213374U

Huh. If that's correct, then it's a bugged feature. As people appearing in italics is uncommon, whereas people posting is common, and I've never seen myself in italics. No, it works fine, it's mostly just outdated. The thing is, it's a feature from before the quick reply option was implemented. Back then, people had to go into full reply mode to type up a post. Nowadays I guess everyone just uses the quick reply window unless they are involved in a full-on quote war, or need to embed a ton of images or whatever. The quick reply mode isn't recognized by the forum as an "action" like, say, starting a new thread or browsing someone's profile. If you hover your mouse over a user name, you get a popup window with the latest info the forum software has on that user's activity. I used to avoid appearing in italics when in the aforementioned quote wars by opening a new tab and browsing the forum main page. stalker level = John Hinckley Jr.

That's a fair bit of revisionism you're indulging in. Aggressive expansionism was an integral part of Nazism as outlined in Mein Kampf. It was this expansionism that landed Germany in a war it couldn't possibly win. In this sense, Nazism was, as a guiding ideology for post-WWI Germany, self-defeating, because ideologies don't exist in a vacuum — if they fail to incorporate the circumstances and particularities in their scope of application, they are useless generalities at best, and a recipe for disaster at worst. This idea is well illustrated by the different configurations of "socialism" resulting from trying to apply Marxist principles in wildly different situations. As for doing well, I'm genuinely interested to know what measuring standards are you are basing your conclusions on. From what I've read, the only macroeconomic indicator that improved between 1933 and 1939 was unemployment, which was drastically reduced as a result of the massive public works and rearmament programs. On the other hand, living standards for just about everyone in Germany worsened, with real wages declining (an oft-cited figure is a 25% decrease, but I can't find the original source for the claim) and a negative trade balance, which is bad news for an industrial economy. At the same time, you have the removal of collective bargaining as a result of independent unions being disbanded and strikes being verboten, rationing, army conscription, etc. In short, a plethora of generally unpleasant stuff needed to sustain Hitler's massive re-militarization aims. As an upside, it's suggested that German industry vastly expanded in the interwar years, but that seems to be under scrutiny as well. That's the "accepted" narrative, anyway. What are you basing your disagreement with it on?

That's one of the points the Economist article author makes (if I understand you correctly). The interview however was prompted, apparently, by some messages that had appeared in the London subway, that quote prof. Graeber. I'm guessing that people who have pointless jobs but feel engaged or otherwise believe they serve some purpose wouldn't complain thus, demand work day reductions, etc... I don't know how I'd make it through the day without self-deceit, tbh.

Did you watch the interview? He does say that the world would be a "lesser place" without artists. Now, admittedly my experience with this is fairly limited, but I've never met anyone in an artistic profession who believed their work was utterly pointless. People in finance, admin, clerks, etc? Yeah... Seriously, I was kidding when I wrote that watching it would rot your brain.

Watch it, old boy. That could be construed as a counterrevolutionary subversive iconoclastic not fully reverent attitude regarding the empyreal profanity filter. A most un-mod-like trait, to be sure! As for the phallus transplant, I think the dude who suffered a botched circumcision (ouch) would agree that, despite the fact that any tech can can be used frivolously, that doesn't diminish its value to mankind at large. Hee hee. Still, there's rejection to worry about, and I'm thinking the psychological sort. There's a lot of potential for things going seriously wrong. Still, I know what choice I'd make if I, uh, had a botched circumcision.

Well, by definition, if you don't consider it to be BS, it's not. That's kind of the point. The worth of your job isn't for others to decide, regardless of what you are being paid to do it, because it's not them doing it — it's you. It's your time and effort. It can be argued that, in an objective sense, making videogames is a creative activity, so the job'd be right up there with the examples the professor mentions, sci-fi writers and ska musicians. The problem that's being discussed, as I understand it, and what caused those messages to appear in the subway trains, is that some people[who?] subjectively feel that their jobs are pointless, and it's difficult to discern, in objective terms, what is it they produce. The problem is that they take up a considerable amount of time and waste it, quite literally. Wasting time on one's own terms may be fun for a while, but having one's time wasted systematically can be tough. On top of this, many of these jobs are done in high-stress environments; if you know somebody who works in financial services for example you know what I'm talking about. Also, I'm not sure what olden days you're referring to, but regular unemployment today is very much a thing.

WARNING: the following is an interview in RT. Watching it may turn you into a conspiracy theorist, a neo-soviet fifth columnist, a dirty hippie and/or possibly rot your brain. For the non TL:DR crowd, here's The Economist's take on the original piece. Even if we accept today's BS jobs as essential to the maintenance of this wonderful materialist utopia we've built, there's a good chance that eventually some bot will outcompete you — if you are lucky enough to currently have a job, that is. Ironically enough, you may have helped design, build, market or sell the bot that takes your job. This issue ties in with others such as the growing inequality gap and the long-term unsustainability of current economic models which were thought up under a paradigm of "growth" at all costs. Solutions have been proposed such as a reduction in work days, a universal basic income, etc, which invariably receive criticism as unfeasible or even as couterproductive and resulting in huge numbers of parasites suckling from the state's teat, people becoming unproductive slobs, a generalized moral decay as a result of not having to work to earn your keep etc, despite a lack of a sufficient body of empirical evidence, and even against the promising results of certain trials. Personally, it sounds too good to be true and I doubt our reptilian overlords would endorse it either. So, do YOU work a BS job? (being comrade Putin's shill in the OE boards is most definitely not a BS job, I'll have you know)

Really, commander?

ITT: mod is foiled by stupid-ass language filter. Classic. OP: You misspelled "Beauton Gilbow".

Let's do it in inverse order, I think the explanation is easier to follow that way. As per Newton's universal gravitation law, the gravitational force between two bodies is given by: F = G m1m2 /r2 (1) G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the bodies involved and r is the distance between them. In this example, m1 is the mass of a random object and m2 is the mass of the Earth. We also know that, as per Newton's second law, F = ma (2) The force is the same in both equations, as it's the gravitational force an object is subjected to by the Earth. "a" is the acceleration the body experiences as a result of force. So substituting the value of F in the first equation to solve for "a" you get: ma = G m1m2 /r2 Now, divide both sides by "m" (in this case, m = m1), and you get the following expression: a = G m2 /r2 For objects near the surface of the Earth (where r → 6,400 km), that amount is essentially a constant, and it's approximately 9.8 m/s2. This means that even though the force applied on an object by Earth's gravity depends on its mass, the acceleration it experiences in a free fall doesn't and is the same for all. This is a simplification useful for most calculations, but it's not strictly correct because it ignores, as you suspected, the effect of the gravitational force caused by the other body in the system. But consider that even asteroids have a mass that, compared to Earth's, is insignificant. If, for Earth's mass (5.9x1024 kg) we get a value for a of 9.8 m/s2, imagine the ridiculously low values of acceleration Earth experiences for human-scale objects. You wanted to consider the Moon. Yes, in the experiment you suggested, the Earth would in turn accelerate towards by the Moon at ~1/6 the value of g, so they would accelerate towards each other at ~11.4 m/s2. Again, this is only correct for values of separation equal or very similar to Earth's radius; the acceleration would be much lower at distances relevant to objects of planetary mass. -- Now, for parabolic flights. We know that all bodies fall towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 regardless of their mass and, in principle, regardless of their speed as well. That is the rate at which the mars bar inside the cоckpit is accelerating downwards, if you take the center of the Earth as your frame of reference (and not the cоckpit). Now, if the cоckpit is also accelerating downwards at the same rate of 9.8 m/s2 and the initial speed of both items is the same, they won't move relative to each other. This is the same as when you drive next to another car. So long as you are both accelerating at the same rate and moving at the same speed, you will appear not to be moving relative to each other. It's the same for astronauts in orbit, they aren't in an environment without gravity — they are in perpetual free fall. If you give the mars bar in free fall a slight upwards nudge, you momentarily decrease its downwards acceleration, and the cоckpit will, for a slight while, gain downwards speed faster than the bar. Once the bar regains its maximum 9.8 m/s2 acceleration value, it will no longer keep losing speed relative to the cоckpit, but the speed difference will remain, so the bar will, slowly but steadily fall towards the back of the cоckpit. Drag for the bar isn't a factor because it isn't moving relative to the air inside the cоckpit. disclaimer:

A proven method is a method that works for the majority of people through a process of what could be described as evolution. There are time proven and highly successful methods to lose weight, just as there are highly effective and time proven ways to build muscle. There are always exceptions, but there are methods which are described as standards because it works for most people. You cannot deny this. No, I won't deny the effectiveness of proven methods, because disproving a tautology is impossible. I'm challenging the assertion that "proven methods" exist at all. I guess that there are methods that work for the majority (i.e. 50% + 1), but those are still going to be counterproductive for a great many people, whose failure will leave you "endlessly puzzled" (they must be doing something wrong). It all comes down to what constitutes a sufficient effectiveness threshold for you. Is it 50%? 80%? 99%? This is why most commercial gyms are full of fail, and a majority of pre-packaged fitness "programs" are little more than marketing gimmicks that fail to produce significant body composition changes over time. Now, let's talk about "evolution". I guess you are referring to the theory that the knowledge pool of training has, through a process of trial and error, improved to produce a set of guiding principles and specific protocols that work for everyone, or at least for an arbitrary proportion such that you consider it sufficient to declare them "proven". That's your hypothesis, yes? Mine is that these principles and protocols have in fact changed little over time and natural selection hasn't so much applied to the body of knowledge itself as it has to those who try and apply said "knowledge". This means that, for some it works great, and for some others, it doesn't, reflecting that the one-size-fits-all approach is a crapshoot. The second group tend to quit due to lack of progress, frustration and injuries, leaving only the the individuals that respond well to these methods. Therefore, anyone looking only at the end result would conclude that these methods do in fact work, and if they didn't it's because "they did something wrong" or quit, when it's the other way around. I'll admit, I haven't found much research on this matter other than the study I linked back there. Do you have any?

Because you are operating from the premise that since simply picking up weight and putting it down worked for you, it must work for everyone. In reality, it is not so simple. The study for your perusal.

Ah, I see. So it's the etymological aspect that bothers you. I guess I can understand that. Yeah, I remember getting into an arguement with some South American army buddies of mine because I suggested that, despite what they were used to hearing, they weren't really "latins" at all, and for that matter, neither was I. It went nowhere fast. Yep, I like my discussions tactless and pointless. Bonus points if I get my ass kicked.

Like some other words that are used to label people as 'haters' such as 'homophobe'. it's a misused word. The vast majority of the people who use such words to label others however don't think that deep, even though we're talking about a level just below the superficial. It's not a product of christian mythology, it's a product of 'cultural Marxist' or 'progressive' mythology. Propaganda. They're marginalization tools, and work well for those with short attention spans. I agree with regards to labels in an abstract sense, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with this reply. Antisemitism (the attitude) predates the word by several centuries at least. Are you suggesting that prejudices in general do not in fact exist and are a fabrication of progressive ideologues?

edit: let the triggering commence

Oh, you are absolutely right. SCS is so complex that it made my old computer stutter when too many things were going on. I bought that computer in like, 2005. BG2 was released in 2000. IIRC vanilla AI scripts were 400-odd lines long. SCS scripts were easily 4x longer. Further, I'd argue that baseline SCS difficulty is nowhere near entry-level. However, DavidW is not a professional programmer as far as I know, and he did it (plus compatibility) by himself. AI programming is, IMO, seen as a waste of effort by devs, beyond the most barebones functionality. I... can't say they are wrong, considering the industry is mostly geared towards pushing out title after title as fast as possible, with replayability value being an afterthought, if at all. Ah well.

I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news. I'm thinking that discussing some of the explicit details of DSK's and Berlusconi's parties would get a thread locked down faster than you can say "bunga bunga", here or elsewhere. With good reason, too. Scrutiny of that sort of details belongs in a court of law, and only insofar as it's needed to determine if they constitute a criminal conduct... (thanks for the writeup back there, btw. After reading through 10+ pages I still had no idea what this thread was about, and now I can safely ignore it for good. #firstworldproblems)

It figures. I wonder how they are going to compensate the increased TTK vs party survivability. Giving players more powerful or longer-lasting mitigation tools breaks routine encounters, while decreasing boss damage outputs results in "bullet sponge" fights. Of course, the rationale is total bollocks. I didn't kill Irenicus in 20s the first time around, and with an AI that can actually use the level-appropriate tools it should have in a non-brain dead manner, the fight can go on for several minutes. Ain't nobody got time fo' programming decent AI in this day and age, apparently.

So, not really a "discovery" per se. More like, somebody considering making your worst nightmare (or wildest dream, sure...) come true. Full body transplants. Now all we need is someone to start growing 'em in glass jars...

Yep. Question is why they would choose to go with arbitrary numbers instead of 1d4/level + CON*, or whatever the sourcebooks dictate. Chances are they are messing around with to-hit rolls, damage outputs, etc. This may or may not work out, but it does seem to hint at a departure from the source material. What's the point of making a D&D game... if you aren't using the D&D rules. *disclaimer: I have no idea if that's the actual value in 5e. I'm post-3.5e illiterate.

I think you are being hypersensitive about some folks' hypersensitivity wrt the B-word. Seriously though, never utter the B-word around these parts. You may think its effect is limited to the Codex, but alas, it is not so. People go mental even here, nay, especially here; it's not unlike the Two Minutes Hate in 1984. Exhibit A: typical Obsidz forum user after stumbling upon a discussion involving The Developer Which Shall Not Be Named We even have an emote especially crafted to sum up these threads: Ignore this advice at your peril... Borderline indeed, ever since they locked down the hot women thread...

That's a "global cooldown" and is different from what is usually meant by cooldown-based gameplay. GCD prevents you from doing anything other than moving for a fixed amount of time after using an ability. It's applied across the board and its length isn't dependent on the ability that triggered it. It's a common feature in games where ability spam may be an issue, even if it's disguised as unclippable animations. Even the old IE games had similar mechanics, even though there was no visual or UI cue and after doing his thing the character would just stand idly waiting for the "round" to be over. On the other hand specific ability CDs encourage searching for an optimal rotation of abilities or ability deployment priority system which hurts the tactical element by reducing the number of viable alternatives. The game then is more about how well you can execute the rotation -and with a pause feature, that's trivial- and less about adjusting to fluid combat situations, i.e. tactics and decision-making. I don't mean to sound condescending, but they really are fundamentally different things. edit: ability =/= skill

Ding ding ding. Netanyahu (much like the GOP) is owned by Sheldon Adelson, who already tried to scare Democrats out of the idea of boycotting the speech. Remember, this is the same guy that wants to turn Iran into one big ol' glass parking lot. You do the math.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31656455 So a bunch of idiots got arrested after a brief stint playing rambo around Novorossiya. Seriously, how stupid can you be? I mean, I can understand being brainwashed and thinking of it as your ticket to heaven and 70 virgins or whatever. But this? One of these clowns proudly displayed his life-size Stalin portrait tattoo. Wow dude, just wow. Now they are being charged with "compromising the State's neutrality in the conflict" and being "accessories to murder" in addition to having had a few illegal guns confiscated. Odds are that they'll be also charged with "terrorism" under the brand new anti-terror law, as they had gone to Ukraine to "terrorize" civilians there. I wonder though, if these morons had been in the payroll of a PMC, would they be charged? "You are allowed to participate in foreign wars if you are doing it for money ONLY!"