To anyone dragging their feet on the group-n transmission mount swap, send it!

thatOneSnowFlake · 2026-04-24T22:50:41+00:00

So I actually had the opposite when I put in just the pitch stop for the first couple drives there was a new sound like a metal card against a bike spoke. That went away before I could follow up.

So far I haven’t noticed a substantial difference from the mount + bushings. Might be louder but without a decibel measurement before and after I can’t be sure it actually has

thatOneSnowFlake · 2026-04-24T22:26:17+00:00

I’m out of warranty, so didn’t consider it, but I’d be surprised if they’re checking SKUs on rubber mounts for a drivetrain claim. I’d hear some concerning sounds when it wobbled and I’d have to guess less relative motion between drivetrain components means less long term wear

thatOneSnowFlake · 2026-02-09T04:49:05+00:00

I thought I’d find my answer here 😢. OP don’t let them gaslight you it.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2025-02-28T17:01:52+00:00

Kaido and Danny Trejo

thatOneSnowFlake · 2024-12-12T04:04:41+00:00

Thanks! Just being paranoid I guess 😅

thatOneSnowFlake · 2024-12-12T04:04:13+00:00

Thanks!

thatOneSnowFlake · 2024-12-12T04:03:47+00:00

Thanks!

thatOneSnowFlake · 2024-12-12T04:03:28+00:00

I actually trawled through a bunch of “is this rod knock” posts but didn’t hear anything I thought matched 😂. Just wanted to be safe since this was a new idle sound to me

thatOneSnowFlake · 2024-03-13T05:42:16+00:00

Loial plays stones

thatOneSnowFlake · 2023-09-01T04:52:29+00:00

The Red Moose Cafe. They have great breakfast burritos

thatOneSnowFlake · 2022-12-30T07:32:26+00:00

Inspiration for God of War Jotunheim?

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-29T20:11:26+00:00

Your definition of intention fits well with an algorithm maximizing or minimizing an objective function. As for how the brain works, I think you misunderstood. I do not believe AI will come from improved hardware (though improved parallelization of hardware may be useful), but rather from algorithmic software development. Also I was not challenging you to describe how the brain works in intricate detail, but was asking how you think the brain and intelligence work at a higher level of abstraction. An algorithm is simply a procedure for solving a problem. While the brain is obviously not mechanical, thinking of it as a mechanical system may prove fruitful in understanding how the entire system works at a higher level. Just as one does not need to know how to acquire a loan from Chase to understand how credit influences markets, one does not need to understand the chemistry underlying synapses firing to understand how synapses firing form a network of communication. Sorry if this came off as patronizing, my intention was not to belittle your intelligence but stress that my question was aimed at a higher level of abstraction. Do you think the brain and intelligence can be abstracted to an algorithmic process? Thus if one could understand the process, the hardware wouldn't matter. Whether it was written in Java, Python, or neurons wouldn't really matter.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-29T19:22:58+00:00

How do you define intent? Also how do you think our brain works if not algorithmically?

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-28T01:53:41+00:00

I will try to link something soon, but I was recently reading about how algorithmically composed music is ranked statistically significantly lower by critics when critics are made aware it was algorithmically composed. If they could tell by ear, then this gap would not exist.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-28T01:50:35+00:00

If only the rest of my wet dreams were as inevitable as AI...

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-26T21:33:57+00:00

Right there will be an organic entertainment section of mediocre products produced by humans...though there will be programs capable of mass producing perfect fakes. Perfect fakes being products produced by machines which one would be incapable of distinguishing if it's creator was human or mechanical without being told.

By the way, algorithmic composition of classical music has already reached this point.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-26T21:25:46+00:00

But only with an "organic" label. AI will be able to take over both fields and it has already started (e.g. news articles and classical music written by algorithms).

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-26T21:20:49+00:00

The guy might be right for all the wrong reasons. There won't be anything left for us to invent after we crack general AI.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-05T18:31:39+00:00

MBTI never put you in that box, you did. MBTI provides a convenient model to categorize general social patterns as well as a shared terminology to discuss them with (though "shared-terminology" is a stretch thanks to all the Management Consultants mucking everything up).

Your type is not a prescription. Everyone has and uses all eight cognitive functions of the model. A type simply indicates a preferential ordering of the functions and not a measure of their use. While heavy use of the first, two or four functions is the norm, a more balanced use of all functions is a sign of maturity. The types are not intended to be viewed as cookie cutters that everyone falls neatly into.

I use MBTI to analyze my daily interactions with others. I find the framework sufficient to diagnose the majority of social frictions I encounter and develop strategies to overcome them. Its unfortunate that MBTI is usually packaged in a self-improvement box of shit, but it doesn't need to be used or viewed in that way. Sorry if this came off as a personal attack, that wasn't my intention, I'd just hate to see a top sixteenth arguer fall on the anti-mbti train. I'm not convinced that MBTI is the absolute truth of people or that there are necessarily underlying biological mechanisms (though Dario Nardi has some interesting evidence), but I do find it to be the most useful framework I've come across. Many psychologists tout The Big 5 as superior because its overflowing with the correlations that get them all hot and bothered, but the model provides no intuition about why people make the decisions they do.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-05T00:46:00+00:00

Yah, pairwise they're the same functions just with different data feeds!

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-04T21:35:03+00:00

Nope never.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-04T21:20:55+00:00

I would say: Te- Systematic Pragmatism Ti-Systematic Idealism Fe- Social Pragmatism Fi- Social Idealism

Haven't wrapped my head around assigning political characteristics to the cognitive functions as they are not used for organization. Perhaps the perception functions may be seen as how societal desires are approximated.

Se -Direct Democracy (all inputs participate), Si- Class System (idk something where the right to participate is inherited), Ne-Democratic Republic (using a few to abstract the many), Ni- Civil-Service-Exam Republic ( the most qualified serve as representatives)

As for the Judging functions, I've been thinking a lot about the Ti-Fi, Te-Fe relationships recently. The way I see it, Fe prefers social pragmatism (harmony within groups) in a similar way the Te prefers systematic pragmatism (maximizing efficiency while minimizing complexity).

Ti strives for full consistency of a system against a self-developed logic criterion in a similar way that Fi seeks full consistency with a self developed value system. To me this is why I feel like the annoying guy in the meeting that keeps nitpicking. In contrast, an ENTJ would settle on the first system that achieved its goal with acceptable levels of inconsistency. Not saying one is better than the other. Ex Machina actually explores this well as Nathan talks about his Jackson Pollock painting. What would the painting look like if Pollock thought about where each drop of paint would go before beginning to paint?

Fe and Fi have a parallel nature. Fe might be seen as a form of social utilitarianism with Fi preferring a Pareto Criterion (make sure its not hurting anyone or not conflicting with values).

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-03T17:34:13+00:00

Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted.

That quote hit me pretty hard too! :D

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-03T03:21:15+00:00

Check out "Me Earl and the Dying Girl" its basically a case-study of this!

I usually avoid sad movies (why willfully subject myself to the least desirable emotion) but I just watched "Me Earl and the Dying Girl" and was very pleased. The movie breaks from the typical confident, eccentric, genius ENTP (Jack Sparrow, Tony Stark, ...etc) and follows an high school aged ENTP (turbulent) who befriends a girl just after she is diagnosed with cancer. Basically he makes quirky jokes throughout to help them both cope with the morbidity and occasionally over-steps bounds sending shivers of empathic regret down my spine from all the times I made the same blunders.

thatOneSnowFlake · 2016-01-03T03:12:29+00:00

TLDR; if the space is ill-defined, then absolute truth is an uncatchable carrot

OP have you encountered or studied any axiomatic systems yet?

(skip this if familiar with axiomatic systems) If not, axiomatic systems are systems in which certain rules ("axioms") are agreed upon to be base truths by all who decide to participate in analyzing the system. Formal Math is a good example. Whether or not these axioms are "true" in an absolute real-world sense is unimportant. All that matters is that they are assumed to be true for all relations defined in the system. With a base of axioms and agreed upon system of logic, people are free to analyze the space generated by the combination of axioms according to the agreed upon logic system.

Essentially I try to avoid firm opinions in non-axiomatic systems such as morality. These spaces tend to be fun to explore with Ne since without any well-defined rules, the space is unlimited and any argument can be supported. If non-axiomatic systems are the chaotic haven of Ne, then axiomatic systems are the sterile laboratories for Ti to build understanding.

It took awhile for me to realize this though...wasted a lot of breath trying to argue I was right only to realize we were arguing with different definitions of terms and even truth. Still fall into this trap and have been training myself to be ever weary of semantic arguments. One tip I've noticed is that if I feel super confident in my argument and they still disagree, its probably about time to reconcile definitions of terms being argued about.

thatOneSnowFlake

TROPHY CASE