Doesn't it bother you that you have to spend so much time answering all these questions, time which you could use to do something more productive and/or interesting?
Might this sort of closed-minded attitude be part of the reason you have problems being as socially involved as you would like to be in the "real world"?
Ok, how about this: What is the axiom of choice and why is it such a controversial axiom?
Are you genuinely interested in having me supply lay interpretations of various math concepts? Almost anything you could ask about is already explained in places like mathworld or wikipedia, but if you truly find their articles too detailed or jargony, I am willing to explicate and simplify as best as I am able.
Well, my original question about the Riemann hypothesis started as a joke. That doesn't mean I understand the Riemann hypothesis. It just means that I didn't expect an answer.
I asked about the Poincaré conjecture only half-seriously, although somewhat interested in seeing a simple explanation. As for the axiom of choice, I know what it says, but I don't understand why it's such a complicated and controversial thing. The wikipedia article about the subject is not the clearest possible.
I'm just gonna toss this out there ... if you find yourself too caught up in remembering all the times you've been hurt, there are a few non-toxic, non-addictive psychedelic drugs that can help you work through those emotions. Such an approach is perhaps not appropriate for everyone, but many people find such "psychic exploration" invaluable.
Thanks, but no thanks.
The strongest "drug" I ever take is an aspirin, and in average I take it approximately once a year. No kidding.
I don't really think it's fair to call women shallow if it implies men are less shallow. Let's face it, we're all shallow. Who doesn't enjoy staring at some good looking boobies?
That may be true. The problem is that men and women are shallow in different ways. My vision of an attractive woman is quite different from the typical womanly vision of an attractive man. With this I mean, for example, that women look at things like clothing and hair, while I don't. Clothing can have a big effect on the attractiveness of a woman, but it's in no way the main thing I look for.
As for women's hair, I have a weird taste for that, and none of my male friends share it. See, I think short-haired women are more attractive than long-haired ones. This seems to be a rather rare thing among men. (And, unfortunately, it seems that short-haired women are a very rare species as well.)
[23:20:03] <jimsfriend> Fabian, it might also be good to let warp know that failure doesn't mean he should give up, just that he should try again
[23:20:12] <jimsfriend> if he is socially awkward he might take rejection a bit hard
This is actually true. I have actually dated a whopping 2 women during my life. Ending the relationship was in both cases really painful. The post-effects lasted for quite long time. I'm not very eager to repeat the experience for a third time.
I think forcing yourself to change in this situation is really really tough to be honest. Trouble is, while it's all generally kinda sucky because you never meet any women and have almost no friends, on a day to day basis it's kinda alright, right? What I mean is, the feeling of emptiness isn't THAT unbearable during a given day, because you have stuff to kinda occupy your time with, even if they're things you don't really want, long term.
Can you read minds? Or is my life really *that* obvious?
To sum up. Make yourself look presentable. Start losing weight if you need to. Start working out if you need to. Don't look like a hobo (nice clothes, nice hair, nice nails), women pay attention to this.
That's one thing I hate about women. They always claim that they want men to be themselves, even though they mean the exact opposite. They *don't* want men to be themselves, but they want them to suit up and act to please the woman.
That seems to be the difference between a woman and a true friend. The latter doesn't care what you look like, what you wear or if your hair is ok. The friendship will not be in any way diminished by shallow mundane things like those. A true friend accepts you as you are and doesn't expect you to change nor to perform for them. A true friend doesn't need nor want you to act all posh and formal and good-mannered with them. In fact, if you did that it would be more awkward than anything else.
Why must women be so shallow?
I think one thing you will have to pay extra attention to is your personality. You come off pretty bitter (no need to get defensive, I do this too) and grumpy some of the time.
I only act like a jerk online. IRL I'm pretty quiet and seldom express my opinion on anything, and even when I do it's only if people are willing to listen.[/i]
I'm 33, a hopeless computer nerd, and single. What should I do?
Are you seriously unhappy and looking to change? Because there's a ton of stuff you could try, small changes and big changes. Let me know, maybe tell me a bit more about yourself.
Well, I'm middle-aged and I watch people playing NES games. I think that's quite telling.
90% of my social life happens through the internet. 9% of the IRL socializing happens with two friends. Not a chick in sight, though. Sometimes I feel like there could be more to life than this.
It's usually married people who go through mid-life crisis. I suppose singles do too, although differently.
While crime definitely is a "national problem", that's true for all countries. I don't think of it as "the Swedish democracy collapsing".
I wonder how much the situation must escalate before denial is impossible...
Anyways, on a completely different note, and more related to your original starter post:
Dear Fabian,
I'm 33, a hopeless computer nerd, and single. What should I do?
Google knows, but it doesn't seem to list anything worth being "the worst day ever". Unless, you consider "American League Division Series (ALDS) Game 3" to fall in that category.
Finland. (Why does it matter anyways? I was just answering your question of why someone would perceive Sweden to have some kind of national problem. Besides, weren't you the one supposed to be answering questions? ;) )
The question is not whether people are committing crimes in Sweden. The question is *who* is committing most of those crimes. The PDF links are most illuminating.
Thank you very much Warp, I totally agree. Maybe the next time someone thinks about posting about the "worst day ever" not mentioning 9/11 or the holocaust, or the "worst game ever" without mentioning E.T. for the Atari, will reconsider.
With that, do you mean that "worst movie I have ever seen" does not actually mean "wost movie I have ever seen", but something else? It really means something like "this is the worst *big-budget* movie I have seen *in some time*"?
I don't really understand that. Why write "this is the worst movie I have ever seen" when you don't really mean that? It's not even a common expression which everybody understands.
"Do not impose artificial restrictions on the run. Such as "I will use all weapons except this one"See published: SNES "minimalist" Super Metroid (JPN/USA) in 51:05.75 by T.S. (aka. Terimakasih) (quote: The only beams used are Charge and Ice)
-does this break the spirit of this guideline? somewhat
-then why is this acceptable? it was judged on a per-game basis
I think that the meaning of that rule is: "If you are going to impose some restrictions on your run, ie. you are not making an 'any-%, anything-goes' run, the restrictions should be rational and make sense".
For example, "don't use the death-warp glitch which allows skipping 90% of the game" is a rational restriction. It has a clear and rational goal: To show a TAS of the *entire* game (and not just 10% of it). Another rational limitation is "must collect all items". This is in the same spirit as the "100% speedruns" in the regular speedrunning community.
What the rule speaks against is making artificial restrictions which don't make sense. For example "I avoid using this weapon, even though using it would make the run 1 second shorter". There's no rational reason to do that. It's not a desirable goal to aim for. It doesn't add to the run.
Transformers is officially the worst movie I've ever seen.
You haven't seen many movies, then? Like, maybe 4?
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
Hmm... it's really a piece of crap , but it's still not worse than the Lord of the Rings series...
I have never understood, and will probably never understand the concept of "worst movie ever seen" or "piece of crap" as most people seem to define it.
Now, I *do* understand the opinion "I did not like this movie". That makes sense, and it's perfectly logical. People like different things, and what one person likes, another person may dislike. "Not liking" a movie is a perfectly understandable concept.
Another concept I understand is "I expected it to be like this, but it wasn't, and thus I was completely disappointed". People have expectations when they go see a big movie and they always get disappointed because the movie was not exactly like they expected in advance. That's just fine. If people want to ruin their own movie experience with expectations, they can perfectly go ahead and do it.
However, the concept of "worst movie ever" and "piece of crap" just escapes me. I can't see any logical correlation between those concepts and the movies they refer to.
How could Transformers possibly be the "worst movie" you have ever seen? It makes absolutely no sense, unless you have seen something like a dozen movies in total during your entire life. There certainly are tons and tons of movies which are way, way worse than that. You either have succeeded in avoiding all of them (quite unlikely), or else you mean something else with "worst ever" than what that concept usually means.
Well, it's not unusual for people to use words with a different meaning than what people usually understand those words to mean. (For example the FSF uses the word "free" in relation to software with a meaning completely different from what "free" usually means in spoken language, including in relation to software.) I just have difficulties in understanding what is it that people really mean with expressions like "worst ever" in this context.
If you want *truely* bad movies, look here: http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/badmovies.html
If you claim that any of those movies is better than Transformers or the LotR, then I suppose I can't do anything else than deduce that either of us is crazy.
But more importantly, if you agree that even *one* of those movies listed is worse than Transformers or LotR (please be honest, no stupid denial principles thank you), then you'll have to explain what you mean with "worst movie ever". Because I certainly can't understand what it means.
In June 2007
49.19% ratio of Mozilla family hits
38.60% ratio of IE family hits
In July 2007
51.16% ratio of Mozilla family hits
36.47% ratio of IE family hits
In August 2007
53.76% ratio of Mozilla family hits
34.48% ratio of IE family hits
Quite an interesting trend. It seems that among the people who visit this site usage of IE is steadily decreasing, the opposite being true with the Mozilla browsers (I assume the vast majority of those is Firefox?)
Well, if it was an emulation bug in v19 which allowed a faster run, and this bug has been fixed in v20, then I suppose there shouldn't be any problem. Just remember to clearly explain this in the submission. If you can more or less accurately estimate the amount of "additional" frames introduced by the more correct v20 in your submission text, the better.
I would like you to answer that question — if not now, then at least when Phil and AngerFist submit their Super Castlevania IV improvement, which is pretty much destined to be longer (yet more optimized) than the currently published movie: at 1:15 in the run, 25 frames are saved by in-game time, yet 19 are lost in realtime frames due to uncontrollable fadeout lag. At that point, the realtime frame count is what becomes "some number", that you probably should, at least generally, not care about.
Are those fadeout lags caused by inaccurate emulation? In other words, is it an emulation bug?
If they are not an emulation bug but in fact an accurate simulation of how the original console works, and the emulation was buggy in the previous published movie, then I suppose it's ok for the newer submission to be accepted on this ground.
Of course it's an interesting question what happens if it *is* an emulation bug which didn't exist in the previous published movie...
Anyways, is this related to this supermetroid run?
