Real men don't use hand cream for fuck's sake.
Printable View
Real men don't use hand cream for fuck's sake.
I moisturise daily.
I bet you wax your legs, too.
I'm constantly reminded that I should listen to his podcast more. Between Joe Rogan, WTF and re-listening to all Patrice O'Neal episodes of Opie and Anthony it's hard to find time. Even My Wife Hates Me (Rich Vos, Bonny McFarlane) is amazing.
He's a POS. Don't sweat it.
PS Fuck Brady.
I know. He's the bestQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Saw the Book of Mormon in the West End over the weekend and can recommend it to people that usually wouldn't go to a show. It's written by the creators of South Park and Avenue Q, so you know what you're going to get (Avenue Q is also worth a look if it's touring).
Wuf got a question for you (everyone feel free to answer though).
Say there is a market for an item. There are three of these items and you own all three. They're all exactly the same & are of no value to you but are of value to the market that wants them and as a result you'd rather sell them for as much as possible for obvious reasons. The value of these items isn't going to change in the foreseeable future as a result of outside circumstances. The use of the item is a one type thing and when it's used it's gone.
How do you go about selling these items to the market to best maximise the amount you get on average?
There are exactly 3 of the items and you own all of them?
There is no method of production of said items, just the pre-existing 3?
Is there any cost to you in not selling them? E.g. you have to store them. That storage space may be incidental or substantial. If they require any upkeep, that matters, too.
Also, current market trends vis-a-vis supply-demand pricing will dictate whether you want to offload them quickly or to wait for prices to increase.
Then you need to compare your estimated increase due to waiting against other potential increases like... if I wait it will gain value at 1%, but if I sell it now and invest that money, it will gain value much faster.
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
nope, just the three that exist.
nope
Market for them won't change in the foreseeable future. The only thing that I can see changing is that when one has been used then there are only two so the price would change accordingly (I'd assume up).
Sell one, wait for the price to go up, sell the second, same thing, sell the third?
OKQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Sure it will. People are fickle. Some will lose interest, out of futility at the ridiculously low chance of them acquiring said items. Some will want the items more over time if they symbolize some aspect of what the people admire.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
You can play to their ideals by how you communicate what it is you have. Marketing influences people's understanding of the value of your items.
So by selling the item, it becomes "used?" It cannot be re-sold by the buyer?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
There's very little point in me telling you something if you're just going to tell me I'm wrong. What I've said is the case and even if it isn't what I'm asking for is under those criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No, by being used it becomes used. By selling it someone else has it. That's why I said after it's used not after it's sold.
That's a perfectly fair assessment. I wasn't trying to re-phrase your question, but we've exposed a misunderstanding on my part.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
If you're going to stipulate that you aren't selling the items in a human-consumer market, then I'm at a loss.
So poop's stipulation that by selling one, the price will go up, is not a guarantee, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
In that case you have to make assumptions about what each buyer is going to do with it, either use it or resell it. Seems impossible. But given you have no reason to want to use the items up yourself, then there's no other way to push the price up than sell one and hope it gets used.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Destroy two of them.
It's a reasonable assumption that they would get used but there is no guarantee. If there is demand and very limited supply does it make sense to buy one and hope the price goes up as the other two get used?
But does the value lost from the other two increase the value of the one that is left that much? I think it's unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I reckon if there's one of something in the world, it's worth more than three times the value of the same item of which three exist.
Depends on the item in question, of course, but imagine if there are only three copies left of a particular record. They would be worth a lot of money, but its value if fixed in the sense that all three of them are worth the same. Imagine if there was only one. It's now essentially priceless, because there's no comparison, it's worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. That could be significantly more than three times the original value.
There's probably some equation in economics that describes this. My hunch though is that three of the same items are always going to have a higher sum value than one item alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think it depends on the item's natural inclination to deteriorate in quality. For something that has a short shelf life, then sure. But for something that lasts for decades, I think the balance would tip in favour of rarity. Obviously, there's no economic basis for my comments, it's pure speculation on my part.
The question seems to vague to answer. Not vague regarding the product necessarily, but vague regarding maximizing value. We could talk for hours on the profitability of advertising, for example. Advertising would certainly be part of maximizing value
I was purposefully trying to be vague for simplicity. We can assume advertising plays no impact if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I mean, I guess if we're talking super general.
You want to find the person with the deepest pocket, and convince them that the thing is worth a shit ton. The only info we have right now is rarity, so we'd exploit the shit out of that.
I guess the museum approach works too though. Don't sell it, but charge to see it. That could ultimately prove more valuable if it was something of little material worth
The solution to this can be thought of as more art than science. Perhaps coincidentally, the closest relation is probably rare collectible art. We haven't defined the function of the good, so we don't know if it's like having 3 Mona Lisas or 3 holodecks. There is potential that 3 Mona Lisas would be less valuable than 1, while 3 holodecks would definitely be more valuable than 1. This is because the value collectors give to the Mona Lisa depends greatly on its scarcity; whereas the value of a holodeck is all the amazing things anybody can use it for, and abundance of holodecks by the seller is desired.
So, what we're looking at here, and why it could be described as more art than science, is you're gonna want to auction your stuff off (or maybe sell in gallery), and you're probably gonna want to hire the person/company that is best at maximizing profits there. Beyond this point, I don't know much about auctions/galleries. Maybe it would be best to start with a low price at an auction in order to generate competition (a strategy stellar at persuading people that they want the item), or maybe it would be best to start with a ridiculously high price in order to make the item seem more valuable than it really is and that it makes anybody who owns it look like a gangster (also a stellar persuasion tool). One strategy I suspect you will not want to do is price it high then lower the price. This would make the item look cheap. Nobody wants a bargain when they're buying for status.
I'll think a while on this to see if I can come up with some other strategy, but what I think we're looking at here is a market of rare collectibles. I've never come across any economics on that type of a market, but the real world deals with them through things like auctions (or maybe galleries). I suspect marketing is the most important element when it comes to maximizing profits here. If we're just deducing from supply and demand, we kinda have no choice but to just guess on what the curves look like. There may be some techniques to get close by comparing to other similar goods, but I suspect they all break down at such minuscule quantities.
If we're not confined to sale of the items, then yeah leasing/charging admittance might be best.
Discussion makes me think of Damien Hirst's pickled animals artwork. He's smart in that he either sold or gifted the pieces, but only he and his engineers can periodically re-pickle the animals at an extortionate cost. The artwork will ultimately decay too, so won't last like the Mona Lisa. That guy definitely has a smart business brain.
He's certainly a better businessman than he is artist, I'll give him that.
I'm really loving this new toy, guys!
https://s3media.247sports.com/Upload...963/963950.gif
It does fine work.
Is that his junk flailing?
Ummmmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sure.
i could see some of you guys thinking this is cool. it ends with a hypothesis for why there seems a divergence in people favoring science and people favoring not-science
http://www.businessinsider.com/chris...olution-2016-9
https://66.media.tumblr.com/52ee2869...pp2to1_500.gifQuote:
I think we should be skeptical of anyone who publishes a study explaining why people who disagree with them are less clever.
It is interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery....087104&EXT=pdf
A quick scan suggests to me that their data do seem to support the idea that people of higher intelligence tend to hold views more consistent with their religious beliefs. Not sure that proves what they say it proves, there's certainly other possible explanations.
For example, instead of taking the data as suggesting something to the effect of 'smart people are better at talking themselves into believing things' (which sounds a bit like saying the smart people are outsmarting themselves), the data could also be interpreted in an entirely different way.
What the data might suggest is that dumb people are less able to see, or are more willing to accept, the inconsistencies of different beliefs they hold. The smarter people might have a world view in which it makes no sense to believe in both God and evolution, so they tend to choose one and reject the other. Conversely, the dumb ones either aren't as good at seeing the inconsistency in mismatched views, or for some reason aren't as bothered by it, as the smart ones.
After all, isn't part of being smart being able to identify when things do or don't add up? Isn't a dumb person more likely to believe two things that are inconsistent with each other?
The best part of that is, their own study didn't disprove that, it just revealed an even larger effect of something else.Quote:
I think we should be skeptical of anyone who publishes a study explaining why people who disagree with them are less clever.
Excellent point. I think I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Here's a wild thought one of my student's led me to.
I assert (with good reason) that all of math is predicated on the notion that identity is a meaningful thing - i.e. that it is not some fault of human observation to see distinct "things" in the universe.
Then, if there are multiple universes, this proves it's not a fault in human observation, by stipulation, and at the very least, there is math in between the universes.
Evolution and god are not inconsistent with one another. Sure, there's a bunch of crazy god botherers who won't accept evolution because it flies in the face of their idea that we were made in god's image, but those people who reject evolution because it's inconsistent with their idea of god, they're not clever, they're dumb.
Depends on your interpretation of the Bible. If you take it as the literal truth (which it seems reasonable will correlate with being 'highly religious'), there isn't time for evolution to have happened. Moreover, I don't know any highly religious person who believes it was God's idea to have man evolve from apes. Man was supposed to have been instantaneously created * in his present state by God. You can't believe that and believe in evolution at the same time unless you're willing to accept two mutually incompatible things.
* ok it took a whole day but still not millions of years.
Another possibility is that dumb people aren't able to grasp the basic idea of evolution well enough to even realise it's inconsistent with their religious beliefs. There's some pretty stupid people out there.
Dumb people might also be more inclined than smart people to just believe whatever they've been taught (as opposed to trying to weigh the evidence) which could include things that are incompatible with other things they've been taught. Which kind of goes back to my original argument.
Yeah, I agree.Quote:
Depends on your interpretation of the Bible. If you take it as the literal truth, then you are a moron.
Then I feel this reflects poorly on the average intelligence of "hard-core religious" types.Quote:
Moreover, I don't know any hard-core religious person who believes it was God's idea to have man evolve from apes.
The problem we have here is that "god" and "religion" are not one and the same, but in this context you have taken it to be so. I said god and evolution are not incompatible, which is true. Many religions are incompatible though, because they're ultra-conservative and they will not accept they have a flawed belief system, and it's outright offensive to them to dare to suggest that they are wrong.
I believe in the theory of evolution. And while I find religion to be ridiculous, I don't outright dismiss the idea of god, for the simple reason I believe in the soul or the spirit or whatever you want to call it... the individual nature of my conciousness. There is more than just being alive and then being dead. So I don't really think you'll succeed in convincing me that god and evolution are incompatible. Moronity and evolution are incompatible!
I'm not trying to convince you of that, I'm trying to explain how these researchers showed the effect they did, and why I think there's a better explanation of their data than the one they offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's certainly true that God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive if you have a view of God different from a highly religious person, or at least if we're talking about a highly religious person from a Western religion that I'm familiar with.
Religion's total unwillingness to adapt to science will be its eventual downfall. Over time, the moronity of the belief system will become more apparent, as we become more intelligent and educated. We can already mock the flat earthers with a ridiculously high degree of confidence. I don't think evolution is too far behind in this regard.
In other words, I think if you took part in their study, you'd fall into the high intelligence, low religious category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Though to be fair the former assumption may be premature. How many of these can you answer correctly? The average college student scores about 0.6/3Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
-
1.WIDGET.
If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? ____ minutes
2.BATBALL.
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? ____ cents
3.LILLYPAD.
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? ____ days
Well, I don't hold any religious beliefs, so there is no risk of incompatibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I think I took issue with this statement...
This implies to me that people who refuse to change their religious beliefs based on science are smart. They are not, they are dumb.Quote:
A quick scan suggests to me that their data do seem to support the idea that people of higher intelligence tend to hold views more consistent with their religious beliefs
Maybe I'm missing the point of the study.
It may be best to not think of religion as unable to adapt to science. Christianity has adapted to science a bunch. By nature, Christianity seems to always fight against liberalization, but it is still liberalized nonetheless. Note that the fight against liberalization isn't bad either. It's a way to keep things from falling apart from liberalizing in deleterious ways.
As for Christians not believing in evolution, well, I know some who do. I've a friend who is pretty hardcore Church of Christ Protestant, with an IQ I suspect would be about as high as the high ones on this board. He adopted evolution, against the grain of his church, because his wife was adamant about it (Masters in Biology), and it makes sense to him. This didn't change how Christian they are.
Granted, most of the Christians I know (it's been a lot), believe evolution is a hoax.
I take issue wit the premise of CRT answers correlating with intelligence at all.
It may be worth considering that smart people can also believe dumb things.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Arguably it doesn't. But to be fair they don't interpret it as a measure of intelligence per se. One of the authors even argues elsewhere that rationality (which the CRT is meant to measure) is something separable from intelligence (page 56).Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...lation&f=false
My own first thought is that if a measure of rationality doesn't correlate pretty highly with a measure of logical analysis (which is recognized as one of the three pillars of IQ, along with math/spatial ability and verbal ability) then there's something about their definition of rationality that I'm not getting.
Edit: (p. 57) I think Stanovich is tying rationality in with social intelligence, where being rational involves ignoring your emotions/ intuitions and focusing on objective facts. He seems to be saying whereas intelligent people might be better at objective analysis than dummies, they may not always act rationally because behavior can also be driven by their emotion.
I'm not sure it's that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Whether you believe (personally) in evolution or creation, it's all abstraction. You're not making any decisions in your life based on those beliefs. All they do for you really is just affect your feelings. Everybody believes in all sorts of irrational things when they're just abstractions. In fact the most rational thing for people to believe when it comes to abstractions is what makes them feel the best.
It should be noted that when beliefs affect daily life, the irrationality tends to disappear. This is why there are successful engineers who believe in creation. Being an engineer takes every bit of rational thought as humans have, so it shows they're not dumb people.
Even me, there is a small possibility that I will return to Christianity and/or "believe in" God again. I would do it because I wanted to, because I preferred the community and family and some of the morals. I would do it in a cognitive dissonant way. It would be something as simple as telling myself that God could exist (which is true but not something I quite believe); therefore I could adopt the elements of formal Christianity in my life I want.
About the cognitive dissonance, we all do it. There is one particular painful thing regarding my private life that I am knowingly dissonant about, meaning that in order to keep it from causing me anxiety, I lie to myself about it, and I know I lie about it. The brain is just weird. It can believe two contradictory things at once without sweat.
I've come to learn that life can't be fit into a neat box, and that people are naturally irrational. I used to hate Christianity and call everybody who believed in it stupid. But I realized it's more complex than that. The world is cold and brutal and senseless; Christianity is a way to pretend like it's warm and nice and sensible. Humans are selfish, irrational messes; Christianity is a way for humans to pretend that we're stoic, benevolent, and ordered. I don't care if it's not true*, I'd be better off believing that I'm a part of something bigger than myself.
*Even saying it's "not true" isn't true. What does it even mean to be a part of something bigger than yourself? Even if God doesn't exist yet you believe he does along with many others, you are still a part of something bigger than yourself. A million years from now, is it going to matter if you were a part of a superstitious cult or a scientific body? No. If it could be said that anything would matter, it would just be how you felt at the time, how much satisfaction your decisions brought your life.
I believe the whole conflict between science and religion is 100% fabricated and based on misunderstanding what science and religion are. The fields do not address the same categories of questions.
Science is only concerned with measurable and predictable observations. Science tries to describe "what" the world is.
Religion answers questions of "why" the world is what it is, or of "how" we should spend our time, or of what is "good."
Science is not qualified or prepared to answer the questions of religion and vise versa.
A religious person citing a thousands of years old document as proof of what the universe is is laughable.
A scientist claiming there is no benefit to religion, or that it is "wrong" to reject scientific findings is laughable.
Anyone on either side choosing to be stubborn about the findings of the other side is choosing ignorance over the advancement of understanding.
^Makes sense.
I agree with this 100%. Richard Dawkins is an arrogant wanker imo. So is his religious equivalent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I agree also if you replace the word 'findings' (religion hasn't 'found' anything in the way I think of the word) with 'world view' or something more general.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I dont see the CRT as measuring rationality or logic either.
The questions are easy, but are also "trick" questions. If you just glance at them and spit out an answer, you'll get it wrong. But take the time to think it through, and ba-da-bing.
Those who got it right took more time on the question (or saw them before). We'd like to say that they took more time because they're more rational/logical/intelligent, whatever. But thats a jump. It assumes that those who took more time did so because they are "smarter", but it could be something more like these individuals were more afraid of being wrong. Or were more cautious. It could be that the people who got the questions wrong had better things to do, and wanted to finish as fast as possible.
Without reading more than the simple article's explanation of it, it seems like another example of a study that someone has blown way out of proportion to assert something that isnt supported.
Theres an even crazier idea too. If you buy into the theory that our brain is lazy, and wants to create shortcuts, it could just be that the people who got it right were trained by habit to take more time on word problems!
Does that habit make them smarter? It could, I guess. Certainly smarter when it comes to solving word problems, I suppose. Smarter in general? More capable at identifiying logical fallacies or tearing down assumptions than others? Eh, maybe not.
I agree it's not really clear the test is valid.
According to Wiki,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Reflection_TestQuote:
The test has been found to correlate with many measures of economic thinking, such as temporal discounting, risk preference, and gambling preference.[1] It has also been found to correlate with measures of mental heuristics, such as the gambler's fallacy, understanding of regression to the mean, the sunk cost fallacy, and others.[2]
...which seems like saying if you do well on that test you also tend to know certain things that aren't intuitive or that run counter to folk psychology. Which only proves you're more educated or at least more test-savvy, not more logical.
What niggles me more is that it's comprised of only three measures (questions), where a more reliable test would have a lot more. What it means is that whatever score an individual person gets is going to be further on average from their 'true' ability (whatever the ability might actually be) than had they taken a longer test.
Has anyone actually seen any evidence of Spoon being alive recently? I don't have many people on skype anymore.
I often wonder who, of the online people I know, would be the first to die, and then naturally ask myself how we'd ever find out.
I actually sometimes look back at the people I used to be really close with through online gaming and that I no longer speak to and feel bad about it, some much more so than IRL friends I've drifted apart from. Know a couple of online people who've killed themselves but we weren't close so I don't really care.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Spoon said he was getting married, so that's possibly what he's spending his time on.
He's also financially practical, so possibly found a gig that pays well and doesn't leave extra time for internet chat.
IDK.
My money is on his ex killing him.
He was a good guy too.
I'm more thinking along the lines of this. That or that extra girl living with him had a psycho link who killed them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
Let's all take a moment to remember out good not irl friend, Spoon. Slain by a mental chick who he'd groomed into being down with his polygamy. May his bloodless corpse rest in peace in its many separately buried locations.
It's also quite possible that he pissed someone off online and they hunted him down, made him pay.
I often wonder if people on youtube will ever find out who I am.
Ya, it would be awful if someone came and poured coke on your head. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
ong would snort it though and die from an overdose
Does anyone remember when keith was funny?
I don't even know who you are on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Which is a bit odd, I guess. Since I've already decided that if I ever visit your jolly old island I'm going to make an effort to track you down and buy you a pint or two. I probably wouldn't even dump any of them on your head. Probably.
Internet friends... such an odd way to enjoy another person's company. You think you'll get along IRL, but who knows?
Keith used to be funny?!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
:shock:
I troll the shit out of people on youtube, it's just so easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
My mate has been threatened with death by a Muslim on liveleak, so I guess I'm far from an elite troll, but I do my bit.
And I'll only accept a drink off you if you accept this "cigarette" off me. I probably won't make it too strong. Probably.
Back in the day. I guess his problem these days is that there's not many people left for him to rip piss into, all he has is me for being an idle stoner, and wuf for somehow talking more bollocks than me. He needs fresh meat for the grinder.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
All the internet friends I've met have been pretty much like they are online so we tend to get on. Was one guy who was a bit annoying but he was online too just IRL you can't just ignore people like you can online.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think I'd be less annoying to you people IRL.
I think. Depends how much cider I've drunk, really.
i feel weird being the one with this knowledge, but according to instagram spoon is alive as of 5 weeks ago.
ong i think we'd kick it real good irl
yeah you like to party and you like good music, we'd be hitting bongs and drinking quality cider in no time.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
When I think of ong playing online poker all day, I think of that WOW guy from Southpark.
lol like I can be arsed to play poker all day.
If I manage an hour in a day, I feel like I've had a productive day, regardless of results.
I'm not sure 3 litres for £2 cider is considered quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This further confirms my thoughts that he is actually dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
I'm starting to like this ImSavy guy.
Where in Canada are you? Guessing you grew up in BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BankItDrew
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJDKIwZg...otential_eight
RIP Spoon.
I think you're confusing him with another cool guy. I grew up in Alberta, live in the UK now.
I don't get the photo. Did she try to kill him by booby-trapping his fan somehow?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I'm from the UK.
pfft you have no idea how much of a cider snob I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I won't drink cheap cider, I'd rather just not drink at all.
Like, if I had to drink nasty cider, or fuck imsavy up the arse, I'd have to think about it while I smoked a spliff.
You're 100% correct about the geographical mix-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And on that note I'm off to drink cider and smoke weed.
See? I fucking told you so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
she was crazy and spoon is a master troll. Guy's dead.
Heh when I was 18 and always broke me and my always broke friends would drink this shit called 'Club' beer. Cheap as fuck and so awful - until you had about six of them when they started tasting like Dom Perignon.
Hahaha. I'd like to see the odds for those up on Betfair. (sorry for mixing up threads).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you from Canada BID? Whereabouts?
Grimsby Ontario.
On the lake? Nice.
Lethbridge.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Nice!
It is likely he is not dead on account of he defriended me on fb either at the same time he left or some time shortly before.
His fb appears to be much smaller than I thought it was. I don't recall what his friends list was like before, but the current one looks like just close family and close friends or something. Anyways, somebody reported him to fb (they were in the wrong, not him). He got reinstated briefly after. He probably thinks that it's all his pro-Trump posting that did it. Maybe he got reported again and then decided to get rid of flak. At first I thought his account was deleted since his name on fb IM changed to "Facebook User". Maybe it was deleted and he made a new one with his same name (if that's possible).
I sent him a skype a while ago but I think it was to an old channel and I never got a response. I haven't decided to try to skype him again.
Seems like another perk of visiting the UK would be the cider.
Cider isn't really a thing in the states. If a bar has cider, they prob have one kind of mass-produced cider in bottles. I don't know of any bars that have cider on draft. Micro-breweries are popular, and most cities and towns have a local brewery which may or may not have a seasonal cider on draft, depending on the owner's sensibilities. I don't know of any micro brewer that has a year-round cider available on draft, though.
im way way way different irl. you guys would, um, you would actually like me irl. frankly it's impossible not to.
perhaps the reason im so much different irl and online is because im good with and enjoy people while also am good at and enjoy arguing. the internet is a great place for raw argumentation, while irl is terrible for that. online im quite argumentative but irl it's a terrible idea.