bethorien
Just a random chick with too many problems and too few solutions
— bethorien Report User
YugiPro #23 - A Child of the Omnissiah 8 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
here? nah i doubt id ever change it. Other places? i basically never use the same username twice anymore.
1
SW Day 28 3 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
I have 2 things to say about this
1.
The radius of the big circle is twice the radius of the small circle and a circle is π(r^2), therefor 48π is equal to big circle minus small circle or (π(2r^2))-(π(r^2))
You can move the 2 in the first circle out of the parentheses by squaring it so you get
(4π(r^2))-(π(r^2). You’ll notice the equation is the same on both sides of the - except the left side is multiplied by 4 so you can subtract (1π(r^2) from (4π(r^2) to get
(3π(r^2))
Which means 48π=(3π(r^2))
Which simplies down, take the pi out as it’s top layer in both sides, divide 48 by 3 and it leaves you with
16=r^2 or r = 4
2. Technically that’s a bad test question because that’s not actually a circle, it’s an oval and it probably intends you assume it’s a circle. Turn the image sideways and it becomes more obvious
3
1.
The radius of the big circle is twice the radius of the small circle and a circle is π(r^2), therefor 48π is equal to big circle minus small circle or (π(2r^2))-(π(r^2))
You can move the 2 in the first circle out of the parentheses by squaring it so you get
(4π(r^2))-(π(r^2). You’ll notice the equation is the same on both sides of the - except the left side is multiplied by 4 so you can subtract (1π(r^2) from (4π(r^2) to get
(3π(r^2))
Which means 48π=(3π(r^2))
Which simplies down, take the pi out as it’s top layer in both sides, divide 48 by 3 and it leaves you with
16=r^2 or r = 4
2. Technically that’s a bad test question because that’s not actually a circle, it’s an oval and it probably intends you assume it’s a circle. Turn the image sideways and it becomes more obvious
YugiPro #23 - A Child of the Omnissiah 8 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
Yea, one of my friends from when I made it used to tease me about that very fact lol.
1
YugiPro #23 - A Child of the Omnissiah 8 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
YAY! I’ve been silently hoping you’d make a card of me :D I’ve really been enjoying this series and I quite like this entry :D
Also thankfully my username isn’t my actual name, it’s just some random name came up with when I was in middle school.
2
·
Edited 2 years ago
Also thankfully my username isn’t my actual name, it’s just some random name came up with when I was in middle school.
WORP WORP! 1 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
I know there’s been a Star Trek/who crossover but has there been a Star Wars one?
2
Two weeks (and 18 wheels) to flatten the curve 8 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
if your EKG is reading a curve you're already dead, flattening or not
2
·
Edited 2 years ago
Nietszche ta mère 2 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
This photo puts the concept of “nietzsche with long hair” in my head and tbh he looks cool, I mean his moustache is just cool already to me but yea lol.
But yea nietzsche is an odd character in the mainstream ideas on philosophy. He was VERY against nihilism. His thing is that he wanted people to create their own values, to think about their actions, their beliefs, and their morals. Blind faith was his main enemy and to him nihilism wasn’t any different than blindly following a religion. Just look at the man he seemed to admire the most, Voltaire. Voltaire’s whole thing was being a free thinker, challenging ideas instead of just accepting them. One of the big things he pushed is that no power of authority should be free of criticism.
1
But yea nietzsche is an odd character in the mainstream ideas on philosophy. He was VERY against nihilism. His thing is that he wanted people to create their own values, to think about their actions, their beliefs, and their morals. Blind faith was his main enemy and to him nihilism wasn’t any different than blindly following a religion. Just look at the man he seemed to admire the most, Voltaire. Voltaire’s whole thing was being a free thinker, challenging ideas instead of just accepting them. One of the big things he pushed is that no power of authority should be free of criticism.
Science has been broken 2 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
No you’re breaking the power bank, power left in a battery is determined by the voltage as in the way it’s measured is by checking it’s voltage output against some math when knowing the top and bottom of its charge state outputs. If being plugged into itself “charges it” that means the voltage output is increasing without the charge held increasing.
Normally in a decent quality power bank this would do literally nothing, either it wouldn’t let it happen or it would just slowly lose charge normally as it pumps electricity into itself at a lose due to heat. The fact this is happening basically means you’ve effectively forced the battery to age faster than expected, by that I mean cause normal wear and tear expected over thousands of cycles in a very short time, and as such hold less total charge.
16
·
Edited 2 years ago
Normally in a decent quality power bank this would do literally nothing, either it wouldn’t let it happen or it would just slowly lose charge normally as it pumps electricity into itself at a lose due to heat. The fact this is happening basically means you’ve effectively forced the battery to age faster than expected, by that I mean cause normal wear and tear expected over thousands of cycles in a very short time, and as such hold less total charge.
please snickers no 9 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
basic summary of the situation.
The TV animation ads character models for the green and brown M&Ms have slight changes, the green one had their gogo boots swapped out for sneakers and the brown one had their stiletto heels swapped out for block heels. Now there is a mix of people all over the internet complaining about it, half of them genuinely upset about the change and half of them mocking the ones that are complaining. I've seen a person legitimately claiming that the fact the green m and m isnt fuckable anymore means she's stopped being a role model for girls, the logic he laid out being, the fact he considered the m and m character fuckable (yes he did legitimately admit to wanting to fuck a BARELY anthropomorphized candy) meant that there the character no longer represented "someone that has no hips no ass and is round above the waist still being attractive."
4
The TV animation ads character models for the green and brown M&Ms have slight changes, the green one had their gogo boots swapped out for sneakers and the brown one had their stiletto heels swapped out for block heels. Now there is a mix of people all over the internet complaining about it, half of them genuinely upset about the change and half of them mocking the ones that are complaining. I've seen a person legitimately claiming that the fact the green m and m isnt fuckable anymore means she's stopped being a role model for girls, the logic he laid out being, the fact he considered the m and m character fuckable (yes he did legitimately admit to wanting to fuck a BARELY anthropomorphized candy) meant that there the character no longer represented "someone that has no hips no ass and is round above the waist still being attractive."
Useful headlines 4 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
The one about sex likely is referring to individual instances of sex having a higher chance if sex is generally more common
like, yea having sex once every 4 or 5 days should give you a 100% chance of having viable sperm around when the ovulation happens,
What the article is likely referring to is the biological response the female body to being consistently given sex, specifically the changes to the immune system as the body reacts to the frequent sex by preparing itself to host a fetus.
Whether a fertilized egg is able to successfully become hosted by the womb is a dice roll directly affected by the readyness of the immune system of the mother, frequent sex makes the immune system more ready for that dice roll.
like, yea having sex once every 4 or 5 days should give you a 100% chance of having viable sperm around when the ovulation happens,
What the article is likely referring to is the biological response the female body to being consistently given sex, specifically the changes to the immune system as the body reacts to the frequent sex by preparing itself to host a fetus.
Whether a fertilized egg is able to successfully become hosted by the womb is a dice roll directly affected by the readyness of the immune system of the mother, frequent sex makes the immune system more ready for that dice roll.
Hah you want to ban consumer single-use plastic and yet you live in society checkmate 11 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
capitalism as a system is motivated only by profits. A corporation by nature will take the most profitable choice. That is a consequence of capitalism, the entities with power will take the choice that brings in the most profit. For nike that meant using literal slave labor. The company that treats humans like humans will make less profits and be out competed. The company that acts in a moral way will be at an inherent disadvantage to a company that takes the most profitable way, note that isnt "the most profitable way following the laws of the nation." for corporations laws are considerations, they are a variable in the equation. It's a profit negative thats calculated in and in a lot of cases its more profitable to break the law and take the fine than it is to avoid breaking the law.
1
Be careful what you wish for 17 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
@garlog
it isnt a matter of standards, that doesn't come into play any more than when saying an entity is selfish. Something is selfish regardless of if you think it is good or bad to be selfish. the same is true for being benevolent.
If god is "omnipotent and omniscient", then for there to be suffering in gods plan suffering existing must be a goal he has or the existence of suffering is something he is apathetic to.
apathy to suffering is not benevolent, it categorically isn't.
Wanting there to be suffering is categorically malevolent. which is the direct linguistic antonym of benevolent.
@famousone
the issue with the free will thing, An all knowing god would know what free will choices would be made by every human being to ever while designing the universe. free will and lack of suffering arent exclusive. god, in making eve, knew before hand she would take the fruit. In a better wording, he had unlimited choices and he chose one that he knew would take the fruit
1
it isnt a matter of standards, that doesn't come into play any more than when saying an entity is selfish. Something is selfish regardless of if you think it is good or bad to be selfish. the same is true for being benevolent.
If god is "omnipotent and omniscient", then for there to be suffering in gods plan suffering existing must be a goal he has or the existence of suffering is something he is apathetic to.
apathy to suffering is not benevolent, it categorically isn't.
Wanting there to be suffering is categorically malevolent. which is the direct linguistic antonym of benevolent.
@famousone
the issue with the free will thing, An all knowing god would know what free will choices would be made by every human being to ever while designing the universe. free will and lack of suffering arent exclusive. god, in making eve, knew before hand she would take the fruit. In a better wording, he had unlimited choices and he chose one that he knew would take the fruit
Be careful what you wish for 17 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
to go at this from a different angle
One of three things is true.
God wants a non-zero amount of suffering in the world, god is apathetic to suffering in the world, or god wants there to not be suffering in the world.
If god wants there to be suffering in the world he cannot be considered benevolent.
If god is apathetic to suffering in the world he also cannot be considered benevolent.
If god wants there to not be suffering in the world then he either does not know how to prevent it or knows how but does not have the ability to do so.
With our world, the creator cannot be all powerful and all knowing while also being benevolent.
3
One of three things is true.
God wants a non-zero amount of suffering in the world, god is apathetic to suffering in the world, or god wants there to not be suffering in the world.
If god wants there to be suffering in the world he cannot be considered benevolent.
If god is apathetic to suffering in the world he also cannot be considered benevolent.
If god wants there to not be suffering in the world then he either does not know how to prevent it or knows how but does not have the ability to do so.
With our world, the creator cannot be all powerful and all knowing while also being benevolent.
Be careful what you wish for 17 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
@garlog
that isn't an counter to this argument.
God has goals, to achieve those goals he creates a plan. If god is all knowing he can conceive of a plan that achieves his goals without suffering on earth. If god is all powerful he can enact any plan he can conceive of. A benevolent entity would strive to avoid suffering.
The fact that there is suffering on the earth means that one of three things is true,
he could not conceive of a plan that achieves his goals without suffering on earth,
he could conceive of a plan that achieves his goals without suffering on earth but could not enact it,
or he could conceive of such a plan and could enact it but chose not to in favor of a plan that has suffering that the addition of does not effect the achieving of his goals one way or another compared to the plan without said suffering.
In each case in order that is
not being all knowing
not being all powerful
or not being benevolent.
3
that isn't an counter to this argument.
God has goals, to achieve those goals he creates a plan. If god is all knowing he can conceive of a plan that achieves his goals without suffering on earth. If god is all powerful he can enact any plan he can conceive of. A benevolent entity would strive to avoid suffering.
The fact that there is suffering on the earth means that one of three things is true,
he could not conceive of a plan that achieves his goals without suffering on earth,
he could conceive of a plan that achieves his goals without suffering on earth but could not enact it,
or he could conceive of such a plan and could enact it but chose not to in favor of a plan that has suffering that the addition of does not effect the achieving of his goals one way or another compared to the plan without said suffering.
In each case in order that is
not being all knowing
not being all powerful
or not being benevolent.
Be careful what you wish for 17 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
Have a logic argument
1. A god that is purely benevolent would want to avoid suffering if doing so would not sacrifice a greater good or facilitate a worse evil.
2. An all knowing god would know how to avoid suffering without sacrificing a greater good or facilitating a worse evil for every instance of suffering, else they are not all knowing.
3. An all powerful god that is all knowing could enact anything and therefor would be capable of avoiding any suffering without losing a greater good or facilitating a greater evil.
4. Suffering exists in our world
5. Therefor, if there is a creator god of our world it must be not all knowing, not all powerful, or not purely benevolent.
6
1. A god that is purely benevolent would want to avoid suffering if doing so would not sacrifice a greater good or facilitate a worse evil.
2. An all knowing god would know how to avoid suffering without sacrificing a greater good or facilitating a worse evil for every instance of suffering, else they are not all knowing.
3. An all powerful god that is all knowing could enact anything and therefor would be capable of avoiding any suffering without losing a greater good or facilitating a greater evil.
4. Suffering exists in our world
5. Therefor, if there is a creator god of our world it must be not all knowing, not all powerful, or not purely benevolent.
Hah you want to ban consumer single-use plastic and yet you live in society checkmate 11 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
I mean if you REALLY want to be pedantic imaginary numbers are a specific subset of numbers that most kinds of numbers aren’t and also the kind of numbers the meme is talking about isn’t either.
3
Oh the irony 12 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
I believe famousones sentiment with regards to the “god” part of the post could be summarized as “if god wanted you to give your opinion he wouldn’t have told women to sit down and shut the fuck up in the New Testament.”
1
Lol 6 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
Yea, in places where electric cars are common companies like shell are adding charging systems either in land adjacent to or sitting within gas stations
Technically true, unless you're getting force-fed by grandma 8 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
i was already hungry as i haven't eaten yet today and now i want mcdonalds lol
side note: i wonder how much the people that make the fake food for stock photos and TV ads and such get paid
side note: i wonder how much the people that make the fake food for stock photos and TV ads and such get paid
SW Day 14 3 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
There’s a weapon called a ripper, it’s a mandalorian weapon made during the time they commonly had conflicts with lightsaber/force users. It’s basically a gun that shoots physical bullets but propelled them with energy systems rather than chemical explosions. Their design purpose was blasting through energy shields without sacrificing the accuracy and power of a blaster, however they were used HEAVILY during the height of the Jedi and sith powers because, being slugthrower, the projectile would shatter upon impact with a lightsaber blade, likely killing the lightsaber user.
4
Humans are humans 14 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
Arguably even just the way he worded what he was speaking about “European colonial history” actively acknowledges the fact that it isn’t just Europeans doing this otherwise it would just be “colonial history.”
An example of a far more dishonest and more “opposed to truth” way this could have been worded would be something like
-
Colonial history in 7 words:
“Europeans: is that yours? It’s mine now”
4
An example of a far more dishonest and more “opposed to truth” way this could have been worded would be something like
-
Colonial history in 7 words:
“Europeans: is that yours? It’s mine now”
Humans are humans 14 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
Yea, technically diametrically opposed to truth would require he say something like “land has never been stolen through force.” Anything less than that will have a degree of truth.
What would be more accurate would be to say that it has a questionable relationship with honest framing.
The thing with tweets is that it’s not an unsafe assumption that all the context of the statement is encapsulated in the tweet by which I mean, he’s likely not responding to anyone, he’s likely not referencing outside of the tweet except in what is explicitly stated in the tweet in this case “European colonial history.”
-
2
What would be more accurate would be to say that it has a questionable relationship with honest framing.
The thing with tweets is that it’s not an unsafe assumption that all the context of the statement is encapsulated in the tweet by which I mean, he’s likely not responding to anyone, he’s likely not referencing outside of the tweet except in what is explicitly stated in the tweet in this case “European colonial history.”
-
That's not how it's supposed to work.. [bolt-action to full-auto] 13 comments
bethorien
· 2 years ago
context for the video this is from, its a couple months old so memory is memory but im pretty sure he bought the cheapest 22 conversion kit he could find and it wasnt just full auto, it was full runaway. One trigger pull and release and it dumped half the mag, the only reason it didnt get rid of all of it is because it jammed.
3
·
Edited 2 years ago
