See deez nutsQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Printable View
See deez nutsQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It's a shame some posts got purged with the forum down. Some good stuff was in there. Now there's no record of Spoon arguing that the only reason women are not as physically strong as men is because girls aren't encouraged to play sports.
I stumbled upon some gender/performance related stuff, it's around the 1h24m mark in part 2 of this:
Part1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WZx7lUOrY
Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG5fN6KrDJE
He's talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
Basically there's a correlation between GII and gender specific performance by country.
On second thought that guy has probably never heard of the red pill and looks pretty cucked.
I've never believed this, and I'm not sure if I ever posted it trolling, but if I did, I would have loved to see who I was fucking with and what their response was.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you ever want a good discussion of the description of the history/evolution of "the red pill" community and how it ended up as the clusterfuck it is now, I can lay that one out pretty well. I used to have a blog that had around 4.5-5k subscriptions before TRP made its way to Reddit that was relationship game focused and eventually just shut it down because of the ridiculousness that unfolded.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I would read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
btw I was joking about you saying sports + young girls = grown up manstrong women
I have some time to kill, so I'll type this out real quick.
The roots of what's now known as "The Red Pill" (TRP for short) are primarily but not totally from the pick-up artist (PUA) culture that started in the mid-to-late 1990s on Usenet message boards and later on various web forums. The premise of the whole PUA thing was that some guys weren't successful with women, and they wanted to be, so they applied the scientific method. They developed and discussed hypotheses, tested those hypotheses in the field with experimentation, came back to write about their experiences and used that to come up with new hypotheses. They eventually got to the point that there were different schools of thought, but they were all based on the same basic principles that undeniably worked for a large percentage of men who were otherwise unsuccessful with women.
I want to point out that for the majority of these guys, they really just sought this out because they wanted a girlfriend.
Neil Strauss' popular book "The Game" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ga...Pickup_Artists) brought PUA culture into the mainstream in the mid-00's.
A number of blogs, forums and other forms of online media were developed as the PUA community expanded and branched off into all kinds of other shit. Some of these focused on societal issues and mixed with other communities like the men's rights movement. You ended up with a few key groups:
* PUAs - Generally just wanted to get laid and hang out with girls.
* MGTOW - "Men going their own way," men who sincerely could get women if they wanted but decided to opt out of the game.
* MRAs - Men's rights activists, fighting for equality for men.
* Incels - Men who involuntarily could not have sex or romantic relationships with women.
* Various other groups that would pull from a variety of sources to have better success with women, whether in relationships or not.
Somewhere among all of this, there started to be this concept called "taking the red pill" which became a shorthand for a guy's eyes sort of opening and seeing that a lot of what he had been taught about women and the world was bullshit. There were lots of different examples of this, and the loose community as a whole with all of these different groups started to be called the "red pill community" just to have a term to call them all collectively.
Derived from all of this, there were a number of "red pill" principles and a pretty simple body of theory and terms that were used. I'll cover some of those that might be of note down below if I don't run out of time.
With the whole PUA thing in particular, it became incredibly commercialized, and every other motherfucker who knows just a little bit about it has a book he's trying to sell to you or some other shit. These guys, the vast majority of which did not understand the material on a deep level and most of which didn't have extensive experience applying it, started competing against each other. And how do you compete against each other on a marketing front? By having a more extreme gimmick than the next guy.
Here's a relatively recent example: http://time.com/3578387/julien-blanc...cial-dynamics/
Long story short, a guy named Julien Blanc, who also works for one of the most popular companies pushing PUA informational products, did some videos where he appeared (the keyword being appeared, it was all marketing bullshit to show that he was more extreme and more badass and whatever else than the competition) to just randomly go up and choke complete strangers in public and for the girls to like it. The mainstream media loves picking up stories on this type of shit, and they did, but he loves it because it just gives him more exposure to guys who eventually buy his shit.
This pattern of commercialization leading to bastardization will come up again in just a moment.
In 2012, "The Red Pill" subreddit was created. It was originally just put into place to have yet another spot where people could talk about their various flavors of whatever the fuck they were doing at the time that related to any of the PUA, MGTOW, MRA and related shit. It quickly grew in popularity (and later infamy) from the exposure it got from other people on reddit coming across it and sharing it. The end result is that it became sort of the central hub of the TRP community as a whole.
However, because it was full of complete newcomers who had no fucking idea what they were talking about, it also became a complete and total clusterfuck within a year. You can think of it as how feminism was pretty reasonable to begin with, but then they let too many nutjobs under the tent, and now it's mostly just seen as a living, breathing punchline.
Because it was a concentrated group of the target audience, a bunch of know-nothing motherfuckers started pushing books, blogs and whatever the fuck else on there. Now don't get me wrong because there are some pretty reasonable people who understand what they're talking about and that aren't on some bullshit, but they are few and far between. The competition between these dipshits combined with 99 percent of the people there being pretty new and only having a vague idea of what they are talking about turned it into a retarded edgelord circlejerk, and the main subreddit is generally unreadable at this point. It's such a clusterfuck that it's unreal, and it's generally deserving of most of the hate that it gets. It's also mostly useless at this point (though that's not the case for all of the subs, see below).
There are a few other subreddits of note that I'll point out here:
/r/askTRP - Ask questions about the RP.
/r/marriedredpill - RP theory applied to marriage.
/r/askMRP - Ask questions about the married RP applications.
/r/redpillwomen - The main subreddit for applying RP theory as a female.
/r/altTRP - The subreddit for gay, bisexual, trans, etc. application of RP theory.
The marriedredpill and askMRP subreddits are probably the two best if you want to get the closest to just a pure discussion of relationship game, which is what I get asked about specifically the most.
I have a few minutes left, so I'll quickly describe a few terms that tend to get a lot of discussion off of the top of my head:
* Alpha/beta/omega - There's a big misconception that these are somehow based on animal hierarchies or some shit, and that's just not true. They're just shorthand for behaviors and characteristics that are generally sexually attractive/sexually neutral/sexually repulsive to women, respectively. For a quick example, successful relationship game requires a mix of both alpha and beta behavior while minimizing omega behavior. Have one-night stands with bar sluts, on the other hand, would require much more alpha and much less beta.
* Alpha male/beta male/omega male - These describe men who are sexually attractive/sexually neutral/sexually repulsive to women. What constitutes an "alpha male" has nothing to do with animal hierarchies or any other goofy shit like that within the RP lexicon.
* Sigma male/delta male/gamma male - Same shit as above but introverted instead of extroverted. Again, it's just a shorthand because motherfuckers got tired of typing out "introverted man who is sexually attractive to women," etc. The distinctions are needed because being introverted or extroverted changes a lot for a guy.
* Dread - Dread is the feeling that woman has when she knows the guy she's with has other sexual options, whether he would exercise those or not. When it's done correctly (ie: "passive dread"), it's just a side effect of being attractive/having attractive behavior that you can't help. When it's done incorrectly (ie: "active dread"), it's some real tryhard and generally emotionally abusive type bullshit that no one who knows what they're talking about recommends. Passive dread is important to understand so that you can learn how to navigate certain situations like a waitress flirting with you in front of the girl you're with or something like that without pissing the girl off, making an ass out of yourself or looking like a dipshit.
* Negging - Negging is playful teasing. It should be a positive experience for the girl. It has a reputation for being some kind of super crazy manipulative shit where you bring the girl's self-esteem down to manipulate her into liking you or some other goofy shit, and you can think the escalating commercialization of PUA-style game for that.
* Spinning plates - Spinning plates is the idea of having multiple girls that you're seeing. It's based on the carnival routine of the guy spinning a bunch of plates up on poles. If one falls and crashes to the ground, then no big deal, just keep spinning plates. Pimps would call this cop and blow. It's a form of polyamory, but you won't ever see it discussed as such.
As for RP theory itself, that's another post, but this might give you some idea of how it came about and became the clusterfuck that it is now.
Reddit in a nutshell.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
thx btw
Being completely honest without exaggerating: This mostly wraps up what happened. Something like 95-99% of RP discussion happens on or through the subreddits now, and 90 percent of what doesn't centers around forums that are trying to sell you something.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Well that was a lot less juicy than I was hoping for. From the periphery it looks to me as if Tinder had a big part in killing off the PUA culture. It used to be this whole act, and now you just have to swipe to get fucked. I have two morbidly obese friends. They're super into it. I believe I've gone into details before so I don't want to repeat myself, but honestly if you're 400lb and and a decent looking regular sized woman lets you lie on top of her, you have to expect collateral.
So here's why this whole PU game has been weird to me. Have you ever read a book about body language and then wished that you didn't? I read this pos book standing up in a library 20 years ago and I still think about some of the stupid shit I read sometimes. How you mimic people in conversation to gain sympathy. I don't even want to know any of that. That was totally fine when it was subconscious. I don't want to talk to a person and constantly think about how I'm manipulating them and they're manipulating me. It was difficult enough to find a topic before all of that baggage.
haha, I can relate to that oskar-- however, I think it's kinda of like any profound realization. Take the vastness of the universe, which can easily lead to nihilistic thoughts, but once you drudge through those you can get to some cool ideas that actually enhance your life and understanding of the more mundane and less profound.
I've had the same concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Now I think I'm not trying to get anybody to do anything they don't want to do. I'm just trying to get them to feel more comfortable, happier, and if we're in a disagreement, for them to see what I see.
I had a problem with one of my professors. She thought I was attacking her (I wasn't) and it blew up into a big deal before I realized she thought I was attacking her. So I then had to focus on things that would make her feel like I was not attacking her. This included apologizing, smiling more at her, thanking her a whole bunch, not sitting aggressively, disengaging my normal kidding/sarcastic personality when talking to her, and asking questions in a less aggressive way. And it worked. We had no problems after that. Did I manipulate her? Well, sure, that is a way that it can be looked at, but I don't think it's an informative way. I was just trying to put us both in a better position by doing things that I believed would make her feel more comfortable and sympathetic.
Yeah, either you peek under the hood and let your preconceptions shape what you're seeing, or you accept what you're seeing as a reason to reshape your preconceptions. I get how you arrive at the former, but I think the latter is preferable. Whether the new knowledge concerns interpersonal influence or germ theory, running some version of the latter process is the basis for all self improvement, societal improvement, etc.
This only works if you see what they see (how they see it) as well. The way you are framing it right now is as if you are right always and by default, and others have to see things the exact way you do as well because other ways do not existQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thanks. Could you point that out in the future when you see it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It would really help me. Know-it-all-ness is a real problem in my family. My grandfather was literally never wrong in his own mind and my grandmother literally shuts out anything she doesn't want to think. The other side where my genes come from has moderated this such that my siblings and I are aware of the pitfall and are very soured by it and try to correct for it.
You should. The story of the original Mass Effect (the whole original trilogy) fits exactly into one of the possible directions of intelligenceQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
I did my best not to spoil everything
I'll do my bestQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I can't possibly know how this story went down, but from what you tell me this could as well have been just you being obnoxious, by idunno, talking about your theories about the religion of communism for example... and when you got called out on it you stopped being obnoxious. Like Jack said, everyone's reality is different
I avoided her for quite a while after because of how unobnoxious what I did to get her off was.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Anywho, the flaws I have that I talk about are the ones I'm pretty good at making not flaws. It's the flaws I have that I don't talk about that are the real killer.
It's a shame we lost the religion/communism responses. That connection is very solid. It's basically a humanistic religion. We have seen this manifest with North Korea, so we know that connection is real.
I'm glad to see this from you. A lot of people who are religious/see value in religion point to the examples of communism and fascism in the 20th century as marks against atheism.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It was God's will.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
gmml is a Will? I thought his name started with a "C."
They discard the concept of a being greater than human and replace it with humanism (and the state) as the great being.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Atheism is not itself religious, but I don't see it as a coincidence that adoption of atheism associates with religious belief and behavior where the "god" is the human and the state.
Boost did you see my response on Jordan Peterson that got lost?
I think the criticism you had is the biggest issue he has to deal with. We don't know what truth is. I don't find the contrary position, that science tells us what is, persuasive either. Spiritual ideas are metaphysical.
You stating that your strawman is very solid does not make your strawman any more solid. If you want to talk about north korea, let's talk about north korea. But when you're talking about communism in broad terms you cannot pull up x regime that has adopted communist ideology and rhetoric and then use that to make your point about communism. The idea that you have a fat chink god who loves cheese and plays a perfect game of golf is not a hallmark of communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't think I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So, yeah, there may be things that we want to know that for various reasons, such as the constraints of physics, the constraints of our capacity to comprehend, etc, we may never know. So, yeah, I think we'll just never know them. It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, but it also doesn't mean we should just play make believe in that space.
More specifically towards the claim that we don't know what truth is-- well, I may be tempted to agree there, but by using Peterson's logic, the true definition of truth is the most useful one. I'd argue this is the one we use to facilitate running water, handheld computing devices, landing on the moon (all reasonable people, left and right, still believe that, right?), etc. It's a definition of truth which is grounded and allows robust systems to be built on top of it. Peterson's truth doesn't get us that. Instead it gets us a bunch of cool and interesting heuristics, many of which can be transferred out of his fever dream and into reality.
I agree that people tend to senselessly turn ideas into dogmas and once you subscribe to a line of thinking you are more likely to accept concepts that resonate with that line of thinking, rather than evaluating them rationally. But that's not a trope that's exclusive to x economic theory. That can be said about nearly anything.
This is not a refutation of atheism (not sure if it's meant to be.) You seem to be imagining some sort of progressive move from religiosity to atheism to religious worship of the terrestrial. I would argue that this last move is a backslide, one that is indeed enabled by the sidelining of traditional religious institution, but is not itself caused by atheism or even needs to be predicated on atheism. Instead it's more like you've yanked the dildo out and the lack of stimulation juxtaposed with the previous moment of being filled makes your own non-pretend cock look super appealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That was something I came to after having made the case through other means. Thought maybe people would like seeing that the most extreme version of communism also is an obvious religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It raises some questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Maybe we shouldn't be calling religion only that which has a large enough amount of people declaring to be religion. Maybe we should look deeper, at behaviors and principles and such.
I don't think using the term religion is not helpful. A religion is simply a large enough cult and a cult is a group of people dogmatically subscribing to a supernatural believe. I don't think you can use it in reference to ideologies without causing confusion. I'd just use the word ideology instead.
I don't see the distinction between the posited Peterson's truth and the other truth. Peterson discusses elements of our lives where science has shown little. He essentially uses a humanities type approach to a problem that has lack of experimental capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
My issue is that he implies that because humans are a certain way it means that there is something greater at work. Well, yeah, and that something "greater" could just be biological adaptive advantage. He doesn't actually disagree with that, but it's an edge that he is unable to push past.
I'm also not a fan of the idea that science somehow denies the sorts of things Peterson discusses. It doesn't.
Yeah, for sure. I think this is where people can get things a little confused though. Often you'll see people point to actions/trends/etc in "science" that look awfully religious, and then conclude, "ah-ha! Science is just another religion!" Another (I'd argue more plausible) interpretation is that humans are fallible and have a long history of religiosity-- we likely are even genetically predisposed to religious belief (whether it is in deities or not), and so scientists, being human, slip up. But the answer is, "more science!" Science is the check on these slip ups, not the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'd probably be okay with that if we could stick to it. What do you think about the subset of Islam that is essentially a political ideology masquerading as a religion, and about stoicism, which includes the idea that religiousness needs political action?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
They're not mutually exclusive. Islam in some iterations is a political movement. To some muslims it's just a religion. It can be either one or both.
Yeah, I should also admit, I just don't like his style of speaking. Maybe I should read some of his stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think it does. I suppose I should say that I'm a materialist, and so arguments seeking to cordon off sections of reality as being out of bounds for science just sound like various god of the gaps arguments to me. It was well within living memory that the field of philosophy was more or less untouched by science. Now pretty much every philosopher is at least a very amateurish neurobiologist.Quote:
I'm also not a fan of the idea that science somehow denies the sorts of things Peterson discusses. It doesn't.
When has he stated or implied something is off bounds to science? When I say he uses the humanities approach, I'm talking about things where science is relevant but that constraints are so severe that science yields little useful result. This is like when you write a critical essay on Hamlet. How in the world does science dissect Hamlet? I mean, it can and hopefully one day will, but so far we have no idea how to approach Hamlet with a scientific method. So instead we use all sorts of intuition and correlation type logic to dissect Hamlet. That's the same kind of thing Peterson does when it comes to dissecting "happiness" or "meaning" or "what does the idea of sacrifice mean to humankind?"Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
NSFW
Anyone know where I can find bras/panties or shorts like these?
Spoiler:
doesnt realize that being into traps is en vogue
Yeah, I should probably just read some Peterson. The only thing is, I will undoubtedly read it in his voice, which will agitate me.
"Boost obliterates Canada." /CNNQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
"Boost pushes anti-Kermit the Frog narrative" /Salon
Except I was into it 10 years before it was cool, so I'm basically a chicks with dicks hipster.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Bailey Jay changed a lot of things.
My first experience with a tranny was a young black lady with a dick the size of an acorn. Pretty sure she was a white supremacist. As much as that sounds like some shit I'd make up, I'm not joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Didnt you once post a pic of you in a thong?
yeah im sure you're not joking
feg
It was an mspaint job. Myself and bard from the IRC days conspired on that. We used a generic picture of some dude's ass in a white thong and copied the FTR logo over from one of the CB thong pics if I'm not mistaken. I'm generally a top.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thongs are ludicrously uncomfortable.
It depends on the material and how it's made.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And besides, I don't really give a shit because I'm not the one wearing it. If a girl wants to talk about how uncomfortable some shit is, she can be really comfortable hitting the fucking road.
"India was at a crossroads in the mid-seventeenth century; it had the potential of moving forward with Dara Shikoh, or of turning back to medievalism with Aurangzeb." Eraly, Abraham (2004). The Mughal Throne : The Saga of India's Great Emperors. London: Phoenix. p. 336. ISBN 0-7538-1758-6.
"Poor Dara Shikoh!....thy generous heart and enlightened mind had reigned over this vast empire, and made it, perchance, the garden it deserves to be made". William Sleeman (1844), E-text of Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official p.272
Speaking of Bailey Jay, it's a strange world when a dude is prettier than most chicks.
120V/60Hz tilts me
Here is the spec sheet of a random receiver
Power Supply
[U.S.A. and Canada models] ...................................... AC 120 V, 60 Hz
[Brazil and General models] .................................................. AC 110 to 120/220 to 240 V, 50/60 Hz
[Korea model] .................................................. ........... AC 220 V, 60 Hz
[Australia model] .................................................. ...... AC 240 V, 50 Hz
[U.K. and Europe models] .......................................... AC 230 V, 50 Hz
[Asia model] ................................................ AC 220 to 240 V, 50/60 Hz
•Power Consumption
[U.S.A. and Canada models] .................................................. ....400 W
[Brazil, Asia and General models] ................................................27 0 W
[Other models].................................................. ..........................300 W
The 120V/60Hz model is by far and away the most inefficient. But still, the US and Canada insist on using this inefficient technology. We live near the US, but use Euro standards, and it's basically impossible for me to order appliances from the US and getting something that works. I have to order them at triple the prices from the mainland.
Obviously, I can't be assured of betting the Brazilian/General model of this item if I order from where I usually order, that being Ebay or Amazon. And of course, yamaha.com won't sell to me because I'm not US based.
Edit: 120v/60Hz appliances die quicker when you use them at 50Hz
That sucks immensely
James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying it discriminates against white male conservatives
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/ja...conservatives/
About fucking time.
Fake news right in the first sentence. That's not what he claimed at all. He claimed that the tech industry needed to change how they did things because their customs and culture were based primarily around men, which naturally excluded women. He proposed a series of changes to do exactly what libs have been wanting for a long time: companies to change how they do business to make traditionally male-dominated industries more welcoming to women.Quote:
James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired in August after posting a memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering, has filed a class action lawsuit against the company in Santa Clara Superior Court in Northern California.
I just learned about the most gangsta shit ever: stereotype lift. It's when you get a legitimate and measurable boost in performance due to a negative stereotype about someone else (generally framed as a competitor of some type).
So if I'm a Mexican, and I'm taking the SAT (or ACT depending on where you live) around a bunch of black kids who were also taking the test, I could think to myself some stereotype something like, "Black people are bad at using pencils," and I would get a measurable boost from it.
There are two related concepts. Stereotype threat is when one of the black kids does worse on the test because he's reminded of stereotypes about black people. Stereotype boost is when the one white kid over in the corner does better on the test because he's reminded of stereotypes about white people.
I'm pretty sure I can hijack these mechanisms for my performance coaching consulting firm.
So if you're a white cop, in a black neighborhood, you could think about some black stereotypes and be a better cop??Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
wut???
You aren't holding the form of the analogy. This is closer:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
To this, the answer seems to be yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Is it? Is it a REAL yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Like if I'm a republican having a debate with democrats, and I think about negative stereotypes about democrats, that improves my debate performance???
Sounds like all you're doing is creating your own echo chamber
It sounds like a form of positive affirmation.
For what it's worth, stereotype threat is the most studied by far. It's the type of thing the left tries to use to prove once and for all that men and women are equal on math tests and similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But to your point about stereotype boost, I suspect the mechanisms are similar.
What's really interesting to me is that there's plenty of proof that stereotype boost and stereotype lift have completely different causes.
I should have just said affirmation since I meant positive in its correlation sense not its "good" sense. A stereotype threat is an affirmation. The subconscious says "These blacks did bad, I'm black, I'll do bad"
I mean affirmation in the sense that having thoughts affirms the "reality" of those thoughts, roughly speaking.
Yeah I know what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Something that may be interesting on that is the idea that an affirmation like "I am" may be more powerful than "I will". For example, if you're struggling with the desire to cheat on your wife and you're a Christian, you can tell yourself "I am a good Christian" and it will probably be more effective than if you say "I won't cheat on my wife." The stereotype thing may be similar. The Christian example is a stereotype too. In the examples you gave, thinking that blacks do poorly on tests and that you are black may be a stronger affirmation than normal since it affirms "what you are" instead of what you want or what you plan to do or whatever. This could be a longer way of saying that when you "are" something, you are less likely to deviate from that than if you "want to do something". Wanting to do something takes effort. Being something is already what is, it almost takes effort to not be that something, so to speak.
I think you kinda goofed up the positive framing having more efficacy thing. Maybe this isn't what you were going for, but it does appear that "I am a faithful husband" not only works better than "I am not a cheater", but the "not" in "I am not a cheater" pretty much gets lost, and so affirming in the negative ends up backfiring, in this case making your more likely to act on your impulse to cheat.
Yeah I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yeah I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I wonder if consciously and intentionally becoming a white supremacist (or black or purple or w/e) and mentally incorporating that into everything you do would boost your performance in everything you do.
It's kind of like this Jewish kid I knew in school who would somehow turn every conversation into something about being a Jew, or when anyone does Crossfit ever.
Heh. I saw that as I typed it up but wasn't sure if anybody would notice, and I didn't change it because I don't think it affects the point even though like you pointed out it makes it less clear. I'm glad you saw that.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I'll change the phrasing now. To the distinction between "I am a faithful husband" and "I will be a faithful husband." The former is probably more effective in part for the reasons outlined.
I bet it would and I was thinking of examples like this too. It wouldn't have to be with just ethnicity. It could be like if the Itnow family name commands respect, Spoon can think "I'm an Itnow, dammit! I command respect!"Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Just played some 4-player chess. The fuck is with people? You're up against 3 other people, so it's pretty fucking obvious that trading pieces is bad. Like, yeah let's trade queens and both be a queen down against the other two.
Morons. These people should be playing poker, not chess.
That's like the short-stacking of chess. It's technically the same thing, but it's gay and sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Bughouse ftw though
Modern cars are tilting me. Technologically everything has gotten better, but cars have gotten progressively worse. Probably the worst car I've ever driven this year was my bosses 200+bhp $50k shitbox. I don't know if stability control was terrible, or malfunctioning, or off but that thing understeered more than anything I've ever driven. I've driven vans that handled way better. The way you deal with understeer in fwd is you just left foot break a bit in the corners and you can balance it out. But you can't do that if you're fighting always-on traction and stability control because the computer will shit itself and just understeer more. And the turbo on that thing... I don't know how you can go out and spend that kind of money on a car with 1s turbo lag and be fine with that.
I thought the VW UP looked like they have gone back to what made the original golf great, but no. always-on TC and it just beeps at you constantly if you're not driving like a fairy. I don't even know if that's mandated or if society is so cucked beyond recognition that people actually want that. Oh thank you for reminding me to put my seatbelt on! Oh, thank you sir, I didn't realize I was doing 46 in a 45. Thank god for the beeps because think of the children!
And why are we ok with those pos proprietary interfaces for board computers. The first manufacturer that puts a usb connection on the board computer can have my money.
People who pay $50k for a hunk of shit, it's purely status. It doesn't matter that it handles like a tank, it says "I'm wealthy and successful". I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume he's a cunt of a boss.
This shit drives me insane. I was once a passneger from Exeter to home (3 hour drive) and for the ENTIRE FUCKING JOURNEY the driver had her sat nav alerting her to the fact she was doing over 70 on the motorway.Quote:
and it just beeps at you constantly if you're not driving like a fairy. I don't even know if that's mandated or if society is so cucked beyond recognition that people actually want that. Oh thank you for reminding me to put my seatbelt on!
"Isn't that annoying you?" (translation - "This is annoying the shit out of me")
"No, I don't even notice it." (translation - "I don't give a fuck")
Ok, giving me the beeps because I haven't got my seatbelt on, I can just about tolerate that, but I draw the line there.
Turns out I don't know shit about car prices. Was probably closer to 20k. For 50k you can get an M-series. Not going to sit here and say those are shit cars. I think the hatchback and super compact segment is a sad place. In what world does anyone prefer the new mini to the old mini? Or the new golf gti to the old golf gti?
What happened to thin tires? They're cheaper, so you don't feel as bad for trashing them. And you have less traction which is way more fun. I'm not sure why I'm upset about this because I'm not even looking for a car right now, but if I was I'd be furious!
This is a common misconception.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Friction is a function of the weight of the vehicle and the surface-surface contact between tires and road (or dirt, or whatever). The size of the tires plays no part in the max force it can offer.
Wide tires spread the wear across a larger area and last longer, in general. They don't get more friction... at least, not because of their size.
This can't possibly be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You've contradicted yourself. If friction is a function of surface-to-surface contact.....then SURELY wider tires, with more surface area, will generate more friction.
How do you explain the varieties of bike tires available? They have skinny smooth wheels that are great for dry streets. And they have big fat wide tires that can power through snow on cross country ski trails.
given the expense and environmental headaches involved with producing tires, and subsequently disposing of them.......if the size of the tire didn't matter, we'd all be driving around on rubber frisbees.
It does seem a bit odd- like saying there's just as much friction when you rub your finger over sandpaper as when you rub your entire hand over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Also, http://www.rimsandtiresmag.com/7-thi...s-narrow-tire/
Edit: Ok I understand now. The weight per unit area determines friction, so spreading the weight of your car out over a wider area doesn't actually change much if anything in terms of friction alone.
Also you can't ride a car on a bicycle tire because it will explode (who'da thought it?).
I did not know that!
But this explains why they still tend to have lower friction than wider tires:
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae200.cfm
The fuel consumption bit is a little hard to read. They're talking about friction of using the suspension to move the tire, not the friction of the tire on the road. I.e. they're saying that turning a bigger, heavier tire to the left or right has more friction on the road, but that's not really true. They correctly said it has the same friction earlier, it's just that, looking at the cross section of the tire's contact with the road, a wider tire expresses that equal friction further from the axis of rotation, providing a greater torque.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
They also seem to be saying that the bigger wheel's higher moment of inertia is some from of friction, but it's not perfectly clear.
I can forgive them confusing torque and moment of inertia in this article, as it's meant to be in layman's terms, and the effect of these is similar enough to friction for a layman.
Sure you can. Just keep it under 5 mph, and you'll be fine... assuming the bike wheels could hold up the car in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Many cars have a tiny, thin spare tire. The whole "explode" bit is a possibility under extreme conditions, but not a given. The earliest cars were glorified bikes, after all.
huh! Cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I did not know that about the harder vs. softer rubber needs to be used to support the weight of the car.
I'm glad I included the, "at least, not because of their size." caveat.
Keep the learning out of this thread please.
Retard autistic cuck alert up above.
It was random learning, so it's allowed.
I've done some more research on this and discovered that I was wrong about something in the bold. All research indicates that it would actually lead to a drop in performance if being white was blatantly made the focus in this way. Instead of inducing stereotype boost, it induces anxiety about living up to the standard of the group (in this case being white). There are some cool studies that show this.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
HOWEVER, if you blatantly focused on some other group not being good at the task at hand, which is something a [color] supremacist could definitely do, then that induces stereotype lift (which has also been proven to use a different psychological mechanism than stereotype boost), which also increases performance.
tldr: Blatant focus on the target characteristic lowers performance. Subliminal introduction of the target characteristic increases performance (ie: stereotype boost). Blatant focus on the negative non-target characteristic increases performance (ie: stereotype lift).
I meant Savy.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Why is no one in the ftr discord channel? It's golden.
I'm there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
He's not a cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
He's a cuck for me bbQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm currently playing a game of chess on an infinite plane.
Turns out that infinite chess proves certain things, sich as infinity/2=infinity and infinity-8=infinity.
For example, the bishop only can only occupy half the squares that the rook can, but still has an infinite selection.
Also, there's a piece called the chancellor, which is bascially a rook+knight hybrid. So, on an open board, the rook has an infinite selection to choose from, while the chancellor has those same squares plus 8 more.
Also, it's a fucking crazy game. My queen is currently "developed" on rank 24, way behind my own king.
Pics?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm just wondering how you actually 'see' the board. Or do you just know your queen is at (x,y) and your other pieces are at (whatever,whatever).
I'll link to the game but please don't discuss the game as it progresses, or any tactics that might help me.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/che...captaintugwash
The board can be expanded to show pieces that are nearby. There's also the possibility of remote parts of the board being represented by a seperate diagram, or even merely a note at the side of the board. However, the idea of a "centre" still exists because of the pawns, they promote on the 8th rank (white) and 1st rank (black), just as normal, which means the action will nearly always centre around this part of the board. So it's kind of self regulating, it's not optimal to have your pieces in remote corners of the universe.
Extra pieces -
Chancellor - rook/knight hybrid
Hawk - jump two or three squares in a straight line
Guard - basically a king, but without the importance - it can be captured.
There's a man who really likes his hawks.
Very much so.