Why no, I am not a vampire
Oh and you probably don't want us driving wooden stakes through your heart either, huh?
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 181
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 181
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
There's always the Japanese method, where the protege being groomed as the CEO's replacement goes through the effort and legal process of being adopted as the CEO's son and taking the company name as his own legal last name.
Suzuki has done it 4 times in a row, even bypassing biological sons.
People who bought things in bulk (also known as buying in gross) to subdivide and sell in smaller portions, became known as grossers, and eventually grocers. Eventually, the word "grocery" came to mean the actual goods sold by grocers.
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/grocery-store-word-origin
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. I am focused on the aggression in particular: trying to flip things around to where the defense is a counterattack. Which could be OK in some instances, but the post itself equates having other interests (like, uh, socializing in person) as cheating.
Elsewhere in this thread OP is condescending towards "sportsball" and "clubbing," which reinforces my point that he's not talking about defending his own hobbies and interests, or even attacking judgy people who should mind their own business, but more interested in attacking others for having hobbies and interests inferior to his own.
In my eyes this is all cringe for those reasons.
I'm not a fan of judging/shaming others for their hobbies/interests, so it always makes me a bit sad when the defense mechanism is to try to flip the aggression on the other side, trying to shame the "normie" interests.
Then what is corned beef?
I can't answer for dual numbers, but I can answer for imaginary numbers in circuit design.
Imaginary numbers are those that include an imaginary component, that squares into a negative number. Traditionally, i^2 = -1, but electrical engineers like to use j instead (I tends to be a variable used to describe electrical current).
Complex numbers, that include a real component and an imaginary component, can be thought of as having an "angle," based on how much of it is imaginary and how much of it is real, mapped onto a 2-dimensional representation of that number's real and imaginary components. 5 + 5j is as real as it is imaginary, so it's like having a 45° angle. The real number 5 is completely real, so it has a 0° angle.
Meanwhile, in alternating current (AC) circuits, like what you get from your wall outlet, the voltage source is a wave that alternates between a maximum peak of positive voltage and a bottom trough of negative voltage, in a nice clean sinusoidal shape over time. If you hook up a normal resistor, the nice clean sinusoidal voltage also becomes a nice clean sinusoidal current with the exact same timing of when the max voltage matches up with the max current.
But there's also capacitors, which accumulate charge so that the flow of current on the other side depends on its own state of charge. And there are inductors, that affect current based on the amount of energy stored magnetically. These react to the existing current and voltage in the system and manipulate the time relationship between what moment in time a peak current will happen and when the peak voltage was.
And through some interesting overlap in how adding and subtracting and delaying sinusoidal waves works, the circuit characteristics line up perfectly with that complex angle I was talking about, with the imaginary numbers. So any circuit, or any part of a circuit, can be represented with an "impedance" that has both an imaginary and real component, with a corresponding phase angle. And that complex number can be used to calculate information about the time delay in the wave of current versus the wave of voltage.
So using complex phase angles makes certain AC calculations much, much easier, to represent the output of real current from real voltage, where the imaginary numbers are an important part of the calculation but not in the actual real world observation itself.
So even though we start with real numbers and end with real numbers, having imaginary numbers in the toolbox make the middle part feasible.
Set phasors to "confuse"
Next, the researchers examined how fitness was associated with the risk of dying in random accidents such as car accidents, drownings and homicides. They chose random accidents because they assumed that there ought to be no association between the men’s fitness in late adolescence and the risk of dying in random accidents. This method is called negative control outcome analysis and involves testing the validity of your results for a primary outcome by comparing them with an outcome where no association ought to be found. If, however, an association is found, it may indicate that the groups studied are not actually comparable, and that the study suffers from what is typically referred to as confounding. The researchers found that men with the highest fitness levels had a 53 per cent lower risk of dying in random accidents. Yet, it is unlikely that the men’s fitness would have such a big effect on their risk of dying in random accidents.
This seems like a completely unsupported assumption.
Physical fitness can make a difference in the survivability of unexpected drowning risk. Imagine a boat overturns and people have to swim to safety. One would expect that the extreme consequence of death would tend to happen to the least fit people in the group, even if everyone experienced the same traumatic event.
How much do bone density and muscle mass affect survivability in car accidents? Does good cardiovascular circulation help with healing, fighting off infection, etc.?
And I'm not sure about homicides. What are the methods of killing, and what percentage of these deaths involve reckless or negligent homicides? Can physical fitness play a role in simply getting away from the danger (whether that danger is intentional, reckless, or negligent)?
Hallucination feedback loop
Hallucination feedback loop
It's not about work ethic. It's an openness to new things, and a willingness to coordinate and plan things.
And seeing "moving away" as a huge sacrifice, to where you'd tend to describe it as "uprooting your life," is a particular worldview that you're entitled to, but one you should be aware that many other people don't share.
You're attributing a lot of unspoken values in that comment that I don't really think are there, and I suspect it's because you place a much higher value in staying close to home than the typical person does, and because you seem to elevate the purpose of a career to primarily be maximizing one's own money.
So take a step back. Reread that comment with the revisited assumption that some people choose careers for reasons completely different from money, and that people don't feel a strong need to stay in the same city where they grew up. It's just career advice at that point.
There's more to careers than just money. The distribution of jobs in different industry sectors, job specialties, etc. aren't going to be uniform throughout the world, so many types of jobs will require people to move.
It's not even about money. It's about wanting to work in something specific that isn't as easily available in the town you happened to be born in.
that's insanity
makes me feel sick
That's a pretty strong reaction to the simple idea that maybe living your entire life within a 30 minute drive of where you were born isn't the best way to experience this life. You don't have to want it, but is it that much to ask to simply understand that some other people want it?
My hometown is, like, fine. I could've stayed. But its state government is insane, the dominant local industries and companies don't really fit my moral framework, and the social aspect pushes people into a car-based lifestyle that I'm not particularly interested in. I left for a job, but I also was just looking for a reason to leave.
Even if we were to produce 100 000 000 perfect replicas of our genes they would still hit the same wall— extinction.
Doesn't matter, had sex.
From their taller exes
It sounds like the thesis to David Epstein's book, Range. When I read it, it was a game changer for me.
If I recall correctly, the main examples were Roger Federer (who played a lot of sports and didn't choose to specialize in tennis until much later than the typical tennis pro), jazz legend Django Reinhardt, Vincent Van Gogh, and a bunch of other less famous, but much more typical examples.
Sampling is important, and has value beyond just the things they sampled and abandoned. The act of trying many different things is itself helpful.
Van Gogh wouldn't have become the artist he became if he didn't fizzle out of multiple career paths beforehand.
David Epstein's Range really explores this idea and puts forth a pretty convincing argument that sampling and delaying specialization is helpful for becoming the type of well rounded generalist whose skills are best suited for our chaotic world.
not someone you wanna prone bone anyway
I actually laughed out loud at the specificity here. Thank you for this, you've brightened my day.
The "mental illness" and "plumber" categories can actually add up to be more than 100%.