This is the thing about Taichi.

Based on where he was 5 years ago, he's already MASSIVELY overachieved even being in the G1s that he was.

People were chanting for Taichi to go home not that long ago.

This sub oscillates between overhyping domestic Japanese talent 10 months out of the year, and getting over excited for Gaijin the remaining time during G1 and right before Wrestle Kingdom when all the more occasional fans reactivate and pay attention to new Japan again.

I think, all told, Shota is still the favorite until he officially is removed for his injury.

So as long as he's still allegedly in the G1, I'm picking Shota Umino.

Any of the real contenders other than SANADA winning is fine by me.

I'm all for Shota or Tsuji. I don't think ZSJ has a prayer but it wouldn't require the earth to fall of its rotation for it to be him. Other long shots like ZSJ include Shingo and Uemura.

I put SANADA's odds somewhere between Shota/Tsuji and the long shots. That's what makes him the most dangerous spoiler to my fun lol. Any of the other 5 names I've mentioned I'm down. I think realistically it has to be one of Shota or Tsuji is we're to avoid over pushing SANADA again this year.

I'd have put Ishii or Taichi in over Great O'Khan.

But on the whole of rather too much youth than not enoughm NJPW is desperate for new faces and if anything has been far to conservative and reliant on the old timers.

It's crazy to me that you're calling this agism against the old core when the problem this company has had for awhile is refusing to have anyone under 30 find success in big matches.

Even their Reiwa three loses all the time when it counts.

You're power ranking performers on a tv show.

Whose act is hotter is the only thing that matters unless you're keeping kayfabe, which ESPN obviously isn't.

I have friends that are bonafide North Korea apologists.

They're complete morons. Useful idiots for capital. Those who supply the fringe views the right can make into a boogeyman.

They litterally don't know the difference between MSNBC and just NBC.

They see those three letters together and starting ranting about how Rachel Maddow is trying to destroy the country.

I'd litterally never heard of it until after the debate, and I'm both online all the time and a frequent consumer of left-wing political content.

No but you get more points for winning that losing.

Objectively the rank system pushes people who are going 50/50 up, and overtime each rank gets weaker as the 50/50 players move up...which in turn allows 40/60 players to become 50/50 players and move up.

Given a long enough time frame, you can grind up ranks by just playing enough games.

There are required skill floors. The speed of the climb is enhanced by skill. I also think the system is fine. You do have to be "good enough" to keep moving up.

But I took a 4 month break from the game then came back and my winrate was BETTER than It was when I left, because Diamond 2 is worse now than it was 4 months ago. More 50/50 players grinded up out of Platinum.

I think Shota has an absolute banger for your clean shaven white meat Babyface.

This super isn't the point.

But the "6 god" isn't because of the area code. It's because the city of Toronto is composed of 6 boroughs. In the same way you can be from NYC and also from "Brooklyn" you can be from Toronto and also from "Scarborough"

"The 6" is a common nickname for Toronto because it has these 6 defined sub communities inside it.

Anyways, Fuck Drake.

This is fair. And I think you can mute the post to not hear further responses to it.

I only added because, while many people have definitely commented on it and you've explained your intentions, most didn't give a full or detailed reason for their own suspicions.

I wanted to contribute to the conversation that I don't think the amount of replies was unwarranted because it was a very reasonable read of your comment that there was no sarcasm, no joke. Just an honest real flumuxing of someone who tried chatGPT as their first source of information and was lost when it didn't work. It seemed likely you weren't aware of how many people are using ChatGPT as a replacement for search engines and comming to a dead end when it didn't work.

I do want to address the negative response to your explanations as well since they seem to be troubling you. Put simply, I think many readers don't believe you. The original comment read sincerely to them, and you saying "I was only using ChatGPT as a joke guys, this is so silly" came off as deflecting responsibility for using a poor method of looking something up rather than an explanation of what happened.

I'm choosing to believe you because I have no reason not to, and this is a very earnest reply you've sent. I think you're right about lessons learned. Sometimes we put our foot in our mouths and there's no way to fix it or win, the pile-on is comming.

Best of luck to you avoiding any more ChatGPT inspired downvote parties!

I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy and studied formal rhetoric and have no idea how you're getting slippery slope fallacy from this article title.

It's a bad argument. A laughably bad argument.

It's not a slippery slope argument at all. The person arguing is not saying that by accepting the fact electrons exist, we might later accept some terrible new harmful belief and therefore should deny electrons exist out of safety.

Even typing out what a slippery slope would be here feels ridiculous, because it doesn't apply in a conversation like this.

A slippery slope argument is "if we let gay people marry, what's next, people marrying animals". This is a fallacy because, while marrying animals would be morally objectionable, that is no reason to deny gays the right to marry. We can just do the good thing, and not later do the bad thing.

That kind of thinking is completely absent from the title you're claiming partakes in the slippery slope argument. To accuse another of intellectual laziness for not backing up your very odd and atypical assertion is unfair.

There's definitely a false equivalence in the title, for instance. Simply arguing if you accept X, you must always accept Y isn't a slippery slope though. Many good logical arguments do this. For example, if you accept X (It is raining outside, and I don't have an umbrella. There is no shelter) then you must accept Y (I'm going to get wet). That's the structure of the post title. If you deny X (the existence of god) you must then reject Y (the existence of Electrons)

The failure in reasoning here is that there is in fact very good evidence for electrons, and poor evidence for God. I. Don't have to accept the premise of the title because were God observable in the same ways electrons are, then I would believe in god.

The argument being made by this article is valid. What it isn't, is Sound. I use these terms as they are defined in formal logic. A valid argument is one there the antecedent is true IF all the premises are all true. A sound argument is one that is valid AND all the premises are, in fact, true.

The title's argument with its unspoken clause is, essentially.

A) electrons are unobservable.

B) God is unobservable.

C) if you deny the existence of something unobservable on the grounds that it is unobservable, than you must deny all things which are unobservable.

Therefore: you can't say God isn't real while still believing in Electrons.

This argument has numerous problems. Firstly that electrons are observable. Secondly that that premise C is also false. There are unobservable things that we are right to believe most likely exist. The premises are incorrect, so the argument is not sound. Despite this, it is valid. If all those premises were true - then the argument would be unobjectionable

A slippery slope argument is, by definition, not a valid argument. The antecedent does not follow from the premises in a slippery slope argument.

I invite you to tell me I'm being intellectually lazy as well, given the entire lesson on the slippery slope argument I've provided for you. No amount of googling will make it clear what your intention was. You need to explain your position and maybe we can determine what kind of fallacy you're thinking of and mis-labeling a slippery slope together. There's still time to take a moment for self-reflection and learn something instead of banking on memories of something you learned about when you were 16.

The scientific process is vindicated and valid because of how it contributes to philosophy, not the other way around.

Data collection and experimentation is meaningless without the ability to make value judgements about what evidence we should and should not value.

That's philosophy. If you're arguing for impartial data rather than anecdotes - that's philosophy. If you're arguing against simply taking the word of an authority figure - that's philosophy. If you argue certain testing practices are cruel and therefore should not be used, even though they could be illuminating - that's philosophy.

Science without philosophy is a completely insane and incomprehensible thing to imagine.

Let me position be known that philosophy without Science, in 2024, is a position for unserious people.

You've never met anyone from northwestern Europe? They're left of the Dems.

You don't even need socialists. Labour in the UK is left of the Dems. The conservative party of Canada has historically been very close to the Democrats in policy, while both of their left wing parties are left of the Democrats. Neither Canadian party is socialist. The NDP has socialist roots but has pivoted hard to the centre. If you've met a Centre-left voting person from pretty well anywhere in the developed world other than the United States, you've met someone to the left of the federal Democrats. If you HAVEN'T met anyone that fits that description before, you desperately need to broaden your horizons.

Being left of the Democrats is just being a liberal in almost every developed nation that isn't the United States.

I do generally align with the principles of democratic socialism, like a Bernie Sanders or a Jack Layton. But one does not need to identify with socialism to be left of the Democrats. Not even close.

I do actually have a protectionist streak in my politics which makes your border comment completely off base. The assumption that's what I mean based on anything I've said suggests you have in fact not talked to many people with any kind of nuanced beliefs.

What I am against is scapegoating immigrants for global economic issues which they're not fully responsible for. I'm against pretending Bussiness interests are not delighted by immigration because it brings in cheaper labour.

Conservatives won't close immigration because immigration is good for Bussiness. They'll just be more willing to sneer at those immigrants and deny them the same rights and considerations they give natural born citizens. I don't think people are racist for favoring slowed immigration. That's a question of policy. I think people are racist when they blame Indians for all of their economic woes and miss the greed and mismanagement that is straining social programs and infrastructure needed for a functioning society. Allow zero immigrants starting tommorow and you won't fix a damn thing. Voting for politicians who aren't going to stop immigration AND the only reason you support them is the false belief they will is foolhardy.

You don't have to be racist to support protectionist immigration policies, but you do have to be racist to pretend you aren't allied with racists and cover for them when they're called out for being racist. I'll support reduced immigration for a country that has struggling infrastructure if it comes complete with a plan to actually make use of the slowed population growth - but I'm not supporting movements that just want fewer brown people working fast food jobs.

I work in education and have high school students who think Chat GPT gives them accurate info and submits false details frequently.

They'll literally also read something impossible (XYZ died in 1997. His first act as president in 2000 was to repeal the PQR bill) and think they're not understanding something rather than realizing the robot is glorified auto complete and shouldn't be taken at face value.

It's genuinely scary and prompted the serious response because there are people genuinely outsourcing their thinking to ChatGPT and just forwarding along whatever it says with no concern or thought to knowing if it's true.

In your case it gave you gibberish, so you knew it didn't work. Your original comment implied the more concerning reality where if it had spat out something that sounded like it could be true, you'd assume it gave you the right answer. That's what people are down voting. ChatGPT is a silly tool, I actually totally agree with you and have had fun fucking around with it.

But people use it for things it should not be entrusted to do, and if people don't realize it's limitations vis-a-vis correct information we're in for a brutal century.

I will fully admit to barely being able to have it influence my decisions much at all. They see the game differently after thousands of hours.

I do look when deciding if I should even consider boss swap. Baalord gives advice to look at boss swap when you have both the option for a 0-1 elite path OR 3-4 elite path. Has to have both.

Boss swap is so high risk/high reward the advice is that you need both an option to properly take advantage of a high roll and take an otherwise suicidal number of Elites, AND to avoid elites if you get a low roll that makes surviving act 1 much more challenging.

The other main thing I incorporate is shop placement. Since I'm deciding my path in tandem with my Neow bonus, I know if I'm visiting any early shops. I'll take gold rewards in order to make mediocre paths better with a strong shop. I'll also click "trade all gold" much more easily if there is a really good path with no shops or only one shop near the end of the act.

Those are it really for me, but like everything in StS there is basically an infinite level of further optimizing the decision for the freaks who can really consider everything when looking at their pathing.

You really threw away credibility making this about old white men.

A black man is one of the most corrupt conservatives on the court.

Dude.

Google would have solved this for you why the fuck are you asking AI like it's a search engine?

That would be a huge swing in the right direction tbh.

Also likely means that a lot of repugnant shit wouldn't be so normalized that Republicans are openly racist again.

That was probably the best episode of the year.

And I don't say that every week. Last week was terrible.

It works fine for Switzerland to be a direct democracy.

That's not true, circumstances are not always the same at all.

Watch any top player play. They spend minutes looking at the map and seeing what the pathing looks like before even picking which bonus they want from Neow. The context of the available pathing absolutely affects what card rewards you should pick to play optimally.

Trump was incoherent the first time around. And too old the first time around. And an evil malignant piece of shit the first time around.

There's no criticism of Biden which doesn't also apply to Trump, I agree. And then Trump has roughly a million things wrong the exclusively apply to him.