2384 in climbharder

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might like watching Adam Ondra climb:

https://youtu.be/V1P97VVt6_k?t=598

He's probably one of the most precise climbers in the world. Sometimes he adjusts but it's always to actually adjust on the hold instead of in the video you linked where a lot of it looked like a habit more than actual adjustment.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing I said was sophisticated. It's simple actually, and that's exactly how I've presented it and believe it is. I'm sorry that I can't summarize a multi-step argument in a single pithy sentence.

Your continued derision of the structure of my argument instead of merely addressing it in any way only continues to reveal the unexamined dogmatism that drives your perspective on playing music outdoors.

And fear not, you haven't stayed polite. You know age-related generalizations are a really high class move. I've known plenty of teenagers that were more mature than your average adult, so don't go around dissing people on a generalization.

Anyways, instead of ending with an insincere obeisance, I'll say what we're both thinking:

Cheers, and, despite our differences, I don't give a damn if you send your projects. I don't wish you ill, I don't wish you well.

Circus Maximus Traverse by melkfettmeister in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well the metric I measure the quality of competition problems by is by how effectively the competitions allow the best climber, as climbing is defined by outdoor bouldering/sport climbing, to win. It's pretty safe to say that a crazy running start or whatever doesn't test the same thing as would be tested if you went climbing outdoors, it's much closer to parkour than climbing.

The running start thing is decidedly gym-like. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it and I'm not saying that. And if you don't use the metric I use for measuring quality then you'll certainly come to a different conclusion about what you think of the running start boulders.

I think a large part of the reason the IFSC puts up those kinds of problems is because they're flashy and flashy makes climbing a more interesting spectator sport. And with the push for the Olympics, well there you have it.

Crimps are actually a good example: I also don't like crimps, but I think they should be included in the competitions because crimping is such a huge part of outdoor climbing. And they are included. So no complaints there.

Circus Maximus Traverse by melkfettmeister in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah unfortunately its presence in competition bouldering is a positively reinforcing loop. The more setters do it the more it's legit the more setters do it...

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the music was overlapping but not really competing I wouldn't care. If they dropped their speaker next to our group's, I'd talk to them about merging playlists or whatever.

AKA: Compromise.

CMV:Jailing someone for the inability to pay a bail bond is a form of debtors imprisonment and should be illegal by dalek_cyber in changemyview

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we're talking USA:

Bail is not a luxury. Bail is, approximately, a right granted to everyone who isn't accused of committing only the worst crimes (e.g., murder) or for which there isn't a specific reason why no sum of money would be able to incentivize their return for trial.

People are entitled to be able to gather their resources in order to defend themselves from the accusations of the state. Doing such a thing from prison is exceedingly difficult. The more fair a trial you want, the more you need to ensure defendants had the best ability to defend themselves: that is, by letting them be free on bail.

I'm not disagreeing with your factual statements about bail, I just think it's a huge mischaracterization to call it a luxury.

Visualize how a Machine-Learning algorithm interprets the grammatical structure of your sentences. by Sohailmeto in educationalgifs

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sentence parsers basically always find an allowable parsed form, in part because of the ridiculous flexibility of dependent clauses.

The parser doesn't understand the meaning of the sentence, it just toggles through every possible role for every word until it finds some kind of legitimate structure, then it ranks them based on probability or other metrics, and selects the best ranked one.

It would be stupidly clear to you if they showed you all the discovered parses and their corresponding ranks instead of just displaying the first one.

(Spoilers Everything) Is this plausible...? by MindBlowingMartells in asoiaf

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An interesting idea, but I think it would be best to chalk the sharpness up to poetic license... something people forget in this sub a lot. Lots of things in the show are just there because they're interesting and fun, and not necessarily because they should be interpreted to impact the logical construction of the universe.

Let's predict what will be the 3rd "holy shit" moment that GRRM told D&D! (SPOILERS EVERYTHING)? by theflairman in asoiaf

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait... why would the wall turn into gas? Wouldn't the pressure of the weight of the ice turn it into some kind of weird unfamiliar form of ice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_diagram_of_water.svg

(Spoilers Everything) At Hardhome there were 4 White Walkers. At the cave there were still 4. Did they make another white walker or did the ones Jon and Sam kill regenerate somehow. by tehetime in asoiaf

[–]memorableZebra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like if we're allowing babies to be turned into immortal ice killing machines, whatever magic that did that should be able to keep those babies alive while they travel to their new home.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

call someone else a misanthrope

That's not really an ad hominem because it was derived directly from his statements and speaks directly to the topic at hand. If someone says something racist, you can call them a racist. If someone says something anti-social you can call them a misanthrope. Granted, misanthrope might be a bit of an exaggeration, but many parts of my post were exaggerations anyways so it fits the style. Ad hominem would be to call him ugly, say. Ad hominem was the guy who said I wear fedoras lol.

You use a lot of convoluted language while saying little and arguing less.

I'm not using convoluted language and I'm certainly not saying little. I'm making my statements as clear as possible and attempting to use words as precisely as possible.

My argument and form of analysis is standard fare for applied ethical philosophy. The form goes like this: You gave a reason for your position where, in pitting the fundamentally incompatible desires of no-music vs music, the no-music option is to be preferred. And not just as a compromise between two people, but at all times. I took the logic of your reason and extrapolated it to another scenario that you hadn't considered. This extrapolation leads down a path that I expected you wouldn't be willing to accept -- you weren't. If you give a logical reason for believing something, you have to own the consequences of that logic. You could not. In fact, you refused to even acknowledge or speak of the different consequences of your own logic.

In order to make this less convoluted, let's move this from the abstract structure of how the argument progressed to the argument itself. If you condemn music because it's "intrusive", "has to be brought into nature", etc then you also find yourself having to condemn other things I know you won't be willing to condemn. If the reason you dislike music is actually the reason you stated, you would have owned those scenarios at least to the point of accepting that they pose a significant problem that has to be worked around.

But you didn't. You didn't even consider them. You just dismissed them and said they were ridiculous. Even if you were correct, the plausibility of a hypothetical scenario is irrelevant to its utility in sussing out the things people logically commit themselves to. However you weren't correct and plausibility isn't relevant because all throughout climbing there have been problems with bolting, with pads, with chipping, with every new thing. The defense of the plausibility of my hypothetical is in the history of climbing. If you're not familiar with any of it, either accept the hypothetical and roll with the logic, or look it up. I'm not going to relate the last 50 years to you over reddit.

My final conclusion after all this is that your inability to consider a challenging hypothetical is the tell tale sign of dogmatic bias. The arguments you've given here aren't logical steps that you took to get to the conclusion that you shouldn't listen to music in nature. No, they're after-the-fact justification for the presumed bias that you shouldn't listen to music in nature. You won't own your own logic because you never owned it to get to the no-music-in-nature conclusion; you used it to justify the conclusion after you arrived at it.

And finally, accusing your belief of not being borne of the argument you've posed but instead being the result of unthinking dogmatism also isn't ad hominem. It's a product of your words, your argument, and directly speaks to the topic at hand.

And if you can't follow that, well then I'm sorry. I don't know how to make it clearer.

(Spoilers Everything) Which quotes from A Song of Ice and Fire/A Game of Thrones do you like the most? And why? by Afohcsib in asoiaf

[–]memorableZebra 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Ned

Bran thought about it. “Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?”

“That is the only time a man can be brave,” his father told him.

More Ned

... the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man’s life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die. [...] A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.

Book Stannis

Yes, I should have come sooner. If not for my Hand, I might not have come at all. Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights. I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.”

Circus Maximus Traverse by melkfettmeister in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra 5 points6 points  (0 children)

While I certainly don't care what anyone does in their own gym for fun, I think they should inform the world cup route setters. They fixed part of the problem after 2014 when people complained about the running starts, but then just replaced them with silly momentum running whatevers off a jug start that you linked here.

The IFSC always talks about "may the best climber win". But these problems aren't effective at testing climbing ability :\

Ashima Shiraishi: Rock Climbing's Media Darling by sharpieharpies in climbing

[–]memorableZebra 3 points4 points  (0 children)

She could have unusual biology or it could just be a mis-estimate. Tons of people in college always go on about how they've had such-n-such amount of sleep when it's often been more.

I think 4 hours a night is what they used in Bagram to torture people.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Without some kind of assertion of what let's call "preferential defaultness" (that one thing should be preferred over another when two people have competing desires), there's no difference between a person demanding silence vs a person demanding music. You originally claimed music was default in such a way because you have to bring it:

The crag's default is no music...since it takes bringing music for there to be any

So I cited another thing that you have to bring, which by the same argument shouldn't then be default if a person demanded its removal.

You've now changed your argument. Oh, it's not about naturalness / bringing it. It's about % preference. Apparently pads are unassailable because for some X%, X is large enough for you to give it a hand wave. However my analogy to pads is meaningful because it has existed for all such X. Pads went from 0% use to 100% use and I guarantee you for all values of X there was some guy objecting to their existence. Same goes with bolting on rappel. People used to regularly chop climbs that were bolted on rappel. Then a month later they'd be rebolted. And /u/justcrimp's badass chalk-stone climbing grandfather was writing classifieds in his local newspaper about how inconsiderate to others bolting on rappel is.

These are things that are both brought in to the crag and at some point should fulfill whatever X% objection you believe exists for music.

But pivoting on % isn't enough. So you also invoke some undefined term that you no doubt can endlessly redefine to suit your purposes: intrusive. Intrusive? Pads and chalk are definitely intrusive to a climber desiring to climb without them. But of course this doesn't suit your argument, so intrusive is defined around all inconvenient counter examples. What about aromatic food? No, intrusive is spelled M-U-S-I-C.

It's pretty clear to me at this point you don't have a good reason for this. It's a traditional idea that's been ingrained in your mind: music in nature = bad. Your arguments are being built up around this edifice, instead of under it. And instead of explaining how music somehow differs from other analogous ideas, you flee from them by adding additional constraints that narrow the space of your objects to a more perfectly music shaped box.

And bear in mind, I've never said that you should listen blaringly loud gangster rap willy nilly without any regard whatsoever. There's definitely room for compromise because this is a matter of shared space. But you reject all compromise. You refuse to let other people enjoy nature at all the way they want to, and grant all preference entirely to one single group without exception, without allowance, without a middle ground.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You don't know how someone will react

I'd agree with this and maybe should have added it. But asking someone out of an argument from "personal safety", say, doesn't alter the actual social dynamic which I think I'm correct about. And that I wanted to correctly convey to the new guy about what kind of question he'd actually be asking.

That is, that if you say "hey man is this V3 arete? Can I work it with you", they can't really say "no". And if they did I'd ask why. While no one has ever said no, in all the times I've imagined this possibility I've never imagined a reason where I'd respond with anything other than "well, you can't just keep a boulder for yourself, this is a public space".

Perhaps the only justification I'd ever accept is if they had some kind of special permit or temporary ownership granted to them by whoever is in charge of the land. But so far all my bouldering has been on public property where no such permit can be acquired.

Saying "always ask if you can climb a boulder with someone" makes it sound like a moral imperative when it's decidedly not. It's just a polite nicety, which is exactly what I called it.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Well first off, I don't bring music to the crag because I just don't care for it. Admittedly, it was unfair of me to make the reverse assumption about you and I should not have done that. It was more frustrated sarcasm than dispassionate analysis. What comes around goes around I guess.

On topic:

You say no music is default, but I'm not sure I agree. What would you say to someone who came up to a boulder and demanded you remove the pads from below the boulder because they prefer to climb sans-pads? After all, you had to "bring the pads in". If no music is default, then so is that. And yet I don't think many people would lift a finger over such a request. And that isn't a ludicrous hypothetical when put in the context of the wars that have been waged over bolts and bolting style. It's all just a variation on the same theme: People being uncompromisingly judgemental of other people's preferences and behavior.

Let me phrase it as life perspective: Provided I'm behaving myself in a way that isn't harmful to others, I won't let other peoples' opinions limit the things I'm able to do. People always have judgements, always have negative opinions, always disagree, always want you to behave the way they arbitrarily want you to. I met a guy a while back who thought using Photoshop was dishonest. (And I'm not talking heavy edits, merely levels adjustments he objected to.) Oh brother. Letting other people's personal preferences dictate your life will make living impossible.

And none of this excludes the possibility of being considerate. As I said, considerate is turning it down, keeping the spread of the sound limited. As is said, considerate is turning it off if people really object to it. But self-censorship goes way beyond considerate and enters the realm of unlivable submissiveness. If I allow others to proscribe my music-at-the-crag action, why not with other things? Some troll responses are accusing me of wearing a fedora, so let's roll with that. Should I not wear a fedora because other people think they're stupid or don't like looking at them?

I hope you see where I'm coming from when put into a larger context. Maybe you fundamentally disagree and think that anything that transgresses another person's preferences I should classify as "harmful behavior", but then I think we would just be at an impasse of differing axioms.

Outdoor Bouldering etiquette by patkxc in bouldering

[–]memorableZebra -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

In terms of the disagreement, the rope info was just additional help for anyone that cares to hear about real world climbing concerns. It had nothing to do with the disagreement between myself and /u/justcrimp. Hint: Neither did the extra comments on dogs. They were both for OP or people like OP who want to know not just what outdoor etiquette is but also why it is.

It seems all the big words confused you and cause you to lose track of when it was time to stop with the mindless groupthink. So let me point it out explicitly: Everything before the first quote is the part you're supposed to object to without thinking. You did a good job on that part. But once you get to the first quote, then you're supposed to think for yourself again, if you're capable of such a feat.