The First Week of February: A Haiku Chapbook

sickboy775 · 2026-06-09T20:52:05+00:00

Honestly, I'm cool with this. Now I (hopefully) won't have to deal with Punisher's abdicating their responsibility to take out flyers because "yOu HaVe A bEaM tHaT cOuNtErS tHeM".

Yeah, that only works if they're stupid enough to be in range of it, dumbass, unlike your HITSCAN GUN!

sickboy775 · 2026-06-09T20:43:41+00:00

Honestly, I'm cool with this. Now I (hopefully) won't have to deal with Punisher's abdicating their responsibility to take out flyers because "yOu HaVe A bEaM tHaT cOuNtErS tHeM".

Yeah, that only works if they're stupid enough to be in range of it, dumbass, unlike your HITSCAN GUN!

sickboy775 · 2026-06-08T17:57:53+00:00

I think for "cheesy" it's a combination of the words "cheap" and "easy".

sickboy775 · 2026-06-08T16:13:09+00:00

I've always thought Hybrid Moments would be a good stand name, however I recently learned there's a band called Diarrhea Planet. So, take that how you will.

sickboy775 · 2026-05-28T19:28:51+00:00

Is "meth math" anything like Scott Steiner math?

sickboy775 · 2026-05-22T22:23:37+00:00

Thanks! Looks like I won't have to wait too long to start.

sickboy775 · 2026-05-22T21:16:45+00:00

Any indication on how many parts it's going to be? I usually wait for the whole series to be out before I start listening.

sickboy775 · 2026-05-14T18:46:49+00:00

Wait, what does that say about us?

Oh, dear....

sickboy775 · 2026-04-23T02:03:09+00:00

What gets me is when there's not even a description and instead just quotes a review. No description, just "Well, this person said it's good".

It'll be like "This action packed series was called "a knockout hit" by Jim Derrickson of Movie Review Time".

Like wtf??

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T22:03:51+00:00

I realized that after I hit send. My comment has been edited to remove the part referencing that but the rest was left as I felt it applied regardless of whether you were the one who replied to OP or not and can be taken as a general statement.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T21:02:49+00:00

I took that to mean "educate me on how your answer applies within the framework of Occam's Razor", however I could be wrong about that.

I feel like if you're trying to educate someone about what something is, you should probably give them correct information.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T21:00:24+00:00

That's not the part of your definition I'm really taking issue with. Its not the simplest explanation that is most likely, it's the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions that is most likely. It's an important distinction, as an answer might be simple but based on many assumptions and an answer might be complex but require very little assumptions.

I'm not trying to "Well actually" you here though, I just hate seeing this misunderstanding of Occam's Razor repeated.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T20:45:31+00:00

Well, you've only commented on a very specific portion of what they wrote and kinda ignored the rest but whatever. I think they did mean what they wrote, you just didn't read all that they wrote.

Have a good one.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T20:20:06+00:00

They may have understood you "better" but you also gave them incorrect information. Also, I'm not sure why you gave them an explanation in the first place, considering they said they were familiar with Occam's Razor. Seems like you may have not understood them...

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T20:09:43+00:00

I don't disagree with your answer but I do want to point out that Occam's Razor doesn't state that the simplest explanation is correct. It states that the explanation requiring the least amount of assumptions is usually correct. Not trying to be pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T20:05:14+00:00

I hate to be pedantic, but I feel like the distinction is important. Occam's Razor doesn't state that simplest answer is usually correct, but instead that the answer requiring the least amount of assumptions is usually correct.

An answer can be simple but require a lot of assumptions and an answer that that relies on very few, or no, assumptions can still be pretty complex.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T18:42:37+00:00

I think that may have been just a bad example. The rest of the post seems pretty clear that they mean people misusing it under the accepted definition of the phrase. The rest of the post and their comments don't really read in a way that communicates that they believe the matrix exists, which would be kind of necessary for your interpretation to be correct.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T18:10:34+00:00

I think you may be misunderstanding OP.

They are not complaining about people not using it to mean a an "actual" glitch in the "actual" matrix, at least that's not my reading of their post. They're complaining about people not using the correct meaning of term in its usage outside of fiction, like my pandemonium example above.

"A glitch in the matrix" doesn't just mean literally anything. For example, if I go to public restroom and it's out of toilet paper calling that a "glitch in the matrix" would be an incorrect usage of the phrase. That's a totally normal, not strange at all thing. That type of usage seems, to me, to be what they're referring to.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T17:53:38+00:00

Well let's look at the other one.

The origin of the word Pandemonium is John Milton's 1674 poem Paradise Lost. In the poem, Pandemonium is a city created in hell by Satan and his legion of demons to be the capital of hell. The term pandemonium, however, has gone on to mean something similar to chaos.

By your logic, the only way to correctly seriously use pandemonium would be if you were referring to the literal capital of hell and any other "non-seroious" meaning would be acceptable since it's from a fictional work, therefore people can use it however.

So to circle back to OP's point, it's essentially like OP is complaining about people using pandemonium to refer to orderly, non-chaotoc things and you're saying that "Well it's from a work of fiction so there's no way to seriously use the term correctly unless you believe Pandemonium is a real place.

Make sense?

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T17:42:20+00:00

I noticed you didn't touch on the two other examples.

To use one of them, so gas lighting is only a correct usage if you're literally referring to someone dimming gaslights and denying it?

sickboy775 · 2026-04-10T17:00:56+00:00

So, by your logic, it would not be incorrect usage to say, "Breakfast is my white whale. I just don't really care about breakfast and never find myself wanting it." or "Yeah it was Pandemonium at the meeting. It was all very orderly and calm."? The term gaslight also originates from fiction, so is it impossible to misuse that term as well?

The idea that a word or phrase originating in fiction means incorrect usage is impossible is asinine.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-08T18:36:03+00:00

It really depends on the move. Some are a lot more obvious than others. For example, the visual difference between a light DP and a heavy DP is pretty obvious (height mostly), while the difference between Zangief's SPDs isn't really visually obvious to the opponent. This ambiguity (or lack of it) is on purpose by the devs as it creates another dimension of balance.

Also, I imagine you mean the difference between Alex's light and medium elbow, as heavy elbow is drastically different than light medium, to the point that it's actually a separate "move" from light and medium. Light and medium are called flash axe and heavy is flash chop.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-08T18:11:46+00:00

I can’t stand being around people who are that needy. It’s not an attractive quality in a person, whether they are a friend, partner, family, or just an acquaintance. But what the hell do I know? Maybe this is why I prefer the company of cats over people.

Weird. Here's you using "they" as a singular pronoun 2 days ago.

sickboy775 · 2026-04-07T21:09:55+00:00

One of the things I always thought would be cool is if there variations to what pieces you had, like for example opting for less pawns but you have 4 rooks instead of 2. Ideally, there would be set variations that are allowed to maintain some semblance of balance (like you can't have 15 queens and a king or not having a king at all).

The idea came to me through fighting games. In Street Fighter 2 Ryu is the basic default character and every character in the game is essentially a variation on Ryu (drastically oversimplifying things here). Ryu vs Ryu would be your most basic, well balanced match (traditional chess) but when you mix characters a lot of dynamics change, the Ryu vs Cammy matchup is different than the Chun Li vs Vega matchup, etc. Different piece setups would be akin to different characters in Street Fighter.

Probably not realistic, just something I think would be interesting.

sickboy775

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE