Just Another Blog

That moment when

go-hummingbird-my-i:

I’m too lazy to even start packing for a trip I’m leaving for in 2 hours.

lol same.

tyflowsion:

NOW WHICH ONE OF YOUS IS THE REAL SLIM SHADY

Uhhh… I am.

I MADE AN A+ IN ALGORITHMS  WHAT? I THOUGHT I’D MAKE A C!? I THOUGHT I WAS DOOMED?

I’ve seen some really awkward ads but this one really takes the cake.

I mean, just look at that man. He’s just so eager to share with me the secrets of grapefruit juice. I wish I could be that passionate about something.

My cheek has been sort of twitching all day. This worries me. A lot.

When people see a thing in the media

WHOA! OMG! GUYS! THIS MAKES [Group] BAD!

[Group] was actually unrelated.

[Media] twisted facts to make [Group] look bad.

People so angry at [Group] for other things, some valid and some not, just get more angry.

[Media] succeeds at making [Group] look bad.

[Group] proceeds to talk about the above, WOW, [Other group]’S [Media] IS SO BIASED AGAINST MY [Group], I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS, CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? and then proceeds to watch [Other media].

Repeat, swapping the groups.

This happens for every [Group] and every [Media] ever. I’ll be with people of my group, and then see something, say, Facebook, and read the article, I too am shocked, then notice a few sketchy details, huh, seems everyone is overreacting. Seems the title was intentionally misleading. Then I’ll see articles from views I disagree with complaining about a group I do agree with, same issue.

And honestly, I don’t know who’s more to blame, media for being misleading or people for falling for it so often that it has become the expected norm.

I love to exaggerated for comedic effect, but an argument is not the place for that. Looking back, it looks like I exaggerated some, but it was for comedic effect. The all caps bits, that is… er, uh, those are? Grammar. [back on track] plus, I’m not upset about it because my argument is not made to make a certain group look bad, it’s made to show how everyone can get when they just accept things blindly and let their emotions take too much hold over them.

Absolute final note, to be unhypocritical, you could almost say I’m now making emotional people look bad over analytical people, which wasn’t the intention. Emotions are extremely important in the same way analytics are. We need to not get overly emotional about issues so we can actually think about what’s going on and what needs to be done, but if we get too analytical and not emotional enough, we may never feel that something is wrong and there may never be outcry.

</rant>

<bed>

So I just watched some trailers and heard some reviews of Farcry 3: Blood Dragon

It’s kinda odd that this is closer to what Duke Nukem Forever should’ve be than what Duke Nukem Forever actually was.

In a big country, dreams stay with you. Like a lover’s voice on the mountainside. Wat.

Okay, so I understand the monte hall problem just fine. Three doors, one prize, two duds. You pick a door. The host reveals one of the other two doors to be a dud. Should you switch? Yes. — I get that. So, the other der I heard this. A person has two children. You find out one is a boy. What are the chances the other is a girl. 50%? No, 67%. There are two children, A and B. A has 50% chance of being a boy or girl, so does B. Therefore, (A,B) = {(M,M), (M,F), (F,M), (F,F)} right? Well, that means when we find out one child is a boy, there cant be two girls. So, (F,F) is eliminated. Now there’s three {(M,M), (M,F), (F,M)}. We take an M out of each since we know one is a male, we get {M, F, F}, 67% girl. Hurts my brain thoughts, cause what if We suddenly said A is a boy, instead of one is a boy, is it still 67% or 50%? Because it shouldn’t change, right? But suddenly, we can eliminate two solutions instead of one, but, wat.