- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Joshjrn
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Baton Rouge |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 31726 |
| Registered on: | 12/24/2008 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
Never been banned but have been warned a couple of times.
Considering you’ve been here less than a year, you may want to pump the brakes a bit :lol:
0
Can’t speak for Chicken or TD, but having modded everything from games to boards over the years: yes, absolutely. Though it’s less cutting slack and more that there is an overall body of work to consider. If a brand new poster comes in and stirs up shite, you ban them immediately because they have only shown a propensity to be a problem. If a longtime poster has shown they are generally good but then fricks up, you’re normally going to slap them around a bit and then hope they return to form.
It seems like you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a “goal” is.
If your goal is to raise revenue, you have to keep your tariffs in place. If you remove your tariffs either because they were simply leverage for the reduction of rates or set for the purpose of on-shoring production, you will no longer raise revenue.
If your goal is to on-shore, you can’t use the tariffs as counter leverage because that’s not why you set them in the first place. And as soon as production is on-shored, your revenue goes to zero.
If your goal is to leverage tariffs to reduce counter tariffs, then again, as soon as you “win”, you remove the tariffs and get zero revenue and zero on-shoring.
Citing to different countries having different reactions to tariffs doesn’t mean you can have your tariff cake and eat it too; it illustrates that there is no actual goal and that this is scattershot shite against the wall and hoping that some of it sticks.
If your goal is to raise revenue, you have to keep your tariffs in place. If you remove your tariffs either because they were simply leverage for the reduction of rates or set for the purpose of on-shoring production, you will no longer raise revenue.
If your goal is to on-shore, you can’t use the tariffs as counter leverage because that’s not why you set them in the first place. And as soon as production is on-shored, your revenue goes to zero.
If your goal is to leverage tariffs to reduce counter tariffs, then again, as soon as you “win”, you remove the tariffs and get zero revenue and zero on-shoring.
Citing to different countries having different reactions to tariffs doesn’t mean you can have your tariff cake and eat it too; it illustrates that there is no actual goal and that this is scattershot shite against the wall and hoping that some of it sticks.
quote:
Training data which it uses as parameters to carry out instructions.
Not unlike human knowledge.
Just without awareness. For now.
Again, fundamentally disagree, as would I think every modern philosopher who has spent any time delving into epistemology. I understand the distinction you're trying to draw; I'm simply positing that knowledge isn't possible within that distinction :cheers:
Probably, but likely not for a while yet.
Our ability to export inflation from currency debasement evaporates overnight and the economy crashes the next morning.
No, I’m not being hyperbolic.
Our ability to export inflation from currency debasement evaporates overnight and the economy crashes the next morning.
No, I’m not being hyperbolic.
quote:
It knows what it is doing, it isn't aware of what it is doing.
It does not. It doesn't "know" anything. What definition are you using for "knowledge" or "knowing"?
quote:
Cause most Americans get their news from the AP wire…
Just after a quick search, it's been covered by the WSJ, the New York Times, CNBC, and Yahoo Finance, among many others. Literally everywhere l've looked, I see an article.
quote:
Guaranteed this doesn’t get reported by CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. It’ll get buried on their twitter feed or some shite so they can claim fair and balanced but we all know they aren’t running this in their opening story on their nightly news shows.
I have literally zero idea what the talking heads on TV say. If your complaint isn't that it isn't covered by the mainstream media, but is actually that is isn't broadcast directly into people's stupid fricking faces a la Idiocracy, then I don't know what to tell you, because I have no idea whether it is or isn't :lol:
quote:
Now what you are talking about is awareness, not knowledge.
No, I'm not. With that said, if we take one more step, we're getting into a full blown epistemological discussion, which I'm fine with, but I do want to hang a lantern on that :lol:
quote:
It is all of the above. Why would we not say it?
It literally can't be. Each is mutually exclusive to the others. And if you say "well I would be good with any of the three happening", that's fine, but that's not a goal, it's hope and a dream. And I thought we stopped setting public policy based on that in 2016.
re: Out of the many issues with modern gaming, the music in games sucks today
Posted by Joshjrn on 12/23/25 at 6:43 pm to geauxtigers87
This is an absolutely insane take :lol:
re: What Are Your Favorite "Christmas Games"?
Posted by Joshjrn on 12/23/25 at 1:21 pm to Sl0thstronautEsq
I’ve never played Frostpunk, but now I kinda wanna play Frostpunk :lol:
quote:
Writing a novel is creative Author didn't invent writing or words
The author understands what the words mean. The words are chosen intentionally, one by one, to convey an intentional thought. AI doesn’t know what the words mean. AI doesn’t even know what words are. AI is incapable of having a thought. It correlates data and puts one piece of data after another based on how frequently in the past those pieces of data have followed one another within the dataset it has access to.
quote:
fundamentally flawed definition. Finding a new way of doing a thing, or a new design for a thing is considered creative.
Agree to disagree that slime mold is creative :lol: :cheers:
re: The stark difference in between women and men in explaining simple things
Posted by Joshjrn on 12/23/25 at 11:04 am to czechtiger
quote:
That was really helpful. I can’t remember as young man ever being told that you need to be “liked”. It was more like: 1)behave yourself 2)always compete as hard as you can-if you lose then it’s still ok….you did your best. 3)try to recognise the truth Chics ever get told that growing up?
I think it’s somewhat shifting, but historically, the points that tend to be emphasized to young girls is to look pretty, be nice, be pleasant, share, play together.
Next time you’re in a large family dynamic with small children around, pay attention to the things boys and girls get complimented for. For girls, it’s generally going to be something involving their appearance (shoes, clothes, hair being described as cute or pretty), playing quietly, or sharing. Or, and it’s a weird exception: doing something performative for you or the group. Boys tend to be complimented for exploring, trying new things, winning at something, etc. Adjectives are more likely to be “cool” or “awesome” or the like.
The socialization starts early.
re: The stark difference in between women and men in explaining simple things
Posted by Joshjrn on 12/23/25 at 10:33 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Sounds a shite ton like a corporation.
It’s what happens in any situation in which the people making the decisions are more concerned about gaining, or not losing, face/standing than they are about coming to the objectively best decision. Reaching a safe group consensus is more important.
re: The stark difference in between women and men in explaining simple things
Posted by Joshjrn on 12/23/25 at 9:50 am to PensaTigers
quote:
I go off run time and the thumbnail. If i have a video thsts 3 and a half minutes, im picking it over the 9 minute video. I dont need a damn intro telling me what were learning when the damn title of the video does that, for example.
A lot of that is unfortunately the fault of the YouTube (or whatever service) algorithm. YT heavily ignores “short” videos that aren’t literally “Shorts”.
quote:
Hopefully a new monitor after my knuckles struck my previous monitor a little too hard.
I’m sorry, what? :lol:
quote:
I've never had a car loan and no that's not a flex but rather my choice to drive what I could afford at the time
I want to say the interest rate on my current car is 1.99%. Why would I give someone my money now when I could give it to them later when it’s worth significantly less? And for further context, I bought it at the end of 2021 (not planned; issues with previous car that would cost more than was justified), and considering the record inflation we had over the last few years, I’d say I did ok on that choice :lol:
quote:
I’m sorry that women confuse the OP.
It’s a difference in standard speech pattern. As an example, over the last decade and a half, I’ve found if I ask a male client a question that he wants to expound on, he will give me the answer and then go off on a long justification; if I ask a female client a question she wants to expound on, she will go off on a long justification and then, sometimes give me the answer. Sometimes, after the long justification, I have to repeat the question because she got so focussed on the justification that she lost track of the fact that she never answered what I asked. I almost never have male clients do that. But girls are unfortunately taught from an early age that being liked is extremely important, so I think subconsciously they don’t want to give an answer that could risk my “disliking” them (even though in reality I couldn’t care less) without first giving an explanation that may reduce that likelihood in their minds. But irrespective of the why, it makes it much more difficult to retain the conversation because of the order information is presented in.
As always, not all men or women, but just on average, in my experience.
re: The stark difference in between women and men in explaining simple things
Posted by Joshjrn on 12/23/25 at 8:49 am to Mike da Tigah
Throughout human history, early men would die if they made a mistake; early women would die if the tribe decided to otherize and ostracize them. Now, how much of the expression of that in modern times comes down to nature versus nurture is ripe for debate, but I think it’s related.
re: US economy expands at a surprisingly strong 4.3% annual rate in the third quarter
Posted by Joshjrn on 12/23/25 at 8:45 am to SuperSaint
quote:
so buried that the AP is reporting it huh
One of my little joys on TD is watching people screech that the mainstream media would never report on something… in a thread that only exists because it’s citing to an article on the subject by mainstream media :lol:
Popular
50
