Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 370 of 421 FirstFirst ... 270320360368369370371372380420 ... LastLast
Results 27,676 to 27,750 of 31516
  1. #27676
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's a refreshing change of subject, because the previous one was beginning to get overwhelming! I just watched two vids about wave function and I still don't know what it is, other than to say it's a map of the probability of locating a particle. They are complex, both in the literal sense and the numerical sense. And complex numbers are not exactly easy to understand.
    That's par for the course. Anyone who says they understand quantum wave functions is going to receive serious doubt from the wider physics community. They're going to have to meet a pretty highly scrutinized standard of proof as they try to explain it to the rest of us. Don't get me wrong, we desperately want to understand wave functions, but the many and various interpretations of QM are ample proof that we're not there, yet.

    Slight correction: the wave function encodes everything that can be known about the quantum system, not only its location.

    Yeah. Complex to solve, and they are complex valued functions on top of that. Interpreting the imaginary part of the wave is the origin of the pilot wave interpretation of QM. I think you said pilot wave was debunked or something, but it's not. The only thing is that the imaginary portion of the wave cannot be observed, so even if the pilot waves are part of nature, there's no way to measure them, so it's beyond the scope of "predicting the outcomes of measurements," and physics can't really deal with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    As for black holes, that's interesting but it begs the question... if spacetime gets exponentially more curved as we approach the singularity, would that not mean the diameter is infinite? The closer you get to the singularity, the more spacetime curves and the further away the singularity gets! Quite the paradox.
    I think it would mean the diameter is infinite, if the singularity is indeed an infinitesimal point. Which, I think is what singularity means. But we don't know that there's a singularity, I think; we only know that GR predicts singularities.

    The illustration on the slideshow in Kip's presentation had a curved bottom that was not infinitely far down. IDK if that was artistic license, or if that reflects an advancement in GR that I'm not familiar with.

    Also, this talk about distances near and inside a black hole requires a lot of explaining in what reference frame you're measuring, since distance is not absolute, but a result of reference frame. Kip was talking about the diameter as seen in the view of a 1-D slice of black hole "from the bulk," as in, from an extra-dimensional perspective that can see the curvature of spacetime.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I just threw this into google, and I'm reading an article that says black holes are unique for a simple reason... for a "normal" sphere (say, a ball), its mass increases with the cube of its radius, which should come as no surprise. A ball with a radius of 2 has 8 times the mass of a ball with a radius of 1. Of course this only applies when the ball in question isn't massive enough to have significant gravitational pressure, but ignoring this, black holes do not follow this seemingly logical cubic proportion. Instead, their mass increases in direct proportion... a black hole with twice the radius has twice the mass.

    I can only assume that the radius we talk of here is the perceived radius as viewed from afar... the circumference / 2pi... ignoring spacetime curvature.
    I can affirm that this is the correct reference frame for that radius. I'm not sure if it's talking about the radius of the event horizon or the radius of the apparent size of the black hole, though. My gut would guess the former. It's talking about the radius of the event horizon, and not what an observer would see when looking at the black hole.

    The observer sees a bigger black spot than the event horizon because the curvature of spacetime means that when you would be looking just past the side of the event horizon, the light rays are so curved that you're actually looking at the back side of the BH. So the apparent size of the BH is about 2x the size of the event horizon.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think the concept of a black hole's radius is quite a challenging on to get your head around. Maybe the interior of a black hole is one dimensional... it is a flat, straight line towards the singularity. Spacetime simply doesn't exist within it, just time. So curvature is zero, rather than infinite. That removes our paradox, and explains our direct proportion relationship between mass and (non-curved) radius.
    I wanna say it was PBS Spacetime that told me that the axes of time and space get flipped when you cross an event horizon. So while we're free to move in 3 spacial dimensions, but can only move forward in time at a constant rate... inside a BH, it's flipped. We're free to move about in time however we like, but we are constrained to always move toward the center of the BH.

    Don't ask me how there's any sense in that, though. If I'm free to move backward in time, then how does that not change my direction of motion in space?
    Bah.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  2. #27677
    Slight correction: the wave function encodes everything that can be known about the quantum system, not only its location.
    I think you've told me this before, but I failed to absorb it. I guess what I've been watching is an attempt to dumb it down for the benefit of lazy viewers like myself who don't want to watch an hour long lecture involving difficult to grasp maths and concepts.

    I think you said pilot wave was debunked or something, but it's not.
    My understanding is it was kind of debunked, then undebunked. It all centred around "hidden variables", which at first were seen as a problem, and then shown to not be a problem because these variables are global, not local. That should make more sense to you than it does to me!

    I think it would mean the diameter is infinite, if the singularity is indeed an infinitesimal point. Which, I think is what singularity means. But we don't know that there's a singularity, I think; we only know that GR predicts singularities.
    I imagine the singularity to be the centre of gravity, rather than a physical object (much like the centre of gravity between two equal masses is a region in space halfway between them). I assume ALL of the mass of the black hole to be at the event horizon, in near light-speed orbit around the singularity. Within the event horizon, it is hollow, a perfect vacuum. Whether this holds water or not is beyond my limit of understanding, but it does kind of make it easier to digest an infinitesimal location if there's no physical matter actually in such a location. It also does away with the information paradox.

    GR "predicts" the singularity, but, as I understand it, this is potentially where GR fails. This singularity could simply represent an infinity which emerges as a consequence of an incomplete theory.

    I'm not sure if it's talking about the radius of the event horizon or the radius of the apparent size of the black hole, though.
    Yes, the former. It was certainly in the context of the event horizon.

    I wanna say it was PBS Spacetime that told me that the axes of time and space get flipped when you cross an event horizon.
    Yes, it was PBS Spcaetime, I have seen this episode. I pretty much rejected it outright, since if you can travel back in time, then you can go back to a time when you were not in the black hole. This idea of three time dimensions creates a very serious paradox. I think I prefer the concept of one single dimension, or to put that another way, the unification of time and space. Again, this one dimensional view of the interior of the black hole explains why the (not curved) radius of the EV increases in direct proportion to its mass.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #27678
    Again, this one dimensional view of the interior of the black hole explains why the (not curved) radius of the EV increases in direct proportion to its mass.
    I'm not sure this is in agreement with my idea that all of the mass is at the event horizon. If this were true, then the radius and mass relationship would be a square proportion, not direct. All of the mass must be inside the black hole, and existing in one dimension, for a direct proportional relationship.

    I think. My brain hurts.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #27679
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think you've told me this before, but I failed to absorb it. I guess what I've been watching is an attempt to dumb it down for the benefit of lazy viewers like myself who don't want to watch an hour long lecture involving difficult to grasp maths and concepts.
    They might be specifically talking about the "position-space wave function," which you can find by taking the total wave function and projecting it onto position-space.
    That probably sounds a lot like jargon, but I suspect you're happy leaving it at that.

    If not, just ask.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    My understanding is it was kind of debunked, then undebunked. It all centred around "hidden variables", which at first were seen as a problem, and then shown to not be a problem because these variables are global, not local. That should make more sense to you than it does to me!
    If the hidden variables are non-local, but non-global, then they can transmit information faster than light, which violates causality.
    If the constants exist globally, then there's no FTL information travel, the hidden system of variables just changes as a whole.

    IMO, it still has problems with FTL information travel, insofar as there is no such thing as "simultaneous" in the universe, and the apparent values of these hidden variables would change with time and therefore distance. BUT, since we can't observe these variables... perhaps its moot.

    But perhaps its not because it implies that the hidden variables themselves are waving (locally, at least), and guess what's back if we're talking about waves again? That's right... indeterminacy!

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I imagine the singularity to be the centre of gravity, rather than a physical object (much like the centre of gravity between two equal masses is a region in space halfway between them). I assume ALL of the mass of the black hole to be at the event horizon, in near light-speed orbit around the singularity. Within the event horizon, it is hollow, a perfect vacuum. Whether this holds water or not is beyond my limit of understanding, but it does kind of make it easier to digest an infinitesimal location if there's no physical matter actually in such a location. It also does away with the information paradox.
    The innermost stable circular orbit of a non-rotating black hole for a particle with mass is 3 x the radius of the event horizon.
    Half of that for photons (massless particles).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innerm...circular_orbit

    If nothing can sit in a stable orbit at 1.5 x the radius, then nothing can be in a stable orbit at 1 x the radius, and it must pass inside the event horizon eventually.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    GR "predicts" the singularity, but, as I understand it, this is potentially where GR fails. This singularity could simply represent an infinity which emerges as a consequence of an incomplete theory.
    Could be. Could be.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes, it was PBS Spcaetime, I have seen this episode. I pretty much rejected it outright, since if you can travel back in time, then you can go back to a time when you were not in the black hole. This idea of three time dimensions creates a very serious paradox. I think I prefer the concept of one single dimension, or to put that another way, the unification of time and space. Again, this one dimensional view of the interior of the black hole explains why the (not curved) radius of the EV increases in direct proportion to its mass.
    I don't remember there being 3 time dimensions, but it could just be that my brain heard that and just noped out of it.

    None of that makes any sense to me. I mean, I agree with you that this description sounds like someone got all excited about the math they were doing at 4:00 AM on a sleepless night.
    I doubt it's that simple to shrug off, 'cause PBS Spacetime is legit, but that doesn't mean I understand any of it.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  5. #27680
    They might be specifically talking about the "position-space wave function," which you can find by taking the total wave function and projecting it onto position-space.That probably sounds a lot like jargon, but I suspect you're happy leaving it at that.
    It sounds... complex!

    The innermost stable circular orbit of a non-rotating black hole for a particle with mass is 3 x the radius of the event horizon.
    I didn't know this. Such particles would necessarily have mass, since the black hole itself has mass. Although, there's no reason why the mass of a black hole is not in orbit around it at this distance. It does seem unlikely though, surely we'd be able to observe this.

    I don't remember there being 3 time dimensions, but it could just be that my brain heard that and just noped out of it.
    I may have interpreted it incorrectly, but it was the impression I got. If you can move freely in time, you can either go forwards, backwards or not move at all.

    I doubt it's that simple to shrug off, 'cause PBS Spacetime is legit, but that doesn't mean I understand any of it.
    Yeah, but they're playing with ideas that are on the fringe of physics. Legit doesn't mean correct, it just means they discuss theories that are taken seriously by the scientific community.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #27681
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I didn't know this. Such particles would necessarily have mass, since the black hole itself has mass.
    Photons are massless. The BH can acquire mass from photons (and other massless particles) in accordance with Einstein's relativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Although, there's no reason why the mass of a black hole is not in orbit around it at this distance. It does seem unlikely though, surely we'd be able to observe this.
    If the mass of the object is not contained within its Schwarzschild radius, then it is not a BH.
    If the mass of the object is not contained within this radius, then it is not capable of creating enough curvature in spacetime to produce an event horizon.

    E.g. the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is about 1 inch. That means in order to turn the Earth into a BH, you have to compress the entire planet down to a sphere of 2 inch diameter. Since the mass of the Earth is not contained in such a volume (or smaller), then it is not a BH.

    ***
    Recall that the gravity inside a hollow shell is 0. I.e. if the mass was contained on some surface away from the center, then the gravity at the center is exactly canceled by the mass on all sides.
    Due to the awesomeness of calculus, one can show that this holds true for the entire inside of the spherical shell.
    As you move closer to one side of the inner spherical cavity, you move closer to a small number of particles on the shell, but further from a large number of particles, and that exactly balances to cancel out. Pretty cool.
    It's not just the exact center of the shell that has 0 g, it's the entire hollow interior.

    That also means the mass of the BH must be on or inside the event horizon or it's not got enough gravity in a small enough volume to be a BH.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I may have interpreted it incorrectly, but it was the impression I got. If you can move freely in time, you can either go forwards, backwards or not move at all.

    Yeah, but they're playing with ideas that are on the fringe of physics. Legit doesn't mean correct, it just means they discuss theories that are taken seriously by the scientific community.
    Good points.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  7. #27682
    Photons are massless. The BH can acquire mass from photons (and other massless particles) in accordance with Einstein's relativity.
    This blows my mind. Where is the mass coming from? Photons do not have inertia.

    If the mass of the object is not contained within its Schwarzschild radius, then it is not a BH.If the mass of the object is not contained within this radius, then it is not capable of creating enough curvature in spacetime to produce an event horizon.
    This I don't really find surprising.

    Recall that the gravity inside a hollow shell is 0
    Inside, yes, but a hollow shell has gravity because it has mass. A perfectly uniform spherical shell would have a centre of gravity at the precise centre of the sphere. Of course, if it is massive enough, it would collapse... unless, perhaps, if it was spinning fast enough, at a rate where tangential velocity matches precisely the gravitational acceleration.

    But your other points do blow my "hollow black hole" hypothesis to pieces.

    if the mass was contained on some surface away from the center, then the gravity at the center is exactly canceled by the mass on all sides.
    This isn't necessarily a problem. Anything within such a shell would move towards the surface, rather than the centre.

    That also means the mass of the BH must be on or inside the event horizon or it's not got enough gravity in a small enough volume to be a BH.
    I guess this is a problem!
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #27683
    if the mass was contained on some surface away from the center, then the gravity at the center is exactly canceled by the mass on all sides.
    Wait, this is a problem. Yeah ok, I'm sold. Black holes are not hollow.

    I'm still thinking they could be one dimensional though, at least the interior.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #27684
    In fact I'm probably thinking black holes must be one dimensional inside, due to the direct proportion relationship between mass and radius. I'm just struggling to factor in curvature.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #27685
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This blows my mind. Where is the mass coming from? Photons do not have inertia.
    Everyone knows that Einstein's famous equation is
    E = m*c^2

    where E is the rest energy of the system, m is the rest mass of the system, and c is the speed of light.

    What you and I were discussing a couple weeks ago involved Planck's constant.
    E_photon = h*f_photon

    where E_photon is the energy of the photon, h is Planck's constant, and f_photon is the frequency of the photon.

    So we know that photons carry energy, and that energy sitting at rest looks like mass, so there you have it.

    h*f = mc^2

    m = h*f / c^2

    This is truly a tiny amount per photon, but it is non-0.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  11. #27686
    So we know that photons carry energy, and that energy sitting at rest looks like mass, so there you have it.
    But photons are never at rest...
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #27687
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    But photons are never at rest...
    No, but they are absorbed into the BH, which is at rest.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  13. #27688
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I'm throwing together the drinks list for this year's holiday party.
    It's always a good time ordering copious amounts of liquor, wine, beer, mixers, etc. for a work event.

    Open bar / serve-yourself in the hallway the day after final grades are due. (Makes it so there are no undergrads roaming the halls.)

    Grad. students think they're being sneaky and smuggle beers away from the party, so we buy extra beers.
    Every woman's purse somehow magically absorbs a bottle of wine, so we buy extra wine.

    It's a party. We know what's up, we just don't care. If you stealing something gives you the thrill you want from the party, then we'll provide that, too.
    lol.

    My job is the best.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  14. #27689
    Well, his life's pretty much over.



    I mean he's a douche bag, but death threats, really?

    Also, glad they didn't have cameras in the bars when I was 18.
  15. #27690
    The death threat brigade make me laugh. No better way to take the moral high ground than to kill.

    On another subject, recently at a football match in England, a black player goes to take a corner and is greeted with several people throwing objects at him, including coins and lighters, and one fat man imitates a monkey. Now obviously monkey chanting is racist and unacceptable, but people are more outraged about that than they are about the physical threat that thrown objects pose. I'd rather be insulted than lose a fucking eye.

    How has it got to the point where racism is worse than assault?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #27691
    edit post function not working for some reason.

    " No better way to take the moral high ground than threaten to kill."
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #27692
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    'd rather be insulted than lose a fucking eye.

    How has it got to the point where racism is worse than assault?
    Because no-one realistically expects to take someone's eye out when throwing a coin or lighter at them from a long distance away?

    If they had say, thrown a full beer can at him I'd go along with you.
  18. #27693
    When several people are throwing objects, chances go up that one will hit the player. It's reckless and potentially dangerous. Ok, losing an eye is the nut worst outcome, but it's a possibility and anyone who throws a coin or lighter at someone, even from far away, has to accept responsibility if it happens.

    Trying to hurt someone, whether it be wholly intentional or reckless behaviour, is still worse than insulting someone.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #27694
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Can both be bad for different reasons?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  20. #27695
    Sure. I'm not for a minute suggesting imitating a monkey in order to mock a black person isn't bad. I just think that trying to hurt someone is more worthy of outrage than racism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #27696
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I have to believe that for most people the level of offense taken by an object being thrown at them is nearly linearly correlated to the kinetic energy it carries.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  22. #27697
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  23. #27698
    I have to believe that for most people the level of offense taken by an object being thrown at them is nearly linearly correlated to the kinetic energy it carries.
    Hmm. Not quite sure about this. What do you suppose has more kinetic energy? A football? Or a dart? Which would you prefer to be thrown at you?

    I would counter that the amount of offense taken will be directly related to the damage it can cause. Coins and lighters are often thrown from football crowds, sometimes drawing blood. I appreciate it's unlikely, but if you get hit in the eye, it can cause serious damage, even threatening one's career. Being insulted by a fat racist twat isn't doing any physical harm.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #27699
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,506
    Location
    Finding my game
    Why is physical harm categorically worse than emotional harm? Both can effectively kill, and physical scars often heal better with time. There's a whole variety of actions that comprise each, but I wouldn't outright say one is always worse than the other.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  25. #27700
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Psshhh. C'mon, Cocco.

    If you wanna talk about the ripple effect of public displays of bigotry going unchecked and leading to widespread persecution, then I'll listen.

    Otherwise... just c'mon with that nonsense.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  26. #27701
    lol at someone losing an eye because a coin was thrown at them from 100 feet away. That's some surgical fucking precision coin chucking there.

    Even assuming it hits you in the eye, it's not going to dislodge it from your head. It's a fucking coin, not an ice pick.

    You can question whether it's worse to be called names than to have small hard objects thrown at you from a distance. But don't try to pretend any of those objects posed a serious threat to that guy's health. He wasn't going to wake up in the hospital with one eye because he got hit by a £1 coin thrown at him.
  27. #27702
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,506
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Psshhh. C'mon, Cocco.

    If you wanna talk about the ripple effect of public displays of bigotry going unchecked and leading to widespread persecution, then I'll listen.

    Otherwise... just c'mon with that nonsense.
    I was talking about emotional harm in general, not just about bigotry or racism. My point is that none of us can categorically say whether tossing a lighter at someone or doing a monkey impression is worse, it depends on the outcome and the experience of the subject, which may vary from one extreme to the other.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  28. #27703
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Why is physical harm categorically worse than emotional harm? Both can effectively kill, and physical scars often heal better with time. There's a whole variety of actions that comprise each, but I wouldn't outright say one is always worse than the other.

    Emotional harm can physically kill? Really? Are you referring to suicide? Because I hate to break it to you, those who commit suicide tend to succumb to the physical harm they inflict upon themselves, rather than the emotional harm someone else inflicted upon them.


    I find it hard to believe that people really think the two are comparable.


    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    lol at someone losing an eye because a coin was thrown at them from 100 feet away. That's some surgical fucking precision coin chucking there.

    Have you ever flopped a Royal Flush? I have, once.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...inded-11259793
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-1454355.html


    It happens.


    Even assuming it hits you in the eye, it's not going to dislodge it from your head. It's a fucking coin, not an ice pick.

    See links above.

    But don't try to pretend any of those objects posed a serious threat to that guy's health. He wasn't going to wake up in the hospital with one eye because he got hit by a £1 coin thrown at him.
    Mark raven did. I'm surprised you didn't feel compelled to research this before assuming coins are not potentially dangerous missiles.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #27704
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @cocco
    There's a difference between the smattering of racism directed at me in a year and the barrage of racism directed at some black people. The historical significance of the situation can't be ignored.

    When talking about incidents of hate speech against black people, you're not really talking about isolated incidents, but an ongoing pattern. The individual incidents of harassment don't cause much harm on their own. It's when that is elevated to a pattern of oppression that things fall apart.

    So no, I don't think you can say that an individual making racist comments or gestures is equivalent to the direct and immediate physical threat that is assault.

    Both are deplorable, but one is effectively benign when taken in isolation, and the other is not.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  30. #27705
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Mark raven did. I'm surprised you didn't feel compelled to research this before assuming coins are not potentially dangerous missiles.
    Not a player. Surprised you didn't research that.
  31. #27706
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So no, I don't think you can say that an individual making racist comments or gestures is equivalent to the direct and immediate physical threat that is assault.

    Both are deplorable, but one is effectively benign when taken in isolation, and the other is not.
    Meh, but this isn't someone walking by someone else on the street and making a monkey noise. It's done in front of a whole stadium full of people. That can't be a good feeling for the person it's directed at.

    I think I'd rather take my chances with a coin hurled from 50 feet away than be subjected to that, personally.
  32. #27707
    Not a player. Surprised you didn't research that.
    Really? You can't just say something like "ok I was wrong, you can lose an eye thanks to having a coin thrown at you"?

    Poor show.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #27708
    I mean, if you really want a footballer, I don't think a player has actually lost an eye yet. Can't find anything by googling. But it's a matter of time. Could be next week, could be next century, but it will happen if fans continue to throw coins at them.

    Here's Rio Ferdinand who got lucky...
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #27709
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,506
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Emotional harm can physically kill? Really? Are you referring to suicide? Because I hate to break it to you, those who commit suicide tend to succumb to the physical harm they inflict upon themselves, rather than the emotional harm someone else inflicted upon them.
    Suicide, murder, honor killings, school shootings, to name a few. The physical harm inflicted upon themselves is caused by the emotional harm. I do find it interesting though how easy it is for many people to not see this direct causation, or see it as the fault of the victim.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  35. #27710
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,506
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So no, I don't think you can say that an individual making racist comments or gestures is equivalent to the direct and immediate physical threat that is assault.

    Both are deplorable, but one is effectively benign when taken in isolation, and the other is not.
    I'd probably not characterize people tossing coins and lighters as assault, more like harassment. I don't claim to understand how a black person would feel being subjected to a monkey impersonation, but I'm also pretty sure that a non-insignificant portion of people would have a more severe and long-lasting effect from it than from ducking small flying objects.

    But still, none of that was my point. My point is that for some reason people see physical harm (rightly) as abhorrent, but tend to belittle emotional harm, which can be just as bad.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  36. #27711
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Suicide, murder, honor killings, school shootings, to name a few. The physical harm inflicted upon themselves is caused by the emotional harm. I do find it interesting though how easy it is for many people to not see this direct causation, or see it as the fault of the victim.
    I guess I'm just less sympathetic to emotional harm than I am physical harm. It's not that I don't see the correlation, it's more that I think emotional harm can be overcome by not being such a fucking pussy. I know that sounds harsh, but when I was at school, we had the proverb "sticks and stones" drummed into us. It's basically a family friendly way of saying "don't be such a fucking pussy".

    It's really hard to offend me. Really hard. If you said something really offensive, I'd just laugh at how the reflects on you, rather than being upset about it. And on the few occasions I do get shitty because of something someone said to me, it's always because I'm already in a bad mood for whatever reason, and I always reflect on it and think to myself "I wish I'd handled that better". If someone punches me and gives me a black eye, there's not much I can do about the throbbing pain that comes with it. I can't "man up" and the swelling suddenly stops. Emotional pain is self induced, it's a personal weakness that can be overcome.

    And for clarity, I'm not talking about people in mourning, divorcees, or victims of trauma etc. That's a different beast altogether, only sociopaths can overcome this kind of emotional pain with relative ease. But being insulted? Grow a pair.

    Millenials are being taught it's ok to be a pussy. I don't think that's a good social message to send out. I think that just creates a culture of victimhood.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #27712
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,506
    Location
    Finding my game
    I understand what you're saying, and I agree, to an extent. It's not particularly easy to offend me either, though I'm certainly not immune to it. I do get my panties in a bunch on occasion, but according to people that know me, far less than most. A lot of people can just shrug off even harsh verbal or emotional attacks. Not everyone can. The punch stings for a while, but at worst a few days and it doesn't usually leave permanent damage. The same goes for verbal attacks, but they both have an (I would say) equal potential for that.

    It can be easy to label someone as a pussy if you don't have context. Sure, some people I guess just are "extra sensitive", but I would imagine a lot of time there are reasons for that, like less than supportive parents, a history of bullying etc. For someone whose dad's been telling them their whole life they're a loser, some stranger saying that may pack quite a bit more punch, for example.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  38. #27713
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    But still, none of that was my point. My point is that for some reason people see physical harm (rightly) as abhorrent, but tend to belittle emotional harm, which can be just as bad.
    Sorry for the tangent, then.

    It's the "can be" part that I'm sensitive to. I don't think we actually disagree or at worst aren't far from direct agreement on this.
    In another post, you say:

    [quote/cocco]The punch stings for a while, but at worst a few days and it doesn't usually leave permanent damage.[/quote]
    The danger is when the next punch comes in less than 3 days.

    An individual occurrence is kinda just a "sticks and stones" situation. The ongoing pattern is not.

    All of which, I think, is a paraphrase of what you've said.

    I also back up your point that thousands of people saw this incident.
    The reach of the event elevates the need to censure the offending parties.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  39. #27714
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    Sure, some people I guess just are "extra sensitive", but I would imagine a lot of time there are reasons for that, like less than supportive parents, a history of bullying etc. For someone whose dad's been telling them their whole life they're a loser, some stranger saying that may pack quite a bit more punch, for example.
    Let me tell you something about my childhood. My Mother left my Father when I was 4, and we (me and my brothers) stayed with Dad. He married a horrible woman, who took pleasure in beating us and playing mind games. She'd regularly tell us "you're not normal", things like that, trying her damned best to destroy our confidence. But it made me mentally stronger. I think to myself "if I can get through that as a kid, I can take an insult on the chin as an adult". You're going to have to get really dirty to offend me, like bringing dead relatives into it, that sort of stuff. Or get lucky with my mood, push a button at the right time. I'm not immune to being an asshole, but I'm close to immune from being offended by words. I just bite back sometimes. And I've got all the excuses I need, if I were so inclined, to cry about my childhood and blame it for my failings as an adult. But I don't.

    I justb think it's healthy to try and be stronger, to rise above it. When someone hits you, sure the pain does after a day or two, but maybe you're now scared of that person, looking over your shoulder. That kind of think can last a long time, and it's perfectly reasonable because you worry maybe next time it'll be worse than a black eye.

    This is why I think coin throwing is so much worse than monkey chanting. The racist twat will very likely get caught. The coin thrower probably won't. The coin thrower is trying to hurt you. The racist twat is trying to get into your head. You have the power to stop one, but not the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #27715
    Cocco, your point can be granted, but you're still left with a deficit since physical harm often causes emotional harm.
  41. #27716
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    boost...
    Bring back culinary pimpin.


    I'm prob. going to be in Chicago for most of a day on March 6.

    You still living there?
    Wanna meet up and eat some food on a Friday in March?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  42. #27717
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,506
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Cocco, your point can be granted, but you're still left with a deficit since physical harm often causes emotional harm.
    True, but likewise you could say emotional harm can cause physical harm. I'm not trying to argue one's worse than the other, but that both are equally bad. Yet a lot of the time only one of them is taken seriously.
  43. #27718
    MMM:

    Meh, I rarely cook anything interesting, and food porn is pretty passe nowadays. Also this forum is all but dead-- we've got a few active posters and a few active threads, there isn't much that's going to change that.

    But, yeah, let's get some food in March.
  44. #27719
    Yeah, I get your point, I just think you take it too far. Emotional harm being undervalued doesn't mean that it needs to be seen as equal to physical harm.
  45. #27720
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    "yeah, let's get some food in March."

    Woohoo!

    I'll let you know more details as we get closer to the date.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  46. #27721
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Just found the show Taskmaster via YouTube recommendations.

    Hilarious. I've lolled at every episode, I think.

    There's only shows up to halfway through season 3 on YouTube.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  47. #27722
    Just watched Ong Bak, a Thai film, and remembered it where I got my name from. Ong Bak is a statue of Buddha, revered by villagers. Ong Bonga is the god of bongs, or something like that anyway. Seemed funny at the time.

    Anyway, that's why Ong Bonga.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #27723
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Just watched Ong Bak, a Thai film, and remembered it where I got my name from. Ong Bak is a statue of Buddha, revered by villagers. Ong Bonga is the god of bongs, or something like that anyway. Seemed funny at the time.

    Anyway, that's why Ong Bonga.
    Ahh, Ong Bak.

    My missus had quite the crush on Tony Jaa. At least until she heard him speak lol
    Congratulations, you've won your dick's weight in sweets! Decode the message in the above post to find out how to claim your tic-tac
  49. #27724
    I have quite the crush on the girl who plays Muay.

    Pumwaree Yodkamol. I had to google that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #27725
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-henZVmyxVc

    What is a Nuremberg trial? Asking for a friend.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  51. #27726
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Taskmaster
    There's something I understand less than Brexit.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  52. #27727
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Taskmaster is a Brittish TV comedy gameshow.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Yh...F5zT351eUyYozM


    Or if you didn't mean you don't understand what I'm talking about, but just meant that you don't understand the appeal of the show, then...

    Yeah. Comedy is subjective.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  53. #27728
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    No I mean I literally don't understand what's going on in that show.

    I guess it's like Fishcenter, but on real TV, not Adult Swim?
    I mean I know what an Eric Andre is... I guess Taskmaster caught me off-guard with its production value. (I have seen about 30 seconds of Taskmaster as of right now)
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  54. #27729
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Had to look up Fishcenter on Wikipedia. I'm shocked that Adult Swim is still a thing more than anything.

    At any rate, no. It's not like that.

    Watch the first 10 minutes or so of any episode and you'll know what you're in for, IMO.
    I'm guessing that the first task will have at least started by that point.

    Unfortunately, I find the opening bit to be a boring one. The whole, "the contestants supply the prizes" bit, I mean.
    So skip that and just get to the first task if you want to see what the show's really like.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  55. #27730
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    This is just complete bullshit:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platybelodon

    Worst animal ever!
    Last edited by oskar; 01-23-2020 at 03:14 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  56. #27731
    Am I missing something there? What's wrong with an extinct animal related to the elephant?

    I notice the picture is from a museum in Wuhan. Topical.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #27732
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    may have used the sharp incisors that formed the edge of the "shovel" more like a modern-day scythe
    Is clearly the elephant grim reaper.
    Very spooky for elephants.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  58. #27733
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Am I missing something there? What's wrong with an extinct animal related to the elephant?

    I notice the picture is from a museum in Wuhan. Topical.


    bullshit animal
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  59. #27734

    It's going to look pretty fucking weird, whether or not that drawing is accurate or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #27735
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    This drawing of a close relative is probably closer to reality.



    Still not good.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  61. #27736
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The whole genus is fucked. Look at this abomination:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinotherium

    Whoever discovered it straight up called it 'bad animal' in latin.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  62. #27737
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    The whole genus is fucked. Look at this abomination:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinotherium

    Whoever discovered it straight up called it 'bad animal' in latin.
    How did you started on this topic?

    (btw, that shovelphant thing is defo weird.)
  63. #27738
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    How did you started on this topic?

    (btw, that shovelphant thing is defo weird.)
    I got tricked into following a lot of trans people on twitter by the chapo trap house subreddit . I'm not exactly sure how that happened, but it's dozens and I didn't catch on until my entire feed was shit like this:

    https://twitter.com/Devon_OnEarth/st...073382912?s=20
    I know it's not politically correct, but these people are not of a healthy mind. "better" than elephants... christ... coming from a so-called biology teacher. Terrifying!
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  64. #27739
    Anyone who understand evolution to even a basic degree should know it's not about "worse" to "better". Evolution happens because of changing environments. There's creatures that exist today that have hardly changed in millions of years, that's because they're perfectly adapted for their environment and it hasn't changed. Those hard bastards that feed on sulphur at volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean are a prime example.

    And these people are being elephantist. I identify as an elephant and I find their hatred staggering in this day and age.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #27740
    Yeah, seems to a lack basic knowledge of evolution. If the shovelphant was "better" it wouldn't have adapted to become an elephant.

    And how the fuck do you get 4500 likes for saying something stupid and posting some drawings of weird extinct animals?
  66. #27741
    Wait, aren't they agreeing with you guys, pointing out that evolution is not a progress from worse to better, but then tongue in cheek "proving it" by claiming beta versions of elephants are objectively better?

    Also, from the beta elephants' perspective, modern elephants are all Mitch McConnell elephants.
  67. #27742
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,928
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Anyone who understand evolution to even a basic degree should know it's not about "worse" to "better".
    WRONG!




    |
    |
    V

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  68. #27743
    So apparently, in a celebration of Brexit, Guernsey (island in the English channel that is part of the British Empire, but closer to France than to the UK) decided to deny French fishermen rights to fish their waters on Feb. 1. The next day, the French retaliated by not allowing Guernsey fishermen to offload their catches in Normandy. The fish rotted, Guernsey backed down, and things are back to the way they were Jan. 30.

    Brexit, fuck yeah!

    Brexit.jpg
  69. #27744
    (Oh, but you won't hear about this from the BBC. Only the French are covering it.)

    https://www.ouest-france.fr/normandi...xQuRNq9NtzKmeI
  70. #27745
    Well I did my bit. I had fish and chips for dinner tonight.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #27746
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,338
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I wanna say even the Romans afforded the channel islands special privileges as far as controlling the waters and trade near the islands.

    One of the YouTube gamers I follow lives in Jersey, and occasionally talks about the island, so at one point I looked it up on Wiki to figure out why it's so close to France, but controlled by the UK.
    Turns out the history of France and the UK is like Lucy and Desi. Married, divorced, married, divorced, true love, forever war, our leaders love your country so much we speak your language instead, your language is stupid and we want to slap it off your face.

    Lol.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  72. #27747
    You might be aware, but in England we have the "two finger salute", a reverse V-for-victory hand gesture, similar in offensiveness to the "middle finger" in USA. The big difference is the history... the "two finger salute" dates back to a time of war between England and France (the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 to be precise). If the French caught an English archer, they would cut their fingers off to render them ineffective at archery. This was cheaper and easier than killing them, no POW camps and no mass graves. So, the English archers would show the French their fingers as a way of mocking them on the battlefield.

    This account is disputed, but there are depictions of the English "flicking the Vs" at the French in tapestries and medieval illustrations, so it's likely there's at least some truth to it, even if what I just suggested isn't perfectly accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #27748
    Guess you've seen this before.

  74. #27749
    Back in ye olde days, the French controlled Quebec and the English everything in Canada west of that. Then one day they had a battle on a field the size of a soccer pitch in Quebec City, involving less than 10k total men on both sides. The English won, and took all of Quebec as a prize. Pretty sweet win.
  75. #27750
    I can't say the word "knight" properly anymore thanks to Monty Python.

    kerrrrr-niggets
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •