Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: yzb25

Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.09 seconds.

  1. Forum:Site Discussion

    Thread:I don't like this new policy change tbh

    Thread Author:OzyWho

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    48
    Views
    1,146

    ►►Re: I don't like this new policy change tbh◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Lots of good points. And to be fair I only made the argument I did because it tickled my brain and I felt like it could make for an interesting discussion.

    I suppose as pointed out the question has to be clarified. When saying 1+1=2 do the numbers refer to an abstract designation of quantity or are they talking about 2 physical things? And past that even if they are physical things the most prominent model of quantum physics (to my very limited understanding) is string theory and its variations which speaks to the smallest particles being 2 dimensional strings so with that thought cutting up the 3 dimensional sphere would invalidate my entire line of thinking even if we were to say that the 1s refers to real physical objects.

    Yxb also gave me some brain candy I had never considered in refuards to how to pick apart this problem. I do love a good rabbit hole.
    Only saw this just now, but I'm glad you got a kick out of it! I thought I might have gotten a bit carried away there

    I am not sure of the extent to which this theorem can be applied to reality. If real life could cut things into these kinds of unmeasurable sets, that would effectively allow one to violate conservation of mass. That would be some crazy shit. My kneejerk instinct is to view this as some kind of pure, idealistic form humans have created that can't be found in reality, but idk.
  2. Forum:Site Discussion

    Thread:I don't like this new policy change tbh

    Thread Author:OzyWho

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    48
    Views
    1,146

    ►►Re: I don't like this new policy change tbh◄◄

    Spoiler : original response :
    It should be emphasized that this theorem is quite old and in fact reasonably well understood. We have quite closely identified how this "paradox" arises. It can be arguably seen as some kind of ghost or triviality created by our subtle choice of axioms. If we switch AOC for something similiar like axiom of dependent choice, the "paradox" vanishes, because we lose the ability to even access these niche sets. The proof of Banach-Tarski itself is a bit involved for me at least, but there are similar results which are less fancy but use much simpler reasoning that illustrate the core of the problem. I don't know much about your competency in proof-reading, but if you can half-follow that proof, I'd recommend the "Example" on this page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-measurable_set

    In summary, AOC is used to divide a circle into countably infinitely many identical pieces. Summing these pieces up like a series gives us a problem - if the length of each piece is 0 then the sum, the length of the circle, is 0. But if each piece has a constant positive length, the circle's length becomes infinite. The description in the example uses complex numbers and group theory (unnecessarily, tbh) which makes it seem a lot more esoteric than it is. In reality, it is something that can be understood without much background - assuming one understands AOC. If you're interested, I can try writing a more fleshed out description which assumes less background.

    Maybe I'm speaking more assertively than necessary - you certainly could resolve this "paradox" in a different way. I guess you could alter the definition of volume so that it does not demand volume is invariant under rotations / partitions / etc. Or maybe you could even keep volume the same and alter arithmetic itself, though I honestly can't even imagine such a thing. Nonetheless, from what I know, ppl typically just don't bother attempting to assign these sets a volume, in the same way we typically don't bother trying to assign a literal value to 1/0. Running away from our problems or pretending they don't exist is an unreasonably effective strategy lol.

    I shouldn't really say much about the science because I'm sure you know a lot more about that than me. Nonetheless, I at least agree with the sentiment that we should try to be humble and alert for errors in our thinking and that common sense assumptions about reality, even if they seem reasonable initially, may run contrary to future observations.


    p;edit Meh, idk if just puking more words is helping us reach a common understanding here. It might be better to say specifically what you understand this theorem to be and how exactly it breaks math / arithmetic. I don't think these analogies with physics are helping.
  3. Forum:Site Discussion

    Thread:I don't like this new policy change tbh

    Thread Author:OzyWho

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    48
    Views
    1,146

    ►►Re: I don't like this new policy change tbh◄◄

    Through the use of the Axiom of Choice, we can cut a sphere into finitely many pieces that can be rearranged and put back together as two balls, yes. However, this does not in any way imply 1+1=1. The difference is you're taking an infinite set of points (the points of a sphere), cutting them up in some fucked way and rearranging them to make two infinite sets that are the same as the prior set, rather than finding a way to literally make one single item into two.

    That, of course, still may not sound logical - like you're taking something of 1 volume and producing something with 2 volume. But the key thing to note is that these smaller pieces are unmeasurable. That effectively means it's not possible to apply traditional notions of volume or mass to these broken up pieces. Axiom of Choice gives us the power to make constructions that can't exist in reality, and one type of construction is these weird, fractal-y fucked up partitions that lack a well defined notion of volume.

    This does mean people have to be a little cautious when applying results that use AOC to the real world. But in practice things work out much more conveniently than we might initially expect. And it turns out AOC is necessary to attain several results mathematicians consider fundamental.
  4. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Who was the most evil person?

    Thread Author:Helz

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    121
    Views
    2,339

    ►►Re: Who was the most evil person?◄◄

    Pol Pot was worse than Stalin or Mao imo. The death toll may have been lower, but like 25% of Cambodia perished under his short rule. That's kind of insane.

    Assessing the evil of famine and war is always very ideological, at least relative to direct execution / killings of civillians. Famine and war invite a lot of elbow room to analyze people's "intent", to the point where a famine goes from being seen as an atrocity caused by hysterically delusional ideals to a "blunder" or a "mistake".

    It is weird how much of a free pass the late British Empire gets relative to contemporaries like the Soviets and the Ottomans. From what I know, they basically invented concentration camps and some of the famines they oversaw were at best totally unnecessary blunders caused by ideological obsessions and at worst possibly partially encouraged / enjoyed

    Also, I always felt the word evil had an... aesthetic element to it... or a spiritual element... that the word immoral doesn't have to the same degree. But everyone seemed to establish from the outset that they see the two as effectively synonymous. So maybe I'm just weird. If I see someone dancing on the corpse of a person they just killed, that's probably equally immoral to killing them because the dude is already dead, but I'd say it's more evil, even if noone sees the dancing and it makes no material difference.
  5. Replies
    19
    Views
    387

    ►►Re: Subjective vs Objective morality◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    Ngl that leap in logic between the premises in the first example - it's difficult for me to see it.
    with deductive logic, it's not really about whether the leap seems like something worth talking about, what matters is that it's there. It may help to cut out the white noise and view it like this, too:

    Premise 1: Tom wants [X].
    Premise 2: [Y] leads to [X].
    Conclusion: Tom ought to seek [Y].

    Premise 1: Tom ought to get [X].
    Premise 2: [Y] leads to [X].
    Conclusion: Tom ought to seek [Y].

    Spoiler : p;edit for value subbing :
    This might help you think about it too.

    The logic shouldn't really care whether you're talking about wellbeing and happiness, [X] and [Y], or two other random nouns. If you've laid out the logic properly, and the premises hold for the values of [X] and [Y], then the conclusion should work too.

    Maybe try subbing in these values for [X] and [Y]:

    [X] = cat-suffering
    [Y] = cat-hunting

    We can see the first argument may very well work, but gives us a horrifying conclusion. However, the second argument correctly breaks with the choice of values, because from the outset we require cat-suffering to be something good, which it isn't.
  6. Replies
    19
    Views
    387

    ►►Re: Subjective vs Objective morality◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    Tom is seeking wellbeing.
    Tom ought to seek wellbeing.
    Both can be used as a premise for same conclusion that Tom ought to do what makes him happy.

    I fully realize that a vast vast majority of philosophers see the David Hume's Guillotine as unsurpassable, and that this idea/post is highly controversial.
    If someone sees a fault here, I'm all ears. I already forfeit that I can't think of any other topic where you can get a ought conclusion without an ought premise. So it's not far fetched to view the is-ought problem as absolute.
    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    I seem to not understand the david hume's guillotine as I don't think it's applicable for a large scope of ought conclusions.. for every living being.. for most oughts..
    Someone fill me in what I'm missing..
    Well, I watched a 5 min video about this, so I'm kind of an expert now.

    Let me modify those two example statements so the logic flows more clearly (I'm just going to make explicit the link between happiness and wellbeing so there's no trivial distractions):

    1) premise 1: Tom is seeking wellbeing
    premise 2: seeking happiness leads to wellbeing
    conclusion: Tom ought to seek happiness

    2) premise 1: Tom ought to seek wellbeing
    premise 2: seeking happiness leads to wellbeing
    conclusion: Tom ought to seek happiness

    Hume would highlight that the logic in the first argument makes an additional assumption that the logic in the second argument does not. Namely, the first argument still assumes that Tom ought to seek wellbeing. Perhaps Tom is an asshole and doesn't deserve wellbeing! Or maybe he's a masochist in denial, and merely seeking wellbeing to please his friends! This may seem pedantic or silly, but you are still assuming some kind of ought statement to make the first argument work, even if it's a very reasonable ought statement. This doesn't happen in the second, because we're directly stating Tom ought to seek wellbeing, regardless of what he wants.

    Hume would thus say that pretty much any moral argument implicitly needs some "ought" to make it work somewhere, and this ought statement cannot be interchanged with an "is" statement. Though the ought statement may feel very trivial and reasonable. Thus, morality cannot be purely derived from empirical observations.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xEc...PhilosophyVibe
  7. Replies
    19
    Views
    387

    ►►Re: Subjective vs Objective morality◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    We, as a species/beings, have things ingrained in us. Like wanting wellbeing and not wanting to suffer for an eternity for example.
    Because of these things - 'ought' statements can be viewed as 'is' statements for as long as it's about these 'things'. Get what I'm saying?
    kinda, but it would be illuminating to have a concrete example of how an 'ought' statement becomes interchangeable with an 'is' statement in this context. Maybe I'm being slow
  8. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:covid 19 vaccine

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    155
    Views
    4,663

    Poll: ►►Re: covid 19 vaccine◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I agree, Mag probably doesn't really convince anyone (tho I do recall someone actually being swayed to vote for Biden where they were undecided before because of one of these discussions, I forget who). But I also don't like the idea of allowing anyone to effectively spam misinformation and fake news. What should happen, in your opinion?
    Stealth's opinion was swayed due to different discussions happening simultaneously, iirc. It wasn't really connected to any shitfling with mag.

    May I ask why the thought of allowing people to "spam misinformation and fake news" causes you distress? Personally, it bothers me when I'm concerned it will spread. I don't care if a television is playing fox news in a secluded forest, and I'm the only one who happens to see it. And I care much more when powerful people spread fake news than randos on the internet.

    Anyway, to answer the question, in my ideal world, each person would try to exercise self control and reply only to posts they find interesting, or when they think a valuable discussion could come out of it. If they struggle to see the value of the subsequent discussion, they wouldn't hit send. Inane posts would be ignored, or given a short but polite reply - in other words, a level of attention befitting the value of the post. They certainly wouldn't be goaded into further arguing for their views, because that physcally increases the length and quantity of inane discussions.
  9. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:covid 19 vaccine

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    155
    Views
    4,663

    Poll: ►►Re: covid 19 vaccine◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    What is the alternative? Should we ignore someone trying to blatantly spread misinformation and fake data/news?
    Are you actually concerned anyone on the site would be swayed by mag's posts tho? Conversely, can you name a single republican/conservative leaning person on the site who reads these threads and has their mind changed after seeing mag's points dismantled? I really struggle to see the positive utility to this discussion, on a political level.
  10. Replies
    11
    Views
    664

    ►►Re: Fancy poem discussion / fakeness in society◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There is a level of depth never attained by a lot of people in any relationship imo, and that's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying everyone should completely open their hearts to random people in the streets xD.



    Uh... what
    No, you can't both be honest and fake, these are opposites! Unless you're talking about lying in a way that still truly represents your real opinion, mindset, etc., in which case you're lying but are not being fake.
    You certainly can be honestly dishonest, or honest and fake. Well, not in a completely literal sense, of course. Sadly, sometimes being your authentic but good faith self is not enough - simply the knowledge of some aspect of your background or character may be enough to attract someone's malice. And if you want to be blunt and own that, awesome, but you're not obligated to do that all the time, imo. It's honest because I am completely open about the fact I would do such a thing or advise someone else to, and I have no moral qualms with it. It probably does damage your ability to form meaningful relationships, but that can't always be helped.

    There's also obviously white lies. If someone you barely know asks you if their breath stinks, I think you're perfectly in your rights to shrug and say "can't smell a thing". Or refraining from mentioning what you may truly think at a funeral, of course. Again, you can be honest in your dishonesty and own these things. It's not something to be ashamed of imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by MM
    Yeah, I wasn't saying people should open their hearts to strangers, if that's what it looked like. But choosing to live a social lie constantly seems very superficial and unsatisfying to me.



    Well, it's probably safe to say a lot of people don't view honesty as a responsibility :P.
    There is a type of person that can't form genuine emotional connections with others because they're needlessly trying to present themselves as someone bigger than they really are. That's definitely wrong. I certainly don't support that either.

    ...Maybe my post was badly worded and we don't actually disagree about anything. I did think as I hit the post button "yep this is definitely gonna be misconstrued as me being pro lying but fuck it I'm in too deep!" XD
  11. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:The meaning of Intelligence

    Thread Author:Helz

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    30
    Views
    2,238

    ►►Re: The meaning of Intelligence◄◄

    Well, working memory is certainly very valuable in the rapidly evolving environment of spoken conversation. But if you are working in solitude, a pen and paper can to a great degree compensate for a limited working memory (obviously) but not entirely (perhaps less obviously).

    Anecdotally, I do think working memory can be improved. I've definitely felt that over the years. Maybe it's not my working memory but my understanding of how it actually functions that's improved. If you organise your thoughts in your head and work on things piece by piece rather than running back and forth between things like a scatterbrain you're much less likely to drop things. If you can give key ideas and thoughts associations or links to other information you greatly increase your ability to remember them. You can put more trust in your brain than ppl realize and just completely drop an idea. If you have made decent associations you will probably be able to pick it back up later.

    On another note, I think one thing that people can easily overlook in conversations about intelligence is how our idea of what intelligence even is on a practical level shifts with the changing needs and capabilities of human society. Paper is a good one, because paper is a huge game changer, yet we totally take it for granted. It's so taken for granted that people fucking give the IQ test on paper lmao. But people wouldn't have always thought that way. When truly trying to measure "natural intelligence" people would have sought to avoid paper when it was still a fresh technology, and all the questions would be oral. And letting people scribble on paper would have been viewed like letting people use google midway through a test, though I understand the questions in these tests don't reward scribbling things down much anyway.

    p;edit they don't allow you to scribble, fair enough.
  12. Replies
    11
    Views
    664

    ►►Re: Fancy poem discussion / fakeness in society◄◄

    Hm

    I interpret the poem to be about a sentimental woman who is struggling to let go of a friendship she lost when things got romantic. Maybe there is something to be said about how her reluctance to confront the flower is just like the way people struggle to confront one another, and so our relationships stagnate rather than grow, due to the walls we put up... Is that what you mean?

    Fakeness is a curious thing, imo. A lie can be extremely honest yet the truth can be extremely deceptive. Rather than seeing fakeness and honesty as a give and take, consider the possibility that they are not mutually exclusive? You can be simultaneously as fake as you need to be yet as honest with yourself as possible!

    In other words, I think you should try to be exactly as honest as you feel comfortable being / feel is appropriate. If that means you behave honestly in a situation, then great. If that means you act utterly fake, you can still be completely forthright in your fakeness! Also, honesty is something that needs to be earned to a degree... I don't think it's fair to expect people to share their true feelings for free. I think what's bad is when people are fake for the sake of trying to impress others or needlessly suck up to them.

    p;edit tho, something that I probably didn't emphasize enough in this whimsical post is that in many (err most) situations you have a responsibility to be honest. I am not trying to say you should lie for convenience then own it... that would be a bit sociopathic XD. I'm thinking of the funeral situation and stuff like that
  13. Replies
    13
    Views
    414

    ►►Re: Non-leading title about speech◄◄

    On a serious note, we've had a lot of these threads. I have lost count, but this is probably at least the fifth. I don't mind reading a debate, but can't we at least discuss something new?
  14. Replies
    13
    Views
    414

    ►►Re: Non-leading title about speech◄◄

    I have thought about this issue at great length. After thorough introspection, I am still not sure whether we should have the free speech. In fact, I am not sure whether we should even have the free speech to discuss whether we should have the free speech. But after extremely careful consideration, I am ready to commit myself to the view that we should at least have the free speech to speak of whether we should have the free speech to discuss the free speech. So I wish to pull the conversation back to there, then gradually consider how we proceed.

    Due to my immense study of this topic, my thoughts may prove too profound to follow... but do not be afraid to ask for clarification.
  15. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:My Perma-Ban on MU

    Thread Author:Helz

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    76
    Views
    2,475

    ►►Re: My Perma-Ban on MU◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    If people could stop giving support's on blind faith, that'd be great.
    First there were 100+ posts on discord+forums agreeing with the MU mods, a witch hunt after Helz and his supporters.
    Now there's witch hunt after MU mods.
    On both sides most didn't bother looking into anything, just taking the word of whomever they're supporting.

    I myself need the case to be put under scrutiny before I support either.
    My own interpretation is in #7, however I said I don't understand most of what was even said.
    Now as it stands, thanks to #18+#19+#20, it seems that even the people here share the same interpretation as the mods on MU? Which atm is the majority of people looking into it themselves?
    Combine that with Helz not replying to them, and it's objective to support the ban?

    I can't agree with the aftermath of it all though - that lost the MU mods credibility for me.

    I wish Helz to take care of his mental health.
    I wish others to not go on blind faith witch-hunts. Though I suppose that's what communities do, judging by both MU and SC2Mafia?
    I'm not advocating for "cancelling" or "witch-hunting" anyone, nor do I have the power too, if I'm who you have in mind here. I'm not taking it on blind faith, I've read the chat before. I suppose I don't have "evidence" helz didn't actually receive an e-mail address and SJ needed to poke for it. Is that what you mean by "blind faith"?

    Yes, people should make an effort to speak clearly to avoid misunderstandings. And Helz shouldn't have had an argument while drunk. I think that's reasonable. But a ban with no recourse for appeal is clearly not a proportionate response. Both of those things can be true, and the dude isn't crazy for thinking he's been shafted here lol.

    If I seem too hardline and am just adding fuel to the fire, I'll stay out of it, because I'm evidently exacerbating your concerns regarding a "witch hunt" here. But I must say I think your concern for the mods is extremely misplaced. We're a tiny community lamenting an injustice. We couldn't witch hunt a cucumber.
  16. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:My Perma-Ban on MU

    Thread Author:Helz

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    76
    Views
    2,475

    ►►Re: My Perma-Ban on MU◄◄

    That treatment is gross as hell. As someone who appears so passionate about mafia and the mafia community, getting thrown under the bus for short term convenience like that must be terrible. It seems they purely care about silencing the issue and avoiding any kind of conflict. I sincerely wish you the best in finding a resolution to this, or at least some way of making the situation better than it is right now.

    I don't see why people are diverging so heavily away from the conduct of the mods into the specifics of the opinions actually being discussed. Unless you believe the views Helz shared actually are racist, grotesque or violate their Ts and Cs in some way, it's not really relevant. The judgement doesn't become more or less fair if the opinion is "correct" or "well-argued".

    Whether the views can be feasibly misconstrued as racist is somewhat more relevant, but still only matters to the initial judgement. The subsequent denial of an appeal and lying to the community about giving Helz the e-mail is extremely cynical and clearly implies the community isn't just oversensitive but genuinely callous to the contributions of dedicated members, with no serious respect given to those who fall out of the "clique". Their "process" seems more about keeping up appearances than addressing misunderstandings and brash judgements or rehabilitating raucous members.

    I know this has been going on for many months now and I don't think you (Helz) pursuing this for so long is good for your health. You may hate to hear this, but pragmatically it doesn't make sense to keep fighting unless you think you can achieve a different outcome. But it's your life, and I wish you the best of luck whatever you choose to do.
  17. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:texas

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    32
    Views
    994

    ►►Re: texas◄◄

    from your wording... ah...
  18. Forum:Site Discussion

    Thread:New mod Lag

    Thread Author:OzyWho

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    26
    Views
    1,399

    ►►Re: New mod Lag◄◄

    Congrats my guy!
  19. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:covid 19 vaccine

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    155
    Views
    4,663

    Poll: ►►Re: covid 19 vaccine◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    Ahh, those Google numbers are heavily misleading.
    This weekly updated statistic says that: "For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death."

    For every 100 deaths by COVID-19, only 5 are caused solely by the virus. The other 95 have had other health conditions in addition, with an average of 4 additionals.

    Looking at Causes of death and comorbidities in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (Comorbidity is "the presence of one or more additional conditions often co-occurring with a primary condition."
    The common additional health conditions upon dying from COVID-19 seem to be such as these:
    I will just paste the first 10 patients off the table:

    Case1: Active smoking, COPD, HIV-infection, obesity, ventricular fibrillation
    Case2: Diabetes II, heart failure, hypertension, obesity, OSAS
    Case3: Asthma, COPD, hypertension, mesenterial infarction
    Case4: Asthma, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, sinus node arrest
    Case5: Hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, obesity, OSAS
    Case6: Atrial fibrillation, chronic renal failure, COPD, dementia, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, liver cirrhosis
    Case7: Hemiplegia, pulmonary embolism
    Case8: Dementia, diabetes II, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, stroke
    Case9: Alcohol abuse, heart failure, obesity
    Case10: Active smoking, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hypertension, ischaemic heart failure, obesity


    Now, assuming that the statistics that google gave me that I mentioned in my previous post include every death that includes COVID-19 as a cause - I feel like I want to reduce that ratio to 5% of it's size, because if it included all the Comorbidity cases with an average of 4 additional symptoms and those symptoms are such that I listed; that's like being surprised a 90 y/o dying after getting sick tbh.


    Got this idea to look for comorbidities in this podcast. That's a sad podcast tbh, because the podcaster looks more informed than the Doctor.(?)
    The entire comment section seem to be against COVID-19 vaccines. I guess influencers really are influencing, lol.
    Just in case there is a misunderstanding here, the vast majority of these people would not have died when they did if it weren't for COVID. The study is not disputing this. Their cause of death is COVID.

    You might look at an obese man with heart disease and high blood pressure and think "they may only have 5-10 years left. Covid has statistically made little difference to their lifespan in such a case". But I am sure the man in question regards those 5-10 years to be highly significant. And if you had a loved one with those conditions, I am sure you'd think very differently.

    Furthermore, if you wish to disregard covid deaths where people seem to have a high chance of dying soon, you would need to specify how many years left are considered too few to be regarded as significant, so we can accurately quantify how many should be disregarded.

    I don't think it's completely unreasonable the line of thinking you have fallen into here. If someone is going to die in 2 weeks, morbid though it may be, perhaps it matters little if they die in 1 week instead. But I think you're massively overapplying that principle here by disregarding every case where people had at least one secondary condition. The number you disregard should realistically be far less than 95 if you have a soul =P.
  20. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Withdrawal from Afghanistan

    Thread Author:yzb25

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    52
    Views
    1,918

    ►►Re: Withdrawal from Afghanistan◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    You just want a show don't you?
    That couldn't be further from the truth. I've been trying quite hard not to contribute to threads that seem toxic for quite a few months now, albeit with a few hiccups. If this devolves into people shitflinging I would PM Aamirus or MM and ask them to close my thread as soon as I could.

    In particular, I don't have as much patience for interpersonal feuds as I used to. If you're just looking for an argument, kindly piss off lol. But I think people have been (somewhat?) better for a couple weeks, and I am genuinely very curious to hear people's takes on this. So I want to give it a shot.
  21. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Withdrawal from Afghanistan

    Thread Author:yzb25

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    52
    Views
    1,918

    ►►Withdrawal from Afghanistan◄◄

    Really surprised noone started a thread about this. I was wondering about people's take on the withdrawal and the conflict in general, in retrospect. Particulary intrigued to hear what the Americans think, but the rest of us are certainly entitled to an opinion! :P
  22. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:covid 19 vaccine

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    155
    Views
    4,663

    Poll: ►►Re: covid 19 vaccine◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    Ftr, I did re-visit the aforementioned paper and it did predict a vaccine within 12-18 months, so that's cool.



    Yah, looking at the current death per case ratio for different countries, it seems that it's around 2%. Which is surprising because in the early 2020 the estimates were 2% only if you're over 70 years old. (which I suppose even then was reason enough to do herd protection of the risk group?)

    2% is a really high number wtf...
    yeah, it's not really something I can wrap my head around honestly.
  23. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:covid 19 vaccine

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    155
    Views
    4,663

    Poll: ►►Re: covid 19 vaccine◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    Frankly, I don't know why you would want to put something in your body you can't get any info on, it just sounds absurd to me. Maybe there won't be hundreds of thousands of heart attacks like it was with Vioxx for example, but we're talking about taking something on nothing but blind faith. Even your own doctor is giving you your vaccine on blind faith.
    Well, for me, it's not simply about whether the vaccine is dangerous. It's about whether it's so dangerous it would kill more people than if covid was left to rampage freely - because realistically that's the alternative. Even after accounting for all the covid deaths, you also have to consider the number of people that would die from lack of care due to hospitals surpassing capacity.

    So yeah, unless it actually is causing "hundreds of thousands of heart attacks", and you think death statistics are being systematically overstated by entire orders of magnitude, from a utilitarian perspective it seemed like a no brainer to me. If I get a blood clot or something as a result, then fuck my luck lol.
  24. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:covid 19 vaccine

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    155
    Views
    4,663

    Poll: ►►Re: covid 19 vaccine◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Lag View Post
    how do i vote in this poll? im confused
    I think these sorts of polls close quickly after opening. You gotta get your democracy in fast to be heard
  25. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    It might help to bare in mind when we talk about the "size" of these infinite sets, that is a very informal way of referring to something called their "cardinality". In the popular culture, we've gotten very used to talking about "cardinality" as a measure of "size", but it may be slightly more accurate to think about cardinality in terms of "information".

    For example, if you consider the set of positive whole numbers (1,2,3,4,5...) vs. the set of even numbers (2,4,6,8,10...) the first set seems strictly larger than the second set (in some sense, it has literally double the stuff). However, from the point of view of "cardinality", they both have the same amount of information. I can label every positive whole number with a unique even number like so, in a well-defined manner:

    2->1
    4->2
    6->3
    ...

    And when we say the real numbers have a higher cardinality, we are somehow making a statement that the real numbers are simply too complicated to be encoded in terms of positive whole numbers. There is no way of labelling every real number with a unique positive whole number.

    If we could label every real number with a unique positive whole number, that would be kind of revolutionary for our notation. We use these garish "infinite decimals" to encode real numbers... but no matter how many decimal places you write down, there's still so many possible numbers you could be referring to when you write the next digits! If we could encode every real with a natural, we'd have a way of finitely expressing every real number at once. Can you imagine?! Well, we literally can't, but still!
  26. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Uncountable, but any real number between 0 and 1 is comprised anyway, so the real number you would "create" technically already is part of the infinity. What you're proving is that uncountable and countable infinities are different (and that the integers infinity is countable, while the [0, 1[ infinity isn't), but not that one is bigger than the other, since both can go on forever. There aren't "more numbers" in one set than in the other, even though it's impossible to pinpoint a rank in the real numbers list unlike in the integers list. You seemed to be debating the fact that the real numbers infinite set is uncountable... which nobody disputed, as far as I know.

    I'm totally making you all waste your time on explaining this to me XD
    As a matter of fact, you have given our hollow lives purpose!
  27. Forum:Archived S-FMs

    Thread:?KRC Reboot Gravity Falls Edition

    Thread Author:AIVION

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    2,933
    Views
    31,494

    ►►Re: ?KRC Reboot Gravity Falls Edition◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by FM-Mabel Pines View Post
    The identities were posted in the post-game Discord.

    ===

    Anyway, made up my mind
    -vote FM-Candy Chiu
    Oh yeah, I forgot to nominate MVP (ppl still do that?)

    It would 100% be mabel for me. All of the mechanical information at the start of day 2 suggested it was highly likely they were scum. If it weren't for their extremely calm and tactful breakdown of the situation, they would have surely gotten lynched. That play was extremely mature and impressive.

    Also, recognizing the threat of Robbie on the last day was also very impressive. Not to mention their reads were generally extremely on-point. And their posts were very insightful, along with candy's.
  28. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    this is misleading

    the set of integers will always have a bigger number, this is an approach but never reach argument which implies the set of integers is uncountable, but it is. cantor's diagonalization demonstrates by contradiction that you can generate more real numbers than a prescribed infinite number of integers, therefore making the set of real numbers, not countable by mathematical definition.

    personally, analogies that try to "list" or "count" infinities will always end up being confusing because the verb implicitly ascribes a mathematical countability (i can count +1 everytime) or uncountability (i can go on forever, can't count forever) to it, depending on whoever's interpretation. some infinities will be smaller or larger in size, or the number of elements contained in them, but the only thing defining countability infinite is whether there is mathematical indication that you can map one-to-one from the infinite set of integers to whatever.
    I didn't mean to suggest in the forever-list you're missing a number because you haven't reached it yet. I meant even "after" completing the forever-list, you still wouldn't have every number. You could list every natural number given "forever", by writing the number n at second n, or every integer by alternating between writing a negative and a positive each second. Understand? This is a legitimate way to think about it. If the thought is clearly conveyed, the forever-list is no different from a function from the naturals.

    I agree it might be better to let go of the forever-list stuff if it's derailing things and just work with a function from the naturals. I just like it because you can explain it without giving explicit formulae. >.>
  29. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    If you do not necessitate that the numbers are being written down, one at a time, once per second, forever, then perverse things can happen. For example, if you allow god to take the pen, maybe god is capable of instantaneously producing a vast list that includes every such number. Maybe he uses his long line for space to do it (lol) but that is neither here nor there.

    As Plotato is repeating, the list needs to be countably infinite, which I suppose for our purposes is the mathematically formal way of ruling out the possibility god took the pen. It restricts you to either using a numbered well-defined list, or some kind of scenario where you only get to write down one entry per second forever.
  30. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Anything between 0 and 1 not only can be added to the list, but is on it. That's the assumption I'm making. If it's just an arbitrary list of some stuff between 0 and 1, then sure, it works, but isn't that... not infinite?
    Hm... Maybe it would benefit both of us for you to be more cautious with how you phrase these things. An arbitrary list of some stuff may very well be unending (which is exactly what the word infinite means). What I assume you mean is, "clearly that list isn't complete".

    What I am asserting is there is no complete list of all the numbers between 0 and 1, whether it's unending or not. By virtue of merely demanding that you have to write each number down, one by one, you have already imposed a subtle restriction on your ability to account for every number. Even if you write down one entry per second from now until the end of time, you will still be missing a number. That is what the proof illustrates, and that is what makes it profound.
  31. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Maybe the problem is how you're thinking about infinity, as you say. You have an infinitely long list, therefore you can include everything between 0 and 1. Because you have "endless ammunition" anything not on the list can be added to the list. Is that what you're thinking?
  32. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    To be clear, I have more doubts about my understanding of maths than about maths themselves lol. But anyway, I misspoke and meant infinity comprises everything between 0 and 1 in this case. I thought it was clear at first, but now I see how it isn't. Whoops.
    My issue is more that the infinitely long operation is forced to result in a number between 0 and 1 still (else you'd be out of the specific infinity set, which would be "cheating" and wouldn't prove anything). How is a real number between 0 and 1 not comprised in an infinity of real numbers between 0 and 1? Shouldn't everything between 0 and 1 be in there, thus including the result number?

    As for your "do it yourself" suggestion, it doesn't solve my issue because I know it's going to give a different number, that's obvious. My issue is with the exact concept of infinity, I guess. It's what aamirus said here:


    Also thanks for the walls and fuck you plotato
    hmm, maybe there is a misunderstanding about what this infinite list represents exactly. This list is just some arbitrary list of numbers between 0 and 1. The list does not necessarily have the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1. Indeed, we are about to prove it doesn't. The list could be something dumb like this:

    1) 0.1
    2) 0.01
    3) 0.001
    4) 0.0001
    ...

    Or it could be a more earnest attempt to hit every number between 0 and 1:

    1) 0.110100110001...
    2) 0.110001111111...
    3) 0.101010110101....
    ...

    It doesn't matter. The point of the proof is that, no matter what infinite list is given, we can apply the construction to get a number between 0 and 1 not on the list.
  33. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    oh also MM, if you have doubts about the veracity of modern mathematics, you might get a kick out of this --

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_line_(topology)

    Wikipedia doesn't have a picture for that one lmao ^^

    "Intuitively, the usual real-number line consists of a countable number of line segments [0,1) laid end-to-end, whereas the long line is constructed from an uncountable number of such segments."
  34. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Some context:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor...gonal_argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo

    I've been randomly looking into this and... I don't believe Cantor's argument! I'm not great at maths, though, so it's very possible I'm just being dumb, but I think that the argument is flawed (and that the conclusion is too). Here's why: it's impossible to add one to x rank of each number on an infinite list without getting to a number of the list, because... the list is infinite! The result obtained through this cannot be unique, as infinity necessarily comprises everything. Thus, isn't the proof based on a misunderstanding of the concept of infinity?

    And yes, it is very ballsy of me to attack something that apparently was proven a century ago, and I dare hope you're gonna prove me wrong or tell me I misunderstood something, O you knowledgeable people :P
    Well, it might be better for you to flesh out your understanding of this and us to then reply to you. Because this reasoning:

    "because... the list is infinite! The result obtained through this cannot be unique, as infinity necessarily comprises everything."

    Sounds like an argument for why the statement itself must be wrong rather than any issue with the proof itself. As lag said, you can certainly have infinitely many things without having everything. You just need to have a never-ending amount.

    Nonetheless, this discussion is very fun so I'll say a few things --

    The proof simply constructs a new real number from a list of other real numbers which is not anywhere on the aforementioned list. Do you have an issue with some aspect of that process? Do you have an issue with the idea of applying an "infinitely long operation" to construct the new real number? Or are you unconvinced that the new real number will necessarily not appear anywhere on the list?

    The following advice may help you to think about it:

    Rather than trying to grasp the entire infinite process at once, try to think about what's happening at each entry. You can't possibly grasp the new real number this construction generates, because changing the n'th entry on every n'th row will take infinitely long. However, you can ask me about any of this new real number's digits - ask me what the 50th digit is, ask me what the 100th digit is - and I can run 100 rows down my list and 100 entries along and find the digit and tell you "ah, the new real number's 100th digit is a 1!". This is no different from how you understand any other real number. You do not know every single digit of pi, but given enough time (and enough motivation ^^) you can find the 100th digit or the 200th digit. And that's enough to satisfy you that the number exists and makes sense.

    The same is true for the process of checking whether this new real number is different from every entry on the list. You can't possibly check every number on the list to see if it's different from your new real number. Attempting such a thing would be foolish. But, give me any row. Ask for the 1000th row even. I can go to that row, and verify for you that our new real number is indeed different from the number on that row, by plodding along to the 1000th entry and checking that our new real number does indeed have a different digit.

    It may sound daft, but maybe try literally carrying out this construction for just a few numbers. Write out 5 or 6 real numbers to 10 digits, then reverse the n'th digit on the n'th row, and stare at the resulting construction until it makes sense how it would work exactly the same in an endless list ^^.
  35. Replies
    9
    Views
    1,135

    ►►Re: serious story about a bad break up i had in high school◄◄

    Glad someone cut through all the nonsense and trolling on this site lately and gave us something straight from the heart. Thanks for sharing this.
  36. Forum:Site Discussion

    Thread:If there was a upvote/downvote system

    Thread Author:OzyWho

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    6
    Views
    1,125

    ►►Re: If there was a upvote/downvote system◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    If there were an upvote/downvote system here, I'm pretty sure the site would devolve into an unhealthy climate of either conflict or forced consensus for the reasons you stated. It's a bad thing, and I think that beyond sc2mafia, it has a significant impact on society as a whole by strenghtening echo chambers and the feeling of normality and uniformity.
    It got me thinking about how you get those crazy subreddits like incel subreddits that espouse views that would have to be extremely carefully defended in the real world, but on those subreddits those views are bandied about like it's common sense. And I think a lot of it is probably due to the fact these subreddits are all compartmentalized and then have these upvote/downvote systems that basically allow every niche opinion to exist in total isolation, totally unchallenged.

    It's like that game ozy (or me? I don't remember) brought up in the other thread where ppl guess how many jelly beans are in the jar. Reddit is a world where all the ppl who guessed numbers wildly high can segregate themselves from society and circlejerk eachother about how based their estimates are. It totally violates the natural triangulation process nature probably intended.
  37. Forum:Archived S-FMs

    Thread:?KRC Reboot Gravity Falls Edition

    Thread Author:AIVION

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    2,933
    Views
    31,494

    ►►Re: ?KRC Reboot Gravity Falls Edition◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    How was geim?
    I kinda want to bring myself to read a game at some point. Potentially this game. Though, honestly, I feel like my brain would fry. Idk how anyone can keep up with a game like this..
    I seem to not be able to read a game, including when I'm playing them, for like forever now. :/

    Was there an actual cult? I remember some random posts that I checked out gave me that impression.
    Well, of the 15-20 or so FM games I've played this was definitely the most fun. There were some insanely hype moments in it, especially on day 2 and day 3. I'm not sure if they'd be fully captured when you're just reading it, but holy crap.

    Also, the neighbourhood chats and jailor chats eventually get pasted into the game thread. So you can discover them at the pace the players did if u want :P.
  38. Forum:Site Discussion

    Thread:If there was a upvote/downvote system

    Thread Author:OzyWho

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    6
    Views
    1,125

    ►►Re: If there was a upvote/downvote system◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    If there was a upvote/downvote system for posts, like on Reddit, do you think the earlier days of Sc2mafia would still have given the same impression of expressive freedom as it did?

    That's a very good point, I don't think it would. Indeed, an upvote/downvote system directly incentivizes people to match their opinions with the consensus view, or at least tailor your views to the consensus view.
  39. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:The meaning of Intelligence

    Thread Author:Helz

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    30
    Views
    2,238

    ►►Re: The meaning of Intelligence◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    i think everyone adopts a definition of intelligence that puts themselves highest

    Some people will say that knowing the most things makes you the most intelligent
    Some people will say that being able to learn new things the most quickly makes you the most intelligent
    Some people will say that doing the best thing all the time makes you the most intelligent (IE an intelligent person would never drink alcohol or turn in an assignment late, would get all As)

    and then there are further qualifications for each, for example a "knowing the most things" person could say "oh but knowing a lot about some video game characters is stupid. Knowing about history makes you smart"
    With how the term gets applied in practice, I understood it to simply mean "good brain" and mean whatever the speaker happens to define as good... so basically this.
  40. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Make SuperJack A Sig Competition

    Thread Author:SuperJack

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    58
    Views
    4,722

    ►►Re: Make SuperJack A Sig Competition◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeace View Post


    I just wanted a friend because this pandemic made me lonely and mentally unstable.

    PS: you can have a good time if you fold a tissue, rip a hold, and go to town on it than just using your hands. It feels pretty good
    you should maybe begin by saying sorry to helz then lol. You were kind of a massive cunt, plus he probably didn't even write that rep message you attributed to him.
  41. Forum:Circlejerk

    Thread:it's coming home

    Thread Author:yzb25

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    2
    Views
    224

    ►►it's coming home◄◄

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJqimlFcJsM

    OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

    Spoiler : :
    lol jk i dont give a shit. lmk when they win starcraft
  42. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Our hero, our orange, our zz

    Thread Author:SuperJack

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    103
    Views
    5,986

    ►►Re: Our hero, our orange, our zz◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by WrathCyber View Post
    That was literally me. Except it didn't taste like soap (Idk maybe I'm an animal)? But it did burn the back of my nose.
    yeah I can't taste it either. I just feel the burning in my throat and nose. Maybe if I dilluted with more soap...
  43. Replies
    137
    Views
    3,388

    ►►Re: Ye atheists by name, lend an ear, lend an ear◄◄

    In the Netherlands, 42% of the members of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) are nontheists. [...] A minister of the PKN, Klaas Hendrikse has described God as "a word for experience, or human experience" and said that Jesus may have never existed. Hendrikse gained attention with his book published in November 2007 in which he said that it was not necessary to believe in God's existence in order to believe in God.

    from wikipedia XD
  44. Replies
    137
    Views
    3,388

    ►►Re: Ye atheists by name, lend an ear, lend an ear◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    A bit off topic but I was working on the house and rolling some stuff around in my head and came up with this off topic and totally unsubstantiated
    Spoiler : atheist conspiracy theory: :

    So I was thinking about power structures behind groups and how they push growth of their group because it expands their power. Then I thought about Atheism and the categories included. It occurred to me if you had the belief 'There is no God' you pretty much have a very specific pool of the population that would be included in such a group. This greatly limits group growth and therefore- the growth of your power structure. So how do you grow?

    Expand the belief pool. If Atheism were able to swallow agnostic's it can hit a much wider pool of the population. But after that how do you grow? You have excluded a huge portion of the population which is every person who holds a religious belief.. Well, now that you have swallowed Agnostics you can include any religious person who also adds the "But who really knows" at the end of it.

    Such an evolution of an organization matches up what little I have looked at and satisfies my cynical outlook on power structures.


    Like I said.. Totally unsubstantiated assumptions and pretty off topic but I might not be wrong given that it does explain the direction of growth while establishing motive..

    -edit

    I wonder if religions will ever attempt to include gnostic individuals to expand their power group
    I don't really see that. I think if anything atheists are likely to feel superior and smug and form exclusive cliques like you get with (some) feminists. I think that's reflected in the rhetoric. Marketable atheists that make lots of money through their atheism are "intellectuals" and edgy and non-mainstream. While modern christians are gentle, polite and as innoffensive as humanly possible (I'm thinking of the pope). That's the behaviour of a group trying expand... or at least stop contracting.

    Jewish atheists are a thing because jewishness is also like an ethnicity, afaik. Even if you don't really subscribe to the religious views you can still be closely affiliated with the community and be "ethnically jewish". This christian atheism thing is pretty wild tho. I had no idea this existed and i've got a big shit eating grin on my face now
  45. Replies
    137
    Views
    3,388

    ►►Re: Ye atheists by name, lend an ear, lend an ear◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Somebody around actually knows that! xD

    Ever since a crazy Muslim literally decapitated a teacher in France for talking about Muhammad in a way he didn't like or something like that, there's... a lot of tension, let's say. It absolutely isn't a non-existant mentality. I'm a bit surprised it seems foreign to some people.

    @ helz wallpost: Same experience about people describing themselves as agnostic first and foremost, not as atheists when it's what they actually mean. Didn't expect to face disagreements about that, honestly.
    I've of course seen people be extremely anti-religion, but I've never heard anyone oppose religious expression here in the UK ("showing your religion should be illegal"), so my experience is like ceko and banana's.

    I also generally hear the word agnostic used that way, and respect people don't have to use words the way a dictionary tells them to. I apologize if I gave a different impression due to my pedantic interjections lol
  46. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:who needs goals

    Thread Author:theoneceko

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    32
    Views
    2,125

    ►►Re: who needs goals◄◄

    well at least your taste has improved =P
  47. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:who needs goals

    Thread Author:theoneceko

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    32
    Views
    2,125

    ►►Re: who needs goals◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by WrathCyber View Post
    Is that gundham in the background on your profile pic
    looks like a gothic take on the elric brothers
  48. Replies
    137
    Views
    3,388

    ►►Re: Ye atheists by name, lend an ear, lend an ear◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by theoneceko View Post
    i have never heard an atheist say that.
    I think there are actually people who say that in the francosphere tho. (I can't tell for sure because they're all speaking french) France has been edging towards banning hijabs in public for a long time in the name of "secularism". They take their secularism very far over there. So mm isnt pulling it out his ass when he says it like an american evangelical is
  49. Replies
    137
    Views
    3,388

    ►►Re: Ye atheists by name, lend an ear, lend an ear◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I said assume because we don't have to think it's true, just to use the possibility of its truth as a basis. I guess if we don't believe in it, we're believing we're doing something utterly useless though lol.
    All our well-founded scientific theories can be taken as assumptions of convenience by the same rationale. That removes any kind of belief from science, if you see things that way
  50. Forum:Forum Mafia Discussion

    Thread:Gambits

    Thread Author:Helz

    Post Author:yzb25

    Replies
    70
    Views
    1,950

    ►►Re: Gambits◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by LagAttack View Post
    Those all involve 1. e4 e5 lines, which I do not play at all
    based
Results 1 to 50 of 2000
Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4