rpgamer

Point still stands. Turd plop.

Y'know, I only just learned about this show as this second season started. Admittedly haven't paid a whole lot of attention to CN for a bit. But it seemed pretty decent (by CN standards), from what I saw. Bit of a shame it'll probably never get much attention.

Man. Ought to just take a moment now as, I'm assuming, Food Wars is bowing out, to say I've appreciated just how great the block has been lately. For all its faults, it really wasn't a terrible show. A little disappointed to have this turd plopped in the middle of the block now. Not surprised.

Y'know, Tsukasa really is an awful antagonist for this show. Seriously. "I hated how selfish and cutthroat the world used to be. So I'm going to build a better world. And to start, I'm going to revive only the most selfish and cutthroat people I can find." It's honestly kinda embarrassing. Literally everyone he revives would've grown into exactly the kind of adults he hated. Probably still will. Dude's totally getting stabbed in the back sooner or later.

Honestly a bit offensive. Miroku was never this insufferable.

Is anyone else kinda distracted by how bold the artists have drawn Zenitsu's outline?

Y'know, sure there's a lot of dumb and silly and maybe a bit awful about this show. But, the character writing, beneath all the tropes and shit, actually isn't that bad. If you can look past the surface, it really has some good stuff going.

DKC 2 honestly had some of the most well made music for the time. Every track is just spot on. Trippy game with a trippy soundtrack. And, as I understand it, this game had some of the best sound production of the time, with the composer using a custom engine.

So I guess Italy is on the cutting edge of weird lately?

Fuck me, how did this group slip under my radar before. Viking gospel metal inspired by IKEA. That's multiple layers of subversion. Incredible.

This one's for you, @katt_goddess

Season 2 or whatever was that. The original crew was in high school or something, except T.K. and Kari, who were younger to begin with. They stayed on with three new kids, that had the digi-egg armor evolution stuff. They're the kids at 1:06 in that trailer. More recently, there was Digimon Adventure Tri, which again had the old crew, aged up a little more again. Think Joe was doing college prep maybe. I never have gotten to see more than the first bits of that one myself.

I might be biased on this one, but I kinda feel like this is one of [as]'s sleeper hits. I probably shouldn't relate to this as well as I do. But damn if that lack of personality doesn't resonate. Caught my attention tonight when he started talking about Dragonball Z. What a goon. This show is just so satisfyingly dry and boring.

It really bugs me that Izuku was more concerned about All Might's history, rather than asking about the situation with the girl. As a hero, the symbol of peace, something about just letting her go doesn't seem like it should sit right. Sure, it was the right thing to do in the situation, given context, Deku's really not where he needs to be to take that on. But it seems kinda dumb that his whole anxiety thing wasn't about whether or not he did the right thing. Was really hoping this episode would open with continuing their discussion.

As individuals, we're largely fucked, I'd wager. Some might be better off than others, but that reckoning is coming. As a whole, I get the impression that the student debt is a bit of an elephant in the room situation. Some sorta try to bring it up, and recognize that "something" needs to be done. But I'm not really sure the larger nation, especially the politicians that don't even have to deal with it, recognize just how much of a problem it is. Oh well. Let's just keep allocating more money for military spending.

Yeah, that taxable part almost makes me worry... but, that's a future-me problem. Sucks to be him.

Yeah. Largely discussion went towards perception as I moved away from Time. Perception is a big trigger for me, I've dwelled on it a lot. Actually, I think the discussion has sorta reiterated your Maori statement a bit, in that, we interpret this 3D space by changing our perspective in the fourth dimension, but, as we can only do so in a single direction, at a fixed rate, we're forced to interpret it retroactively. Always looking back. What we see is no longer what is. Funny, I genuinely didn't intend for the discussion to circle back around like that. But, it sorta works. 'nother typo, "is are". Also, pretty sure the semicolon following this is incorrect. My grammar is fuzzy, but I seem to recall the semicolon should separate two independent clauses; in your case, the clause that follows doesn't hold up as a sentence on its own.

Ok, but that's outside the scope of what I present. Changing perspectives is what allows you to gather more information, refining your interpretation. My argument is from a fixed perspective. Moment to moment. In one singular moment, your eyes capture only that one singular snapshot of perception, and given only this one view, the brain is left to interpret the depth based on past experience. Over time, you are able to change perspective enough to recognize features that support or refute that initial interpretation. Do we see in 3 dimensions because we travel through the 4th dimension? Without Time, without the capacity to link together those series of momentary images, would it be impossible to interpret the 3rd dimension? (idk, just trying to make sure I bring all of this madness back around to discussing Time)

Ok, so, not entirely sure how reliable that 10th Dimension guy is, but, he definitely gets what I'm talking about regarding perception.

Regarding 5th and higher dimensions, I do often think back to this vid, pretty sure I pulled it from the old boards, would surprise me if you hadn't seen it. It makes a decent case, but, it is just one theory of many. I keep writing and re-writing something here, largely due to my struggle with communicating my interpretation of 2D perception. So, bringing it back up to 3D. Do you interpret this as a 3D structure? Or do you interpret this as a flat 2D image? You are aware of the depth that the image appears to possess, but there is no way of telling, from this one singular point of view, whether there is truly any depth, any 3rd dimension, to this structure, or whether the image has been arranged in such a way to convey a depth that does not exist. The 2D being interprets, or maybe you might use extrapolates, the image of the triangle, but it remains possible that it is only illusory. Our eyes may technically be collecting light in 3 dimensions. Our two eyes do provide binocular vision, to help with the interpretations. But, if everything viewed outside your window were to be replaced with a flat wall, perfectly painted to exactly replicate the view from outside your window, I propose you would find it a struggle to recognize the difference between the 3D original and the 2D replication, as it is only in your brain that the 3rd dimension is truly interpreted and "seen." Funnily, this Adventure time clip kinda goes along with discussion. The shadows cast by the bubbles, I think, can also correlate with the images that can be seen from a fixed perspective. Looking down on the 2D bubble, you see only the 1D cross section, in the way that the sun shining down casts the 1D shadow (ignoring the absurdity of that notion). Ok, so it gets a little silly, but. In the context of discussing Time as a super-solid, is it possible to cast a shadow in the same manner that lower-order objects do? Would it truly follow that same logic? Looking back to the 4D toys, they all seem to cast 2D shadows, but is that just a limitation of our 3D cross-sectional view?

Pfft. Lookit the Matrix Man, being all scientifically literal about deja vu in his dissertation about worshiping Time. You could at least have some fun with it. A tapping into a collective unconscious, a feeling stretching back through time, riding a fourth dimensional wave. Idk. Just thought it'd be fun to consider. But, my own personal moments aren't that obvious. I just randomly feel like I had a dream about a particular event long before the event takes place. Choose to disagree about perception, tho. The illusions are not relying on 3D vision, but on our brains' limited capacity to interpret the visual signals. We can look at a physical photograph and, while recognizing the object is itself a flat sheet, be able to interpret that the image is in 3D. There is depth of field to it. But, that photograph is no different than what the eyes can see from that exact perspective. We see only the two dimensions, the height and width, and interpret the third, the depth. Let's put it another way. If we were in fact capable of seeing in 3 dimensions at once, you should be able to know the shape and structure of any object at a glance. You should be able to see all 3 dimensions of, say, a box, or an egg. But if it should turn out that one side of the box, hidden from your perspective, is missing, this is information you're incapable of collecting from a single point of view, and your brain is simply left to interpret, to assume, that the box is whole, as it appears from where you view it. You see the flat plane stretched before you, and interpret its depth. The 2D being sees only the flat line facing them, and interprets a perimeter. The 4D being is what would see all of 3D space, in a manner I struggle to comprehend, and be capable of interpreting the 4 dimensional structure. Using your video, as they explain 3D objects viewed from the 2nd dimension, what they fail to account for is where that 2D being is viewing from. Imagine eyes on the side of his head, viewing that cross section from the side he is standing on, and you see that he is incapable of seeing the entire 2D cross sections passing through is plane from his perspective. All he can see is the line segments as the shapes pass through the plane. Were that character able to move freely in his dimension, he could navigate around these shapes, collecting information about their size in relation to his position, and be able to interpret the whole of the 2D cross section. He may also be able to perceive that the line segments grow or fade at the edges, as the "front" of the sphere is closest to him, while the edges are farther away, and in this way, be able to infer from his standing position that the cross section must represent a spherical object, but, without seeing if the circle continues around, there is no way of knowing if the object is indeed a full circle from his stationary position. Bringing this all back around to discussing time, I would suppose that a 2D being would still be able to interact with Time as a fourth dimension, while also being able to interpret the 3rd spatial dimension as objects pass through their plane of existence. Which is kinda trippy, to have interactions with two higher dimensions than your own. As 3D beings, I struggle to imagine how we might even recognize the influence of a 5th dimension. It also speaks to the universal permeation of Time, that no matter what dimension you exist on, you are still at the mercy of the passage of time. I started rambling part way through a lot of that.

Where does deja vu fit into your theory of time? I appreciate that you mention the unidirectional nature of time, but I'm not entirely sure you adequately discussed the implications of this. I don't really know exactly what I would expect here. But, something about the inability to travel in either direction in this "dimension" has never sat well with me. I suppose it doesn't entirely preclude it from being a measurable dimension. Idk. It just feels wrong to have a dimension that you travel through at a (mostly) fixed velocity. But, maybe that's the trick, just needing to learn how to harness gravity in such a way to influence our temporal acceleration in the negative. I'm rambling a bit incoherently here. Typo starting this sentence off. Now I'm wondering if a two-dimensional being would even have any means of conceptualizing time as a fourth dimension. As three-dimensional beings, we're capable of inferring the fourth. Would it stand that a two-dimensional being would only be capable of inferring a third dimension? Or would they skip the third entirely? One of my favorite ways of putting something related to this is something to the effect of: As three-dimensional beings, we don't actually perceive (or maybe more accurately just "see") things in three dimensions. Sight, as an example, is only able to collect data via the retina, an effectively two-dimensional structure, and our brains are what allows us to interpret those data and extrapolate to the next dimension. It's basically what many optical illusions are based on, the idea of forced perspective. The brain can be tricked into incorrectly interpreting data that don't track with what it expects. Similarly, a two-dimensional being would only be capable of seeing anything in one dimension. The pin pushed through the paper wouldn't be a dot, but a line, one dimension. The pin is still mostly cylindrical, albeit very small. The two-dimensional being would see the cross section of that as a line. They could travel around the pinhole, in their two dimensional space, allowing them to collect data and interpret the two-dimensional nature of the cross section of the cylindrical pin as a circle. Would they then be capable of inferring a third dimension that the circle could extend into? Would that be our third spatial dimension, or would that be the two-dimensional equivalent to the temporal dimension? Time could see that circular cross section effectively extended into a cylinder.

You may occasionally hear biologists talking about jizz. "Experienced birders can often make reliable identifications in the field at a glance by using jizz. Often jizz is useful for identifying to the family or genus level, rather than the species level, as in: "It definitely had the jizz of a thrush, but I couldn't see what kind.""

This thread serves no purpose other than to share my discovery of this fabulously named mineral: Cummingtonite

I hate toilets that aren't powerful enough to handle my mighty poos. Why can't they just have slightly bigger pipes? Or maybe it's the curving that's the problem. Probably both, at one point or another. Sometimes I wonder what it must be like, to confidently flush, knowing it'll all go down easy.