April Fool's from Library and Archives Canada: "the declassified journals and military records of Canadian supersoldier James "Logan" Howlett"

Windex007 · 2016-04-01T23:32:44+00:00

No man, it was all about their lasagna... which is NOT the same.

Windex007 · 2015-12-09T05:55:53+00:00

BILLIONS OF IDIOTIC POSTS ABOUT TEAMING HOLY FUCK WE ALL EXPERIENCE IT WE DON'T NEED 9000 POSTS TO REMIND US IT EXISTS.

Windex007 · 2015-12-04T02:22:51+00:00

chrom said : "FFA, despite the name, is not, and has never been, a solo game mode""

and you said:

That's not an argument, if you want it to not be FFA then don't refer to it as FFA. The idea of FFA is that it's fundamentally not useful to consistently team, otherwise it's not FFA.

Maybe I'm misinterpretting this, but it appears that you're arguing that if one doesn't demand that no collusion can possibly exist, then it isn't appropriate to refer to it as FFA.

Yes, this is totally tangential to your thesis. I literally said that.

a superficial naming convention is tangential to your actual issue.

I'm not using it to refute your thesis. That's one of a list of like 5 reasons that it isn't a strawman argument. I'm not even arguing with you. I'm telling you that this unrelated argument is unsound, and including it muddles your actual argument. I'm giving you advice on how to best present your argument which I generally agree with... and then you start lecturing me about logic that you clearly don't even understand, and you don't even understand the nature of the discussion we're having (which is me trying to explain to you how to better hone your actual argument).

Windex007 · 2015-12-04T01:43:59+00:00

"Strawman" isn't just a magic wand you wave when you're unhappy that people are pointing out that you've said something stupid. It has a real meaning and it doesn't apply here because you literally made the case that the nomenclature was problematic.

Windex007 · 2015-12-02T15:43:52+00:00

they happened, though. strawman isn't someone not ignoring stupid shit you say.

Windex007 · 2015-12-01T01:47:54+00:00

That's a legitimate frustration, I don't see any fault in that. I think taking issue with the naming convention is a waste of time though. Say they did change the name to reflect the current reality that people collaborate, is that really a solution to your frustration? We both know it isn't. If you want to get on a soapbox, that's fine, but you making a mountain over a superficial naming convention is tangential to your actual issue. It isn't an effective or compelling argument, and only serves to distract from your actual thesis. You can offer mechanic suggestions to effectively penalize teaming behaviour, or you can simplify speak to the problem, but suggesting that changing the name would be a reasonable course of action is... not good.

Windex007 · 2015-11-30T07:47:12+00:00

Yeah you've made a strong case to /u/chromiez about how miniclip should make a name change to a game mode purely on the basis of semantics (as if every other game with an "FFA" mode doesn't suffer identical limitations). I'm sure a great pile of work has gotten done.

Windex007 · 2015-11-30T07:41:43+00:00

This is what this post reminds me of.

Windex007 · 2015-11-30T07:39:55+00:00

For real. They should call it TIAIGMTPYOATBTIASYOAEFCTVD. "There Isn't An In-Game Mechanic To Place You On A Team, But There Isn't Anything Stopping You Or Anyone Else From Cooperating To Various Degrees"

Windex007 · 2015-11-23T19:58:59+00:00

I know what you mean.

You just need to re-frame your objectives though. Before it was "get to number 1", that's a clear measurable objective. Once you're there, if your goal simply shifts to "stay at number 1", then you're in for a really boring game.

If, though, you shift your objective to "lay as much hurt as humanly possible" then you'll accordingly have to re-evaluate how risk adverse you are. Maybe you'll lose your spot at number one, but if while you're @ number 1 your primary goal isn't keeping number 1 then you'll at least have something to do.

tl;dr : shift your goals once you're at number 1 so you have something to do.

Windex007 · 2015-11-23T18:43:20+00:00

Thanks! The way other programs handled the mouse didn't seem natural to me for the purposes of gaming.

Windex007 · 2015-11-07T22:11:45+00:00

Also, I'm not sure you read your own article very closely. They're not forcasting a cut by 280,000bpd at all. Their forecast of how much of an increase in production there will be between now and 2020 was cut by 280kbpd... totally different. They're still saying there will be an increase, just a smaller increase than they originally projected. Still net gain. Still a large net gain.

edit for those who don't want to read the article:

Old net growth forcast to 2020: +1.08 million barrels / day.

New net growth forcast to 2020: +800,000 barrels / day.

Perspective (mine): Total oil production of the UK in 2015 is roughly 900,000 barrels/day.

Bottom line: Old forecast predicted oil growth would grow by a little more than what the UK does in total. Now the forecast is predicting oil growth by a little less than what the UK does in total.

Windex007 · 2015-11-07T21:57:06+00:00

Unless you have insider knowledge of OPEC's plans, your guess is as good as mine as to what the price of oil is going to do, which is what determines what projects are viable at any given time.

We can look, however, at global demand for oil. Although there has been a slight downturn in North American demand, the rest of the world's appetite is growing steadily, especially with developing nations now getting into industrial markets that require petroleum products (not just oil for the express purpose of fuel, remember).

Keep in mind, the current low price of oil stimulates industries that consume petroleum products. This is basic supply and demand. Yes, the current market is not favourable to oil producers, but it is favourable to oil consumers. You keep insisting that capitalists would not invest in any oil production right now... well how about a plastics factory who's raw material costs have just halved?

The bottom line is that the world is consuming oil at an increasing pace, there is a finite amount, and Alberta has a ton of it. The answer is not "if" that oil is coming out of the ground, it's "when" (and possibly "via what technologies").

Frankly, there is absolutely some environmental silver linings to the low price of oil: the incentive to develop more efficient technologies to extract it has grown.

But, again, one way or another, that oil is coming out of the ground at some point, and continues to come out of the ground even now. Once out of the ground, that oil is going to go somewhere, one way or another. We can either implement a safer and more efficient way to move it now, later, or continue to do it in an inefficient and dangerous way forever. Every barrel that's moved by any other means in the meantime (or forever) is unnecessarily taxing the environment in efficiency costs via carbon and with safety risks to the human and wildlife population.

It's honestly ridiculous how some elements of the population have somehow turned this pipeline into the martyr for the sins of carbon emissions. There is a giant gap in logic between the stated goal and this action. This is the "Mission Accomplished" on the Lincoln.

Windex007 · 2015-11-06T19:59:26+00:00

Yes, they're exactly the same. These projects are not profitable right now.

Windex007 · 2015-11-06T19:42:23+00:00

"oil in Alberta right now for less than"

The thesis of my argument was that this is a poor method of making decisions. This is not in any way a response to that.

You're doing exactly what that politician did bringing a snowball into a debate to demonstrate that global warming isn't real.

Windex007 · 2015-11-06T19:28:07+00:00

For the very intimidate future? yes. Is that the best metric to use? No.

A better one is: What plan will yield the highest number of lifetime railcars full of oil moving through the country? This plan, right here.

I dunno. I guess it's like "what career can make me the most money tomorrow?" vs "what career yields the total greatest income?". If you're only thinking short term, everyone should probably be a prostitute... but most of us have enough sense to look a little farther ahead than that.

Edit: As I'm thinking about it, the best unit of measure is probably barrel-kms.

Windex007 · 2015-10-22T02:38:26+00:00

What you're describing would almost certainly be an example of a "Precambrian rabbit", which if it existed would throw a pretty serious wrench in the theory of evolution.

The idea is that new species diverge from existing species, with new traits being exhibited slowly. If you see... I dunno, a horse... you can safely say that before there were horses, there were something very similar to horses. Maybe bigger or smaller or with shittier legs or something. And before them, there were other even shittier horses.... etc etc.

You can see it with us, even. We have a series of ancestors that have since died out, and you can see that as we evolved we became better and better suited to our environment.

For there to have been a creature as smart as us way way long ago, that means that it would have needed to have previous iterations on that morphology (shittier versions) going back through the evolutionary record too.

Since we have evidence of what other types of organisms existed throughout the last 4 billion years or so, some super smart organism would be VASTLY more complex than anything else that existed, and in that context wouldn't make much sense. It'd be like seeing a photograph from the civil war with some guy in the background with an iPhone. It just wouldn't make sense in that context, at all. How would one guy get his hands on an iPhone when everyone else was still using candlelight? Where could it have possibly have been manufactured? The pre-requisites just didn't seem to be met.

Windex007 · 2015-10-21T03:37:21+00:00

Harper actually penned an essay about how necessary it is to move from FPTP. Harper.

Of course, this conviction seemed to evaporate once it was working in his party's favour.

The reality is that it's hard to convince someone to work against their own interests. It's a phenomenon that isn't exclusive to politics. We're genuinely asking our prime minister to reduce the likelihood of getting a majority government in four years. That's a lot to ask.

But, they said they would. If history is any indicator, it's likely they'll put it on the backburner and hope we forget. Nothing against them, it's just human nature.

Windex007 · 2015-10-15T16:37:49+00:00

http://m.imgur.com/bIApagq

Windex007 · 2015-10-07T04:51:25+00:00

A thief believes that everyone steals.

Windex007 · 2015-10-03T18:06:56+00:00

But Russia is way out of line for getting involved though.

Windex007 · 2015-09-29T02:37:08+00:00

Reddit is vote based. This showed up in my feed because of the rate of upvotes. Did I have any special interest in this question? No, but I didn't realize I didn't have a decent answer to the question until I saw it asked. It was at that immediate point that I became interested in it, and voila, there was a link, I figured there would probably be a decent answer to a question I didn't even have before reading it.

This is the nature of reddit. Let's be honest here, there is essentially no content generated here that isn't googleable elsewhere. If we all strictly adhered to this, there would BE no sub here. There is value in questions and the arising discussion.

Secondly, telling a guy to google it isn't teaching a man to fish. In this context, it's being a dick. Sometimes when you're new to a field, you lack the vocabulary to even form a good query for google. I could maybe have accepted you taught him how to fish if you'ed provided some keywords that would lead them to quality results, but you didn't. So I don't.

And, frankly, if you examine the other comments, you didn't provide the complete answer either. Nobody quite did, it really takes a combination of a few of them to wholly flesh out a complete answer. This is one of the benefits of a community like this.

I maintain, referring someone to google with no specific thoughts on how to do so effectively is a dick move to make in a sub that is dedicated to learning something. This is /r/learnprogramming , not /r/programming . That would be acceptable there. I really really don't think referring to google in the way you've done is acceptable here.

Windex007 · 2015-09-26T17:28:52+00:00

You are everything wrong with this community. I hope you never come back.

Windex007 · 2015-09-19T16:16:33+00:00

Its calculated by looking at the return on investment. Obviously buying and administering 2x the vaccines isn't going to cost 30x. The point is that it's an essentially worthless endeavour because boys are being immunized by proxy. Single gender vaccinations for HPV are really really effective and cost effective. There are mountains of peer reviewed scientific data to support this.

If you want to make a case against it, at least make an educated one: gay boys won't see much benefit. Even if you make it free for them, that puts them in a bind.

But please, enough with the notion that this scheme isn't helping boys even if they aren't getting the vaccination. It does, completely. It's honestly just as bad as listening to anti-vaxxers: vaccines + ignorance = outrage. It's the same formula.

Windex007

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

daily reddit gold goal

Five-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email