This really rang true for me... (Cool Story Bro alert)

I spent a ridiculous amount of time playing two different RPGs in my early teen years: Ultima 6 and Final Fantasy 3 (SNES, FF6 by Japanese reckoning).

I treated Ultima 6 as a world simulator more than a "game", and so I never actually finished it because I had discovered and thrown away key plot items, and done enough"evil" stuff to have low karma that prevented me from actually proceeding with the story. But I didn't care much, I enjoyed just exploring and steamrolling anything that crossed my path.

Final Fantasy 3(6) was more forgiving though. I put experience eggs and other stuff on each character and then ground xp in the dinosaur forest, and eventually got every one up to level 99 with 9999 health and high stats. Similar to Ultima 6, I mainly enjoyed exploring and leveling up, so I had never even tried the final boss battle (Kefka) until I had every single character up to level 99 (not just 4-person party, I mean *every* character).

I figured being the final boss meant that it would be a tough fight no matter what. So I decked out a group of 4 (I liked Edgar, Sabin, Mog, and Umaro as my favorites) all with high end stuff. Edgar had Genji Gloves (dual wield) and Offering (attack 4 times per weapon, so 8 with Genji Glove), with Atma Weapon and Ragnarok swords.

Fight my way to Kefka, and order Edgar to "attack" -- 8 attacks of 9999 damage each, Kefka dies without getting so much as a single turn. Welp, guess I overprepared for that boss!

/end CSB

Seems about right.

I hate "achievements" in games, but one similar system that I actually loved was in Baldur's Gate (1 and 2). In those games, there was a window that tracked all kinds of stats for each of your party members. Stuff like percentage of total party kills, percentage of total damage output, strongest enemy killed, etc. A few games since have done things similar (Borderlands comes to mind), but most seem to opt for this sort of pointless achievement nonsense.

If I'm reading the stats right, he was hitting 75-83% with that technique. It may look goofy, but if it works...

As promised, the most promising results when polling google scholar:

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample"

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_
an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

Probably one of the better studies, it breaks down orientation to a scale versus straight binary, though the results are then statistical correlations and my stats classes are too long ago for me to work that back into something resembling my claims above.

"Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample
of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs"
http://ioa126.medsch.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/47.pdf

19 identical twins in the study with at least one twin with non-hetro orientation, within those 19 pairs, 6 showed concordance. So 6 of 19 identical twins sharing orientation, 13 of 19 not. This supports my statement above that in studies identical twins more often than not don't share homosexual orientation. This study also lists the statistical correlation of this result as 0.68, the previous studies statistical correlation was lower at 0.51(1.0 would be perfect correlation). If I'm reading the statistics remotely right, the above study then is similarly in keeping with my statement.

"Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets"
http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

Smaller sample size and different polling methodology, specifically sought out respondents of non hetro orientation. Shows a higher correlation, 25 of 38 identical twins being concordant. That's 66% concordance so opposite of my claim that more often than not they are discordant.


Running out of time here to post results. If you keep digging though it's more of the same, identical twins don't come close to showing 100% correlation, highest study of the samples I've pulled is 66%, and it's by far the highest. This is in contrast to race and gender, where you fully expect 100/100 identical twins to match.

Heh, awesome.
Had to check the stats 'cos I know nothing of NHL. The top forty guys in the league are consistently up over 0.90 save percentage, topping out at 0.93. This guy is 0.875 in his rec league, so... pretty good but, statistically speaking, one more shot and it would have been a goal. The fact that he streaked like this, AND in the "big leagues" IS a feat.

Loved this whole story. After thinking about it for a while, I figured that Foster was probably going to get an NHL record for highest "career save percentage".

1) The contract that the emergency goalies sign makes them official NHL professional athletes for a day.
2) He came in and made 7 shots on 7 saves, a 100% save percentage.
3) Official player, official stats earned, yet extremely unlikely that he'll ever see another minute of ice time or shot against ... therefore, into the record books.

I looked at NHL stats page and a few other sources to try to figure out if that was correct, but everything I looked at limited "Career Save Percentage" stats to players with a high minimum number of games.

Then I saw this story:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/blackhawks-emergency-goalie-scott-foster-accountant-jets/

Confirms that YES, he'll be in the records books, but he'll be tied with 17 other guys all having a 100% save percentage (after having faced between 1-17 shots).

So even though he's tied with 17 other guys, dude is set for life for a story to tell his kids / grandkids / strangers in the bar:

"So yeah, I'm a former NHL goalie. Retired with a career save percentage better than Brodeur or Roy. Left the game literally at the top of the charts."


I think Patrick Kane and/or Jonathan Toews should give their salary from this one game to the guy since the contract he signed precludes the team from paying him... (both make $10.5 million for this season, so 1/82 of that would be a bit over $125k)

No, I looked into him and see he does put forth the dumbest of right wing conspiracies, like pizza gate, anti vaxing, 9/11 is a hoax, school shootings as false flag hoaxes, etc.
Then I looked at real DOJ missing person stats and noticed he's also bat shit insane with his numbers.

Not bothering with your link, but if a lefty says there's 10000 new child sex slaves in America every year, they're also idiots or liars...Swann is obviously, demonstrably both.
Political leaning doesn't make facts out of lies.

You did say he didn't provide peer reviewed evidence, which was in there.

I'm calling the quora article non peer reviewed and off topic at best, and somewhat intentionally misleading, but not necessarily intentionally factually incorrect....but clearly written poorly and with bias. Many of the charts were unlabeled as to what country the stats are from, much less the data source, and the conclusions they drew were questionable.

The others, unavailable without paying...I'll read them if you pay. ;-)

Suicide is homicide, and counts since it's a crime. I had that argument with my brother about school killings last week.

I agree, that was horrible data (within 15%?!), and disingenuous to say "similar magnitude"...I wouldn't have said that, but I didn't write it. Still, the data is telling if imprecise.

It's impossible to be definitive about societal changes with so many factors involved, but the clear correlation is there if not proof of causation. Had they claimed certitude, you would know they're liars. The theory of psychohistory is far from complete, so predicting exactly what drives the actions of societies is still a guessing game at best..

Yes, if, as it seems, those other studies have to average the data over multiple years to make decades long slopes to make their point, but individual year data contradicts it, or intentionally not focus on firearm deaths and/or injuries when discussing efficacy of firearm laws, they're not being fully honest, outright liar might be a bit far....or not.

Comparing different cultures, especially Australia to Nz (or Canada to US) is often meaningless. When your culture doesn't produce a problem, legislation isn't needed to solve it. Talking about Canada to address the USA's gun problem is just time wasting, not useful. We aren't going to become them, so their solutions (not being violent nuts) won't work here. Nice if it would, but how do you legislate sanity into a culture?

A quick Google of sex abuse stats turned up something interesting...even astonishing.....the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.

To be clear, this issue is not JUST about men forcing women...in fact, there's barely a difference in which sex is more victimized, or which sex is the perpetrators when looked at closely without bias.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

When you're talking about something that clearly skews the stats, like hyper religious people thinking divorce is totally a slap at God, that's not confirmation bias, it's statistics.

It's also evidence that it is a better way of life, but that is something you apparently refuse to consider. That is why I am calling confirmation bias.

Do you feel the same about those who imprison women, force their silence with abuse, and treat them like abused pets because their religion says that's proper? What if they're Christians?

The bible says that husbands should lay down their lives for their wives, like Christ loved the church and died for it.

What say you about those God has chosen to be non believers? According to you, God created them with no purpose besides eternal torture in hell, because according to you they have no alternative since God never revealed himself to them so heaven is barred to them. Pretty fucked up God imo. I prefer Mt (Mot, Mewt, etc). He's older than Yahweh and far more honest and stable.

It's not that God wouldn't reveal Himself to them; a lot of ex-christian atheists simply inherited the faith of their parents, and when they got turned loose in the world, they fell away because they didn't really know God. They need to have their own faith that is wholly theirs. No one can make you or by proxy give your life to Christ. That is a decision each individual person has to come to on their own.

When you're talking about something that clearly skews the stats, like hyper religious people thinking divorce is totally a slap at God, that's not confirmation bias, it's statistics.

Do you feel the same about those who imprison women, force their silence with abuse, and treat them like abused pets because their religion says that's proper? What if they're Christians?

What say you about those God has chosen to be non believers? According to you, God created them with no purpose besides eternal torture in hell, because according to you they have no alternative since God never revealed himself to them so heaven is barred to them. Pretty fucked up God imo. I prefer Mt (Mot, Mewt, etc). He's older than Yahweh and far more honest and stable.

As the Stats Canada Twitter account stated:

There was only one Gord Downie.

Ok, statistics class was 28 years ago....and I was pretty high by midnight. We both made mistakes...i still say that blaze chart is bullshit and intentionally misleading in multiple ways.

How many years before a 50% chance of cancer...heart disease, death by stairs...etc. We don't assess things that way, so it's just a nice big number to trot out and pretend it's meaningful.

Statistics can be used to prove anything, forfty percent of all people know that.

What if you put them all together, including suicide and accident, instead of starting by dividing into various gun death categories then choosing the least probable category to extrapolate? Now compare them to other dangers we strongly regulate against with evolving regulations, like automobile accidents. That's how these stats are properly used. Dangers aren't radiation, you don't look at the half life to comprehend them.

Only what they mentioned in the news.
20 ish guns.
2 ar15s, 1 with a bump stock.
1 ak pattern rifle (47 claimed, but the news is clueless. Could be a 74, could be an odd variant), possibly with a bump stock.
Then a bunch of other guns, not described.

Yes, full auto varies. I erred on the higher rate side.
A more realistic rate would be 12hz auto, 6hz bump, and 3hz semi.

Only other non-NFA non-bump rapid fire mechanism that I know of is a binary trigger (fires on pull, and on release). Effectively doubles your semi fire rate.

In any case, he only needed 1 gun and spare magazines.
I assume he brought everything not because it was necessary, but because he was planning to die and he had the stuff, so why not use it one last time (not like he'll get another chance).

To be fair, so far, mass shooters have stuck around for the long haul. Escape hasn't been an issue. But sure, in the future it could be.

True, you don't have to be 100% squeaky clean, but the vegas guy so far does look like he was.

As an aside, our felony code is incredibly expansive. People get disqualified from gun ownership over things that most normal people wouldn't even think would be illegal.

There's a stat that some lawyer published : a person typically commits 3 [obscure] felonies per day just going about normal daily activities. You can basically put anyone in jail if you choose to monitor them.

IMO, felonies should be divided into major and minor, with anything non violent being minor, and not disqualifying of gun ownership or right to vote.

Eg. I don't care if someone is running a pot farm. It isn't bothering anyone, it shouldn't even be a crime. But if it's gonna be a felony, at least it should be some lesser felony than it is now.

-scheherazade

As a former employee under both Jobs and Cook, I can tell you exactly what is wrong with Apple.

When I started with Apple, every thing we were concerned with was innovating. What could we come up with next? Sure, there were plenty of misses, but when we hit, we hit big. It was ingrained in the culture of the company. Managers wanted creative people, people who might not have been the best worker bee, but that could come up with new concepts easily. Sometimes corporate rules were broken, but if you could show that you were actively working towards something new, then you were OK.

Fast forward to when Cook started running the show, Steve was still alive, but had taken a backseat really. Metrics became a thing. Performance became a watchword. Managers didn't want creative thought, they wanted people who would put their nose to the grindstone and only work on things that headquarters suggested. Apple was no longer worried about innovating, they were concerned with 'maintaining'.

Two examples which might help illustrate further:

1. One of the guys I was working with was constantly screwing around in any free moment with iMovie. He was annoyed at how slow it was in rendering, which at the time was done on the CPU power. Did some of his regular work suffer, yeah. But he was praised because his concepts helped to shift some of the processing to the GPU and allow real time effects. This functionality made iMovie HD 6 amazing to work with.

2. In a different section of the company, the support side, a new manager improved call times, customer service stats, customer satisfaction, and drastically cut down on escalations. However, his team was considered to be:

a. making the other teams look bad

and

b. abusing the use of customer satisfaction tools, like giving a free iPod shuffle (which literally costs a few dollars to make) to extremely upset customers.

Now they were allowed to do all of these things, no rules were being broken. But Cook was mostly in charge by that point and he was more concerned with every damn penny. So, soon after this team blew all the other teams away for the 3rd month in a row, the new manager was demoted and the team was broken up, to be integrated into other teams willy-nilly.

Doing smart things was no longer the 'thing'. Toeing the line was. Until that changes, nothing is going to get better for Apple. I know I personally left due to stress and health issues from the extreme pressure that Cook kept sending downstream on us worker bees. My job, which I had loved, literally destroyed my health over a year.