Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dustin said: Oh it’s too long for that right now and its too wavy to sit like that but I could get something similar maybe hah.
TOO WAVY!?
My hair is wavier than the sea:
The key is to do it while it’s semi-wet (run a towel over your head for 2 seconds). Comb it down, play with it a bit, and then let it dry like that.
Dustin said:tarheel91 said: You can always shower, comb, and mess up a little with your fingers. That’s the standard approach as far as I know.I do that.
Keep it down, though.
Here’s what I do:
You can always shower, comb, and mess up a little with your fingers. That’s the standard approach as far as I know.
DarkDragoon said:tarheel91 said:DarkDragoon said:tarheel91 said: Modified title, just to warn people.Oh my god, what an awesome ending.
The whole concept of applying entropy towards wish making is pretty damn cool (Change in entropy is always greater than or equal to 0; change in despair vs. hope is always greater than or equal to 0).
One little complaint: the universe isn’t running out of energy. Energy simply tends to change to less and less usable forms. Of course, this is based on a classical understanding of energy, so that’s probably going to change in the future.
A little tinkering with that and the whole running out of energy thing is plausible in Godoka’s universe.
I think episode 11 was severely overshadowed by episode 12, Homura fucking ran tankers in the Walmart and had some unlimited RPG works going on.
God damn, episode 11 was beautiful…so was Godoka’s Galaxy Rose Bow…the entire series was beautiful ;-;No, you see, conservation of energy kind of says we can’t run out of energy. And since mass is just energy concentrated in a single point, running out of energy is tantamount to running out of mass and turning into nothingness. That wasn’t what the show was talking about either, it just didn’t know it. The future is a desert apocalypse (based on the after-credits scene). It’s not nothingness, it’s just barren and unusable.
Edit: Granted, the whole idea of turning the emotions of prepubescent (except Mami…) girls into energy isn’t exactly realistic, so such a critical eye probably isn’t warranted.
Is that really the future though? Could it just be Homura wandering the present while being a badass?
Now I know Coobies thermodynamics is all borked, but he did say that the amount of energy was disappearing with a rising amount of entropy.
This could lead to the Magical Girls originally being Entropy filters. Their reality breaking magic is powered by this entropy, notice this breaks almost every scientific law placed then again this is magic. This then creates energy, essentially the Puella Magicas are making energy out of entropy and their magic is the manifestation of this.
Now I’m going to stop myself before I start sounding completely batshit to myself, was getting close.I assumed future just because of context: that massive amount of grief/despair surrounding Homura, the lack of civilization, the tons of demons, and the marked increase in Homura’s power. There’s no way to know. I don’t think the point is it being a specific time or place. Madoka mentioned being able to see all the pasts and possible futures, which implies a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (look it up on Wiki). The important thing is that Homura was alone and facing great difficulty, and she remained hopeful with Madoka’s help.
Kyubey is just trying to put the relatively complicated themes that motivate this show into simple terms. What he said was that because of entropy the universe is running out of energy. What he meant was that because of entropy, the universe was running out of useable energy. Magical girls’ emotions are basically a source of usable energy. The show basically doesn’t limit entropy to applying to energy, but abstract things as well. Basically, yes, magical girls’ emotions can be harvested, but at the expense of creating grief/despair equal to or greater than that energy. Madoka makes it where you can harvest any sort of despair/grief, that’s all. There are going to be bad things happening everywhere that will create despair, why not use that naturally occurring despair instead of manipulating young girls into experiencing a life-destroying amount.
DarkDragoon said:tarheel91 said: Modified title, just to warn people.Oh my god, what an awesome ending.
The whole concept of applying entropy towards wish making is pretty damn cool (Change in entropy is always greater than or equal to 0; change in despair vs. hope is always greater than or equal to 0).
One little complaint: the universe isn’t running out of energy. Energy simply tends to change to less and less usable forms. Of course, this is based on a classical understanding of energy, so that’s probably going to change in the future.
A little tinkering with that and the whole running out of energy thing is plausible in Godoka’s universe.
I think episode 11 was severely overshadowed by episode 12, Homura fucking ran tankers in the Walmart and had some unlimited RPG works going on.
God damn, episode 11 was beautiful…so was Godoka’s Galaxy Rose Bow…the entire series was beautiful ;-;No, you see, conservation of energy kind of says we can’t run out of energy. And since mass is just energy concentrated in a single point, running out of energy is tantamount to running out of mass and turning into nothingness. That wasn’t what the show was talking about either, it just didn’t know it. The future is a desert apocalypse (based on the after-credits scene). It’s not nothingness, it’s just barren and unusable.
Edit: Granted, the whole idea of turning the emotions of prepubescent (except Mami…) girls into energy isn’t exactly realistic, so such a critical eye probably isn’t warranted.
Modified title, just to warn people.
Oh my god, what an awesome ending.
The whole concept of applying entropy towards wish making is pretty damn cool (Change in entropy is always greater than or equal to 0; change in despair vs. hope is always greater than or equal to 0).
One little complaint: the universe isn’t running out of energy. Energy simply tends to change to less and less usable forms. Of course, this is based on a classical understanding of energy, so that’s probably going to change in the future.
Pirkid said:tarheel91 said:Joaco said:Nass said: If you don’t get it, don’t rate. Instead ask the writer about what they meant, when they explain themselves then you rate.
Rating without fully understanding is almost as dumb as buying something and not know wtf it does.Not understanding is not limited to the feeling of confusedness, there’s also something called misunderstanding. Because you misunderstand an argument, you may be against it. Because you misunderstand a blog, you may downvote it.
And let me tell you, this is not about why would you change your mind. It’s about the feature being arbitrary and superfluous.Also, vusys, if you wanted to give the “likes” feature more impact, you wouldn’t have let authors vote their own blogs. It is either that, or you being an hypocrite here.
Joa, I speak only for myself, but I’m pretty sure I mirror Vusys’ feelings when I say I welcome constructive criticism. However, the entitled, arrogant way you go about addressing anything you don’t like is immature and inappropriate. You want to be taken seriously? Don’t try to talk like you own the damn place. It just turns people off to you and whatever you’re trying to say. Try talking about stuff in a mature manner, that is, one that is cool and respectful.
There are a variety of reasons the system is set up like it is.
1) As Vusys said, it gives more impact to the voting process. Getting this community to take stuff seriously is kinda hard. We want voting to be an important part of the site. There’s an increased likelyhood that people would dick around with their votes if they could change them at any time. *random person logs onto MSN group* Lol, let’s all downvote Nass’ blogs and make him rage, then we’ll tell him to relax cause we’ll tell him we’ll change it later. I’m not saying that would happen, I’m just given an extreme example of how something loses its importance if it can be changed at any time.
2) It’s easy to mess with the number of likes to various effects (i.e. wait till someone gets on the front page, and then change your upvote to a downvote).
3) QotW. It would be chaos should people ever get competitive. One guy downvotes the other guy who’s right there with him for the most number of likes, despite initially enjoying his blog. Of course, that situation could get worse from there.
4) Similar to 3, people could use their vote for things other than judging to blog. Say somebody gets in an argument with someone else, rages, and changes all their votes to downvotes on all their blogs.
5) It encourages people to write better blogs. If somebody throws out a random three sentence string, they’re going to get downvoted for it, and that’s that. “Fixing” a blog shouldn’t be a viable alternative to writing the blog how it should have been the first time.
6) It encourages people to read the blogs better. You vote can’t be changed after 15 minutes, so you have to make sure you really want to up/down vote something when you go to do so. Liking/disliking isn’t about whether you necessarily agree with the person, it’s about how they presented their thoughts, how they recounted their story, etc. (i.e. David might dislike one of Nass’ blogs because he sees him as bragging about his pot exploits, not simply because it has pot in it).
There are more reasons we talked about that I can’t remember. TL;DR Bryan didn’t just pull this policy out of his ass. Just like the decision to move the sidebar to the right wasn’t arbitrary. The site hasn’t even been live for a week yet, and you’re already complaining about stuff you haven’t even gotten used to. Give it a chance, and if you still don’t like it, you can complain in a couple weeks. Next time, though, please do so in a more respectful manner.
I dislike it as well.
My main point is that it’s never been a problem before. We aren’t a huge community (yet) and the trolls around here usually only do that in a troll blog or in the forums. I’ve never seen a blog that has been a victim of “Likes” removal.
1: This is true, voting is now more vital to a blog’s success.
2: This is a bad point. Blogs will be featured no matter what, there is no Hide feature and there is no filtering options. Front page or not, blogs get read, unless they are one-liners. There is no reason you would intentionally remove a blog from the front page unless you are trolling ,and that is a problem with the user, not the system. Unless the coding works like: (When Likes = 10, Front Page), why not give Front Page Blogs Permanent Front page status? So even if opinions change and the blog gets downvoted, it’ll stay on the “front page” and it’s discussions won’t be treated like they are unworthy of the Page.
3: I also agree with this, but perhaps we can implement a system where blogs with a QotW tag have the 15-minute rule. If not, then I agree with Tarheel, this would be a problem.
4: This is exactly what I DON’T agree with. People should be able to change what they think about a blog, or post, or whatever. Locking in a vote based on the first 15 minutes of judgement is somewhat ridiculous in this case, because of an opinion changes, you SHOULD be able to downvote the blog. And honestly, if someone goes on a downvote rampage through a single person’s blogs, that is, once again, a user problem, not a system problem. That should be a bannable offence.
5: This is also something I agree with, but we are not babies. I am happy when I get 3 Likes and a few comments. I don’t need a “cushion” of Likes to make myself seem important, the whole purpose is to share, not get popular. Better blogs should ALWAYS be encouraged, but not by “locking in” someone’s vote. What if someone new writes a shitty blog, get’s called out, and then spends a good hour fixing it up and making a good one? He’s stuck with -4 votes. That isn’t fair.
6: Again, my opinion stands that people should not get their votes locked in, it’s just a cheap way of saying “That’s it, no more influence for you.” Referencing to point 5, the purpose of a blog is to share. However, if someone misreads, or is skimming through a blog, they shouldn’t get penalized for it. I often access VuTales through school, and I usually don’t have the time to read every single blog. That’s unfair to those who don’t have the time commitment to read an entire blog.
I like the sidebar. I love the new design. But telling people that what they think doesn’t matter after 15 minutes is stupid. Yes, people should make more informed decisions, but this is a (very small) blogging site, we aren’t voting for President.
Let me try to answer a few things. (Bryan and I talked about this a lot, so I’m sort of paraphrasing the conclusions made. Bryan, feel free to correct anything I screw up.)
2. This feature is designed, not just with the current community in mind, but also a larger one in the future (larger as in everyone doesn’t know the intimate details of everyone else’s lives). In that situation, the idea is to have community opinion decide which gets showcased. Community opinion isn’t limited to positive and apathetic. Thus, a negative opinion should have an impact on what gets front page’d. Along the same train of thought, just because you’re late to the party doesn’t mean your vote shouldn’t count. If you genuinely dislike the blog, and your downvote takes it off the front page, then so be it.
4. This works in conjunction with encouraging people to do it right the first time. If people do it right the first time, you should be able to form that opinion about the blog after reading it the first time, and there shouldn’t really be much that would change it.
5. It’s not just about making you feel good. It’s about letting someone knows what the community likes and dislikes. As I said, fixing a blog shouldn’t be a viable alternative to writing something decent in the first place (see: Zappy).
6. Misreading something is why there’s an interval in the first place. Is it that hard to wait until you finish reading a blog before voting?
Finally, you frequently mention problems with the user vs. the system. Why can’t the system prevent user abuse? That’s the same kind of logic that says a shop shouldn’t worry about shoplifting and let the police handle it because it’s a problem with the person, not the shop. And please don’t misrepresent the situation. No one’s saying what you think doesn’t matter after 15 minutes. Your vote still stays there. The idea is to make people completely read a blog and make an informed vote instead of just throwing it out there. To me, if you’re not sure about a blog, that doesn’t mean you should go ahead and like it anyways and maybe change it later. it means you should hold off on voting until you make up your mind.
And, suddenly, page views for VuTales sky rocket as members obsessively refresh the error page for pictures of cats.
Joaco said:Nass said: If you don’t get it, don’t rate. Instead ask the writer about what they meant, when they explain themselves then you rate.
Rating without fully understanding is almost as dumb as buying something and not know wtf it does.Not understanding is not limited to the feeling of confusedness, there’s also something called misunderstanding. Because you misunderstand an argument, you may be against it. Because you misunderstand a blog, you may downvote it.
And let me tell you, this is not about why would you change your mind. It’s about the feature being arbitrary and superfluous.Also, vusys, if you wanted to give the “likes” feature more impact, you wouldn’t have let authors vote their own blogs. It is either that, or you being an hypocrite here.
Joa, I speak only for myself, but I’m pretty sure I mirror Vusys’ feelings when I say I welcome constructive criticism. However, the entitled, arrogant way you go about addressing anything you don’t like is immature and inappropriate. You want to be taken seriously? Don’t try to talk like you own the damn place. It just turns people off to you and whatever you’re trying to say. Try talking about stuff in a mature manner, that is, one that is cool and respectful.
There are a variety of reasons the system is set up like it is.
1) As Vusys said, it gives more impact to the voting process. Getting this community to take stuff seriously is kinda hard. We want voting to be an important part of the site. There’s an increased likelyhood that people would dick around with their votes if they could change them at any time. *random person logs onto MSN group* Lol, let’s all downvote Nass’ blogs and make him rage, then we’ll tell him to relax cause we’ll tell him we’ll change it later. I’m not saying that would happen, I’m just given an extreme example of how something loses its importance if it can be changed at any time.
2) It’s easy to mess with the number of likes to various effects (i.e. wait till someone gets on the front page, and then change your upvote to a downvote).
3) QotW. It would be chaos should people ever get competitive. One guy downvotes the other guy who’s right there with him for the most number of likes, despite initially enjoying his blog. Of course, that situation could get worse from there.
4) Similar to 3, people could use their vote for things other than judging to blog. Say somebody gets in an argument with someone else, rages, and changes all their votes to downvotes on all their blogs.
5) It encourages people to write better blogs. If somebody throws out a random three sentence string, they’re going to get downvoted for it, and that’s that. “Fixing” a blog shouldn’t be a viable alternative to writing the blog how it should have been the first time.
6) It encourages people to read the blogs better. You vote can’t be changed after 15 minutes, so you have to make sure you really want to up/down vote something when you go to do so. Liking/disliking isn’t about whether you necessarily agree with the person, it’s about how they presented their thoughts, how they recounted their story, etc. (i.e. David might dislike one of Nass’ blogs because he sees him as bragging about his pot exploits, not simply because it has pot in it).
There are more reasons we talked about that I can’t remember. TL;DR Bryan didn’t just pull this policy out of his ass. Just like the decision to move the sidebar to the right wasn’t arbitrary. The site hasn’t even been live for a week yet, and you’re already complaining about stuff you haven’t even gotten used to. Give it a chance, and if you still don’t like it, you can complain in a couple weeks. Next time, though, please do so in a more respectful manner.
Joaco said:tarheel91 said:darkness said: Why is the / did you prefer the sidebar on the right?I know Vusys didn’t do it because of this, but humans naturally read in a C/F manner (our eyes follow that shape). It’s more natural for us to have the content on the left because our eyes naturally go all the way to the left side of the page after finishing a line.
I disagree.
Read a line, return to the left, go down, read a line. A left sidebar serves as a distraction and an irritant.
Just because you’re used to it doesn’t make it natural.
Nass said:tarheel91 said:Nass said: Well iunno if this is a glitch, but you can rate your own blogs now 😀Not a glitch. In the future, it’ll probably upvote your post automatically (basically it assumes you agree with what you’re saying it upvotes yourself for you).
o
And lol, you can go in the negatives too 😛
That’s very much on purpose.
Science disagrees with you.