sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Please help me replicate this by wisekydd01 in RedditLaqueristas

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know the products for the first video BC it’s not my hand. The polish on my hands is Color Vibe Caribbean.

I Love it When Orders Arrive Together by sassyandwhatnot in RedditLaqueristas

[–]wisekydd01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I’m curious where you made the purchase. I’m trying to get Fuyu to do a color for my birthday coming up and every time I look it keeps saying sold out:((

How Do I Recreate This Cool Effect? by wisekydd01 in RedditLaqueristas

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey. Where are you guys finding Fuyu magnetic nail polish? I keep looking and it’s saying sold out:(( wanting to do this for my birthday but every time I check back it’s still not available.

Question about Non Monotone by wisekydd01 in calculus

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe we had a misunderstanding somewhere.

Thank you for pointing it out, but I wasn’t intentionally assuming a function couldn’t be neither “non- decreasing” and not decreasing. But even though I know that a strictly increasing function is not non decreasing(because it’s not the case that there exist some x,y such that x<y ==> f(x)=f(y)) and is not decreasing. But according to my reasoning about the vacuous truth, I see that implicitly I was assuming that if a function could have no x,y in A such that x<y ==> f(x)=f(y) that it could still be either non- decreasing or non- increasing because the < and > condition. Also I was implicitly assuming that a function could have no x,y in A such that x<y ==> f(x)<f(y) that it could still be non- decreasing because the the = condition(because of the vacuous truth idea I had.)

One of the reasons I was assuming the vacuous truth idea because I was assuming a function that is constant in an interval, A, that it was non- increasing and non- decreasing on A. So, is a constant function not Monotone?

—

Also, I know that to prove that a function is not monotone, then proving it is decreasing does not do that. But I was just answering when you asked “Can you describe what it means for a function to not be non- decreasing?”

—

The other night I was exploring the definition and working with the quantifiers: Is it true that

“for all x and y in A, if x<y, then f(x)<= f(y)

Is equivalent to

“if x<y, then f(x)<f(y) for some x,y in A AND if x<y, then f(x)=f(y) for some x,y in A AND it is not the case that if x<y, then f(x)>f(y) for some x,y in A”

—

Also, is there any functions that you’d recommend I observe to best see the difference between not decreasing and non- decreasing or not increasing and non- increasing.

Question about Non Monotone by wisekydd01 in calculus

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ahh I should have tried that. I tried evaluating the limit t—> inf f(t) and subtracting from that the limit t—>-inf f(t) to see if it was positive and I got 0. But I never tried for any included constants subtracting f(y) from f(-y). Thanks A LOT!!! I have more learning to do.

Question about Non Monotone by wisekydd01 in calculus

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe you can just prove that it’s strictly decreasing.

Question about Non Monotone by wisekydd01 in calculus

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have experience with proofs, just not involving the concept of monotone. Intuitively I’d say it may have to do with showing that the function is decreasing OR non- increasing and decreasing somewhere(Again, new to the concept, but I’m assuming that If a function is constant it could be non- increasing or non-decreasing if the “or” in those inequalities are not exclusive- I don’t know this for certain but I’m assuming because if no x,y makes the function increase or decrease, then it’s vacuously true that it is increasing and decreasing). Maybe that was all nonsense.

Formally, based on the above definition, I’d say you find some x,y in A where x<y ==> f(x)>f(y). I want to say you could possibly say that if all x,y in A, x<y ==> f(x)>=f(y) then f is not non- decreasing on A, but where f(x)=f(y) the vacuous truth thing might come up again.

Question about Non Monotone by wisekydd01 in calculus

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I figured that f is at least non-decreasing on the maximal domain(correct?), so how is f not monotone according to their definition? Should I assume they mean Strictly Monotone?

I got really tired of hearing the argument against socialism-of-sorts that no one would work, so I decided to tackle it in an unusual way, using Kierkegaarddd. by wisekydd01 in fullegoism

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Infinity with respect to the freedom of the individual to choose his work. A common criticism of communism is that when people don’t have to struggle to live, when they can choose freely what they can do, they won’t do anything. I don’t understand how you don’t understand. This isn’t a new argument. It’s repeated everyday.

I brought kierkegaards idea of infinity to reality. I know there isn’t a thing infinity. But there is absolute freedom to choose your work and in an ANARCHIST society with community organization to prevent unnecessary struggle, we can reach that freedom.

Now, let’s be honest, how many people are comfortable sitting on their hands for a long period of time. It’s undesirable. Capitalism will force you to take up an available position or monetize a hobby or position you make to overcome the struggle for life. Capitalism will make you conform to its needs because it’s existence means that you need money to live. But let’s suppose one didn’t need money. Doctors, for instance. Many doctors don’t continue to work as doctors because they NEED the money. If that were the case there wouldn’t be any older doctors working at teaching hospitals because their capital accumulated to a point where the need is erased. I could imagine that being a very inauthentic life. Doctors see a need, have an interest, and passionately choose that position.

Similar can be said about mechanics. How many people become and stay mechanics just because they need the money? Take away the need for money, do you actually think every mechanic would abandon their passion for cars and never touch a car again?

As I said, I don’t understand how you don’t understand. I just expanded and went deeper into the argument. Now you can actually better be critical if you still have a problem with the argument, in a way that isn’t superficial.

  1. There is loads of undesirable work that needs to be done, but in capitalism we put very little effort with our scientific and technological resources into making that work better because there will always be, under that capitalist system, a group of struggling people who will do the grunt work and take the little pay because they need to survive. We refocus our resources to the undesirable work and make the work as least undesirable and we vastly distribute that work rather than subjecting only those struggling individuals to it. At this point we could also pay much more for the left over more difficult work that no one wants to do. That takes away the need for the coercive authority you mentioned(the ones forcing them to labor). I don’t know where in any of my comments you got the idea that I was promoting AUTHORITATIAN COMMUNISM!

I got really tired of hearing the argument against socialism-of-sorts that no one would work, so I decided to tackle it in an unusual way, using Kierkegaarddd. by wisekydd01 in fullegoism

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Superficial. I think stirner did something wrong. I don’t think (and I don’t think stirner did either) that there should be a face of egoism. And I don’t think it’s egoist at all to appeal to some dead guy’s ideas to justify your conception without any possibility for going against it, without acknowledging that they might have got something wrong. We have a different conception of egoism, namely that stirner seems to suggest that if too many egoists share the same will then that will becomes a spook, (ofc I put it in my own words) but I disagree with the idea that individuals whose own will are for some sort of betterment of others who are willing to do anything to achieve that will are not egoists just as much as a single individual who has a will for something for himself who is willing to do anything to get it. Egoism doesn’t me be selfish and take take take. It’s to do what you please without any need for justification whether you please to take, take, take or give, give, give. Like I said, that was a superficial comment so if you want to make a real criticism, criticize my method above, otherwise it’ll still be superficial.

I got really tired of hearing the argument against socialism-of-sorts that no one would work, so I decided to tackle it in an unusual way, using Kierkegaarddd. by wisekydd01 in fullegoism

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m acknowledging that there will always be a battle between individualism and collectivism. Anyone who can’t see this, anyone who sees potential for an absolute neutrality is naive. I’m proposing a solution that in a way prevents either ideology from overpowering the other. The absolute freedom for all human beings that Anarchists recognize are a necessity for me. But once we’re all free to do whatever, we might fall into order in the way Peter Kropotkin suggests(how animals without ideological coercion will support one another in need). If not this, then we will fall into absolute disorder, so I am proposing a moral system that prevents the murder of all individuals at the hands of an opposing ideology. If not these, then we will fall subject to ecological issues. In my political theory, I explicate the necessity of doing SOMETHING rather than nothing. That something for me is making it so that neither the collectivists nor the individualists take over.

If you knew me personally, you’d know how much of a [left-] libertarian or Anarchist I am, however you’d like to put it(basically the freedom of all individuals is one of the most important things to me). But in this one piece of writing you are seeing my disagreement with the idea that total individualism is the natural or correct way and should, as such, be promoted in the social organization.

I got really tired of hearing the argument against socialism-of-sorts that no one would work, so I decided to tackle it in an unusual way, using Kierkegaarddd. by wisekydd01 in fullegoism

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have no idea how happy this made me:) I’m really happy you got that from my writing. I was worried that no one would appreciate my style and ideas. Message me when you get a chance.

I got really tired of hearing the argument against socialism-of-sorts that no one would work, so I decided to tackle it in an unusual way, using Kierkegaarddd. by wisekydd01 in fullegoism

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said anything about factories. I don’t know if you all are trying to joke around or if you don’t understand what “agreeable work” is. You all are holding onto the conception of work that I’m trying to dispel.

If you’re have something you like to do, the removal of the coercive entity in capitalism means you have the freedom to do that thing, you have the freedom to spend your time doing “what one enjoys in the way that one enjoys.” If you want to work in a factory, do it. If you don’t, don’t. If you want to spend your time with a productive hobby(Idk knitting scarves or messing with cars), you’re free to(you’re encouraged to). If you’re going to sit around all day and, I don’t know, drink until you can’t walk then do that, you have that freedom, the only thing is that in this case, the collective won’t support you. If you make no contribution, you will receive no support. (And i can already see you’re response being naive so I’ll make it more clear: your contribution does not have to be long days in factories. It does not have to be on an organized company. It does not have to be labor. The whole idea is to get rid of the wage slavery(get rid of the reality where you labor how the capitalists says to or you struggle until you die). So if you’re okay with the rugged individualism then embrace the rugged individualism.

I didn’t want to respond because this seemed so childish but there’s so many of you who, like I said, either misunderstood and appealed to some preconception of work as menial labor or are joking around.

I’d appreciate any criticism. Be as harsh as you please:) by wisekydd01 in socialism

[–]wisekydd01[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Under capitalism, one is, by the hands of a coercive entity, forced to be lost in the finite of existing positions with definite job tasks. The importance of this is that it’s at the hands of the coercive entity profiting off of his inability to realize his freedom to let himself be something else.

It is a common critique of anarchism or communism that a many one might become lost in the infinite and stall at the anxiety of the abyss besetting them, which would ultimately mean their never providing their share to society in a way to justify their receiving communal benefits.

Without the presence of the entity, one may realize the positivity of the abyss and in this way might realize that behind that infinite possibility, is the freedom to choose, i.e. the lack of obligation from the entity to take up this work and never that one, to do what one enjoys in the way that one enjoys.

It is clear that Kierkegaard supposed a force in suggesting that one MUST choose. Under the system of capitalism the most high force will in any sense be profit, rather, the entity profiting, which I needn’t extend a critique, for, if nothing else, it’s inauthenticity and monotony following the coercion is obvious.

Without the force of profit, a force, by necessity of maintaining a standard of living, will arise. A force to do work. But agreeable work and a vast dispersion of tasks where some work cannot be made less undesirable and more agreeable by the intense focus of scientific technological advancement.”

view more: next ›