yetineti

Don’t use insulting labels, unless you’re making an extremely precise attack. They’re arrogant. That is much more true. But engaging with them via name calling probably won’t do much. Also, don’t work yourself up with fools. Let consensus naturally show them where they are.

You’re not going to talk to me like that.

@Willy Phallicus Stop victim blaming and giving people credit for problems they created themselves. Take your hate somewhere else. You’re rampantly speculating.

@Ulax Yeah, explain it to me.

‘Observations, Feelings, Needs & Requests(!)’ I haven’t read it but Natasha had recommended it, I looked into it and try to remember this!

You basically gave me my thesis. All I have to do is mirror. We are what we did. Nobody escapes that. Now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt—you don’t know how you present because you’re so good at presenting Game meets game. Keep an eye on it enough where you don’t entertain thoughts like I shared. Otherwise you really do present as rapey/abusive. However you present should be predictable and memorable enough that you can be somebody, consistently. If you have to contort your personality to your desires this far I’d call it a problem.

Odd thing to be curious about. I’m curious about everything and I wouldn’t have entertained it for a second.

Well tbh it was a gamble, but there’s obviously something here because it’s the only notion you’ve really entertained. Thus far you’ve been ‘the man.’

@Monster Energy You give off rape/abuse vibes, in my opinion. I don’t say that lightly or as an accusation. Whatever your demeanor, it’s geared quite myopically. Think about whatever you’re doing. It’s obvious you got a Buddha pickup lesson somewhere along the way. Edit: I was going to say frat boy vibes but honestly, he would’ve just made a joke about it being a compliment.

My buddy has a Honda Accord that used to be his Dad’s—they’ve each put about 200,000 miles on it And our roads get salted—heavily. Take care of it and it will take care of you.

@Ulax And you’ll understand when you fuck someone who wants you.

@Monster Energy My curiosity has been tracking you. I’d like to do you a favor. Instead of making a predictable joke about how my attention flatters you, DM me or talk to someone you actually know about what’s going on. This whole thread is sad and worrisome. I’m surprised people are even engaging with it intellectually, and I have no issue looking out of place to mention it. Whether you try to be or not, you are a very intelligent type of troll. You don’t seek attention; you seek consensus on your odd thoughts. And part of the game relies on imperfect writing, articulation, and ambiguity. Luckily for you, the problem seems to be mostly about women somehow, someway, so I’d go figure that out before you keep adding to your backlog of incongruous statements or acting as though your provocation is anything more than that. It almost seems sad. And do not mistake me! My words are harsh, but my care is strong. I don’t like playing games. Too many similar comments have been made for my brain not to connect the dots. And the writing kills my charisma, frankly. I’m working on that. I’m learning it’s not always best to tactfully interview or interrogate people to confirm my own suspicions. I like to weaponize curiosity, I’ve realized—not even knowing it was entirely possible. Anyway, no questions this time. Just a bold claim and a private, open door to talk. The bold claim is: your behavior can be explained. Quite simply, actually. We’d have to agree on your behavior, though. So I’m going to disengage entirely from this thread itself now. No interest in that “conversation.” Take care if you don’t reach out. I hope you fuck someone who doesn’t hate you next time too. A conversion story is great as a story, but fucking someone who’s been begging for you is going to win 100% of the time, lmao. This thread basically just says, “I fucked a girl who really didn’t want to initially.” Not exactly the point I think you wanted highlighted when you made this. Anyway, point made. I’m sure whatever views or circumstances you’ve got going on are not ones of envy, all due respect.

@r0ckyreed People recommending Honda and Toyota know what they’re talking about. Otherwise certain Ford Fusions or Chevy Malibus have good engines and are easy to work on, for less of a premium. It usually depends on whatever engine they used, though. They’ll use the same engine in different models. Don’t get a BMW lol. I wouldn’t risk a diesel engine or repairing a BMW in general. Also, avoid anything with a CVT. Keep your Focus, until there is a real problem. I had a Malibu until about 280,000 miles and it still ran well. It was rated for like 170,000. Change the oil every 3000 miles and rotate the tires every 6000. See if there are options for your recall too. Also, if your car has a timing chain, replace that preemptively, usually around 120,000 miles. Also don’t idle your car. Shut it off if you’ll be sitting for more than 15 seconds. You’ll use less gas restarting it and won’t dirty the engine with idle fumes. Obviously don’t do this at a red light, if you can’t risk getting stuck haha. But Amazon, UPS, etc. all train this. A starter costs less than the gas you save by the time it burns out. I used to start and stop my personal vehicle and commercial vehicles hundreds of times a day. I have only replaced a starter once. People can get a lot more out of their cars than they realize.

To be fair, I was pretty indifferent to it as a kid, and I think he played the part fine. My issue was more that, at the time, I didn’t recognize basically any of the other actors besides him. So Star Wars had this weird feeling of being almost like an indie-style movie with a massive budget, and then Samuel L. Jackson was just there sticking out like a sore thumb. Then you add things like him specifically wanting a purple lightsaber, and over time it started to feel more like “Samuel L. Jackson is in Star Wars” as a celebrity/publicity thing than me actually seeing him as Mace Windu. Not saying he didn’t genuinely like Star Wars or anything—I’m also nowhere near enough of a Star Wars nerd to make some deep critique of his performance. It’s really just an immersion thing for me.

All good… it’s not as straight forward as people think. We all have our own ways of thinking about it. It’s a fairly mind blowing breakthrough to have. It’s fascinating.

@Ulax How do you mean this?

K Duh. It’d be whatever whoever wants. If you’re trying to determine what people would want, it obviously depends on the person. I don’t feel a tension between these specific values, anymore than other values really. The problem with that: most people are trying to figure out what they want; most people confuse what they want with what they really want + need. I agree life is beautiful and all however I don’t understand what the hold up was earlier or what point you’re trying to make. The tension you describe seems oddly personal. The dichotomy you describe does not have to exist. Society functions systematically and having one person only play music or another only focus on malaria is efficient, with tons of variation in between. I understand your advice about following what we want as individuals and how psychopaths or others may be exceptions to the rule. Perhaps you need to trust yourself in that pursuit or perhaps you yourself planned on solving malaria or doing something similar. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a hobby or that your hobby will not be your career. Fundamentally, we seem to agree with the course of action. I’m just not understanding how we got here or found such a tension between, what I view as, complimentary circumstances.

I don’t remember this either. Apparently he literally sings a song around a campfire in Season 7 lmao.

Correct, measurements are circular. That was my point about precision. Measurements do define things—within an established tolerance. Tolerance is just how ‘accurate’ we require the measurement to be. Accuracy is circular here as well. I was basically adding to your point, while showcasing how precision adds to the illusion. Measuring and science itself used to be disputed much more due to their lack of precision. Science and measurements are too precise now. People mistake measurements for absolutions, as you’ve realized with this thread.

Precision was an additional point, not the whole argument. That’s why I said even a perfectly precise measurement would still depend on a reference system. When I asked which meaning you intended, you chose dependence on references. That’s what I meant we agreed on. What distinction do you think I’m still missing?

Then we’ve agreed.

If anyone disagrees with this, we have beef. All due respect to SLJ.

When you say “not objective,” do you mean measurements depend on a reference system, or that they depend on someone’s opinion? I agree with the first, but I don’t think it automatically establishes the second.

@Mixcoatl Yup—those are called reference points, like I said. Even if your measurement were perfectly precise, you’d still be comparing something against a chosen standard. Improving precision doesn’t remove that dependence. We’re agreeing on that. I’d just distinguish choosing the standard from choosing the result. Once the reference is established, the comparison can give a result that doesn’t depend on our opinions. Whether that amounts to an objective description of reality is the deeper question.

They teach this in high school physics. Scientists are just too daft to relate it back to themselves. Pearson/Prentice Hall’s Motion and Energy defines it as: “A reference point is a place or object used for comparison to determine if something is in motion.” https://cdnsm5-ss18.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_213047/File/cpssa091.pdf This ties into what you were saying because a reference point is basically the baseline you’re comparing or measuring against. Things like position, displacement, velocity, and direction can change depending on the reference point or frame of reference you choose. So the point isn’t just whether something is moving. Measurements and descriptions only mean anything relative to some defined reference. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a similar point by questioning something as simple as the lines on a ruler. How wide are the lines? Does the measurement start at the edge or the center of the line? What measured that? That’s the weird part. Measurements seem definite, but they’re really comparisons against agreed upon standards with some acceptable level of precision. Different industries understand this practically because they have to. When you buy something that’s 1/2 inch, it really means 1/2 inch within whatever tolerance that application requires. The metaphysical implication is that we’re never really accessing some perfectly exact measurement independent of a reference system. We’re comparing things against other things with enough consistency to make the result useful. And you don’t even need measurement to demonstrate the basic idea. If I’m trying to make two pieces fit, I can shave a little off, try it, shave a little more off, and keep doing that until they fit. I don’t need to know either object’s “true” dimensions. The objects themselves are my reference points. Then we standardize those comparisons so everybody can reproduce them, get increasingly precise with trial and error, build on what worked before, and the next thing you know you’re flying to the fucking moon. I just think that’s really cool. We create consistency because it works, then confuse that consistency for reality, all while teaching the basic mechanism behind it in public school physics haha.