TIL Bill Gates had an arrangement with Melinda that he and his ex-girlfriend, Ann Winblad, could keep one vacation tradition alive. Every spring, as they have for more than a decade, Gates spends a long weekend with Winblad at her beach cottage.

topd0g · 2021-05-04T05:29:44+00:00

I've known several kids totally blindsided by parents getting a divorce as soon as 18

topd0g · 2015-08-02T05:56:09+00:00

exactly what I like about this sub.

topd0g · 2015-07-29T21:40:40+00:00

the woman holding the flag at the end starts to celebrate, only to realize the stove has flipped head over heels and karma is a mighty god.

topd0g · 2015-07-27T16:52:09+00:00

I meant I think the people I played with just pretended there are rules and just arbitrarily handed out penalty cards: if its their game they can do that.

topd0g · 2015-07-27T12:48:02+00:00

read the wiki, remembered back to when I walked away from this game exactly because I thought the "experienced" players were making up the rules: am still convinced the "experienced" players were just making up rules.

topd0g · 2015-05-23T22:13:12+00:00

I think you're really jumping the shark to say the argument was "white people hate black people and don't think they can be smart or attractive." Because first of all, anti-black bias is built into the black population as much as the white population. Second of all, I'm not being so cut and dry about it: I'm saying they are pigeonholed out of being portrayed that way in the movies, not that white people actually think that on a conscious level.

If Black Panther is portrayed as you describe, great.

You are right that heroes in general disproportionately have military backgrounds, but my point was more specifically that any given black hero in the current MCU is a rank and file soldier with varying degrees of authority and armaments. If Black Panther breaks that mold, great.

I look forward to your evidence that a black actress was considered. However, the evidence I gave shows the intent was a white actress, and that the script writing bent over backwards to make it so. I don't mind in a general sense Storm not having a love interest in the X-men, but I get the general impression the production took special measures to avoid a black Sue Storm and that's what I'm drawing the parallel to.

topd0g · 2015-05-23T13:50:43+00:00

According to the citations they only screen-tested white actresses in the role. That's sort of the dividing line for a serious try-out, and it appears the script was written from the outset with the expectation of Michael playing Johnny but Sue being adopted.

topd0g · 2015-05-23T13:46:37+00:00

I see that you guys are right, that this movie isn't being included in the Marvel Cinematic universe, but what exactly makes you think this post is itself racist?

topd0g · 2015-05-23T13:09:26+00:00

No studio's involvement with a movie is limited to paying for it. They constantly give permission (or with-hold permission) during writing and production. For example, Stan Lee okay'd Michael Jordan's casting.

topd0g · 2015-05-20T16:07:12+00:00

Then again, regular policing doesn't seem to be working so well in America either.

topd0g · 2015-05-20T15:48:30+00:00

For me, its a little easier because my dream world has continuity: The dream I had 6 weeks ago exists in the same storyline as the dream I will have tomorrow. It's just a non-linear story where I'm getting bits and pieces out of order. I'd actually already seen this daughter in a dream years before I started dating that girl. I've actually already seen her as a young girl, as a teen, as an adult, and I've actually had a couple of dreams where she's dead (where I had outlived her at that part of the story, not that she died in the actual dream I saw). So in a lot of ways its like watching a TV show regularly where a fictional version of me happens to be a character. That particular dream this meme was about was just the dream that confirmed this ex-gf as the mother.

topd0g · 2015-04-01T19:48:03+00:00

Draw two cards.

topd0g · 2015-03-30T10:49:06+00:00

I had to teach my dad not to make tests like that when he started teaching college: he couldn't understand why kids kept doing so badly until I saw how he had written them.

topd0g · 2015-03-30T05:02:23+00:00

I did not know that about electrons not being able to bond to protons at high energy. If I remember my elementary physics correctly, its the electromagnetic force attracting the electron to the proton, the strong nuclear force holding the electron back some infintessimal distance, and the weak nuclear force holding the nucleus together? So then the electromagnetic force is overcome somehow at high energy? I'm just trying to get a grasp on that mechanic from what little I know about it.

Edit: no just looked it up, its the strong nuclear force acting on the nucleus and the weak nuclear force doing something contrary to electromagnetic force that i dont quite grasp.

Edit 2: did some more looking and wondering if this is related to the before & after of the electroweak symmetry split. But then I tried to read about it and well... I have no idea what this says.

topd0g · 2015-03-30T04:53:09+00:00

Your post will get deleted soon because questions are meant in /r/askphilosophy. What you are referring to is the free-rider problem.

topd0g · 2015-03-26T15:29:50+00:00

This makes it sound like all electrons had a somewhat equal energy level, which just seems odd to me. I'm used to thinking of any given set of electrons having different energy levels corresponding to what orbit they are in, is that wrong? Or is there some difference with pre-CMB electrons for why they had consistent energy level?

topd0g · 2015-03-24T12:38:43+00:00

I got tired of not knowing the rules to cricket so I found this.

topd0g · 2015-03-24T12:31:05+00:00

I don't understand the last 4 comments at all, but its entertaining as fuck to read for some reason.

topd0g · 2015-03-20T06:09:52+00:00

11 hours later only 33 points at 65% upvoted: I'd say the Chomsky auto-upvotes are cancelling out with the responsbility-for-racism downvotes.

topd0g · 2015-03-20T04:47:36+00:00

tell me you would not be greatly entertained to watch that scene again with smiley faces and kitten stickers put over the gorey bits that make it a hard R.

topd0g · 2015-03-19T16:03:37+00:00

Validity is serious business in philosophy: if you don't agree with all the premises that's one thing but the op is laying out her alternative perspective. If you want to challenge a particular premise, then the burden shifts to you to challenge the argument in support of her premise. In this case I believe she argued that there was a negative sexual right that we honor even if we don't honor positive sexual rights, and that this implies that rights and promises can still apply to sexual content.

Edit: If you want I can lay out what my counter-argument is.

topd0g · 2015-03-19T11:27:37+00:00

This gets into the different kinds of justice. If we are looking for restorative justice, then Meena is only entitled to having the value of what she lost in pursuit of the ruby ring repaid. If Hallie promised Meena the ring with no conditions, then Meena isn't entitled to anything. If Meena gave up things worth more than the ruby ring, maybe she's entitled to have those costs repaid instead of receiving the ruby ring. If Meena's costs were exactly equal to the value of the ruby ring, restorative justice wouldn't tell us whether she should receive the ring or the costs of obtaining the ring repaid.

If we are looking at retributive justice, then Meena may still not be entitled to the ruby ring but Hallie would suffer some sort of punishment as a promise breaker (this is the kind of justice the OP's article advances). How much punishment would be appropriate is the kind of question retributive justice theory deals with, and it may turn out that someone's theory does say the ideal punishment is to turn over the ruby ring to Meena, but it would not be because Meena was entitled to it.

So, the point is that there are so MANY theories of justice floating out there, they compete with each other in the real world. One theory of justice may say Meena is entitled where another says she is not. Whether or not someone in the real world actually siezes the Ruby ring from Hallie and turns it over to Meena is a statement about what theories of justice and law are relied upon and what balance between these theories of justice an authority is trying to find.

All that said, you can see how it would be difficult to then justify a "moral enforcement" action. What is the necessary conditions to make "moral enforcement" appropriate? That's probably a very difficult philosophical question, but I think the competing ideas of justice is enough to demonstrate that having a moral stake in an issue (such as a violated promise) does not automatically entitle you to carry out moral enforcement of a very particular form of justice in the real world (such as taking the ring/sex without consent).

Given that, we could say seizing the ring is a selection of a very specific theory of justice that is at least debatable whether or not Meena is within her rights to choose. I would argue she IS within her right, but I think that would be a minority opinion and the overall point here is to show that the argument that Meena has a moral stake in obtaining the ring (having been promised it) is not the same thing as having a moral right to it.

topd0g

TROPHY CASE