Hello everyone.
If someone asks a "hard scientist" to show what they have, they can point to the extended evolutionary synthesis, the atomic theory, general relativity, etc. They are massively accepted, supported by a lot of empirical evidence and we can see their application.
Now, what are equivalents in social sciences? Or at least, the closest?
It does not need to be THE central theory, the main body of the concerned scientific field. I do not even mean something which is necessarily quantitative, but a theory which has a good explanatory power.
In fact, I would like to know for those fields in particular:
- Sociology
- Psychology
- Anthropology
- Economics
That's a pretty big question, so thank you in advance for the courageous ones.
I know that sets like kinra's, bahsei's, tzog's, reloq's, medusa's are the ones everyone should go with if you want your life easier in the game... but i like to play around with non-meta's too to have a different experience than the rest of people playing this game... googling the eso forums or the internetz is not entirely useful, as previous patches has changed the game so much to make some old sets usable again under certain conditions...
so what is everyone's opinions on these sets?? worth keeping or straight into decon mode??
- gryphon ferocity = gives minor force like tzogvin(maybe an alt for tzog), but not backbar-able like tzogvin.. seems easier to maintain than tzogvin.. and its medium armor as well, so highly usable for stam builds.. and best part is its easier to obtain than tzogvin..
- dreugh king slayer = seems to be an alternative to kinra, due to giving 20% weap/spell damage at all times and similar bonus from 2-4 piece.. easier to maintain than kinra, but does not transfer when bar swapping.. and easier to obtain, due to droppable in fungal grotto...
- rattlecage = very similar to dreugh king as well... so another alt to kinra?
- deadland assassin = i personally compared this to NMA, due to the nearly same amount of weapon/spell damage bonus it provides.. nma has other good stats bonuses as well, in exchange for skill cost increase.. da does not provide crit chance or offensive pen, but it has a bleed dot proc and no skill cost increase... also seems easier to obtain due to being an overland set...
- pillar of nirn = seems easier to proc and maintain for a dot proc.. not sure if its really good, but i've seen some guides for deadlands dlc now recommend this for stamina builds, even for pve...
- shadow of red mountain = easier to obtain due to being an overland set.. seems to be a pvp set.. not sure if good or not, but i recall seeing a youtube video where this is recommended as possible good pvp set for deadlands dlc..
- strength of the automaton/sword dancer/sword singer = same stats for 2-4 piece bonus.. very specific sets for 2hander/dualwield... are the "high" weapon/spell damage bonus only usable for the weapon skill lines worth it????
As the title says. Basically Bleach theories that not many people on this sub have stumbled upon or theories that you think give Bleach some new perspectives. One I've heard of is to rewatch Bleach with the idea that Aizen is a good guy all along, even when he betrays Soul Society. You really pick up a lot of moments where Aizen could have been more evil but wasn't along with other small ideas like that in general. What about you guys?
As many of us know, MbL announced on twitter that he was taking a break from AoE II because not enough pro players were showing up on the ranked ladder. I was curious about the objective change in circumstances of MbL's opportunities, and I happen to have a bunch of data from aoe2.net on my computer, so I created a table of weekly results to see how things have been going with him in 1v1 on the ranked ladder.
| Week | Number of Games Played by MbL | Highest ELO of an opponent | Average opponent ELO | Lowest ELO of an opponent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07-14 | 4 | 2320 | 2240 | 2160 |
| 07-21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 07-28 | 1 | 2283 | 2283 | 2283 |
| 08-04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 08-11 | 4 | 2422 | 2031 | 1852 |
| 08-18 | 15 | 2514 | 2337 | 2095 |
| 08-25 | 20 | 2516 | 2328 | 2111 |
| 09-01 | 10 | 2473 | 2339 | 2142 |
| 09-08 | 10 | 2502 | 2462 | 2420 |
| 09-15 | 4 | 2404 | 2276 | 2128 |
| 09-22 | 28 | 2497 | 2317 | 1731 |
| 09-29 | 13 | 2416 | 2235 | 1647 |
| 10-06 | 25 | 2512 | 2286 | 1696 |
| 10-13 | 30 | 2515 | 2367 | 2043 |
| 10-20 | 17 | 2454 | 2289 | 1764 |
| Age | of | Empires | IV | Released |
| 10-28 | 5 | 2418 | 2290 | 2152 |
| 11-03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 11-10 | 11 | 2498 | 2313 | 2138 |
| 11-17 | 27 | 2463 | 2314 | 1857 |
| 11-24 | 7 | 2336 | 2170 | 1876 |
I am not a statistician, but it looks to me like there hasn't been a noticeable change in the skill of the players he has been playing. I obviously cannot address how MbL feels, nor whether there are specific players he is missing playing, but the overall quality of the ranked ladder at his level looks to me to be about as strong as always.
Thoughts?
PS: I used the Siege Engineers Player data to grab all his smurf accounts.
I'm not super familiar with the terminology here, so this may be confusing.
Many people (especially reddit pseudophilosophers) really take issue with the idea of moral realism. It certainly doesn't seem that we can meaningfully test a moral theory against any real world facts. The validity of any moral system can't really be measured from outside that system. Thus, at least initially it seems that moral systems are purely subjective human constructs.
But! It looks to me like we could apply this exact criticism to any theory of knowledge, and I can't see why it would be less valid: A classic problem in epistemology is that a theory of knowledge must either have unjustified "foundations", or it must be a "coherent" but unfounded system of interdependent propositions.
In one case, we are forced to assume unjustifiable "facts" about knowledge. In the other we accept that the theory is only justified by itself; it also doesn't preclude the possibility of equally correct but incompatible theories.
So both epistemology and ethics seem to fall prey to the same problem of foundationalism. Why is it, then, that nearly everyone seems to privilege knowledge over ethics? Objective truth is an order of magnitude less controversial than objective good, but is this justifiable?
I am reading the book "The complete DAX guide" and I wonder whether all these subtle details about the right usage of DAX may be an indicator that this language is flawed by design. Or is this all intended and (almost) without alternatives?
The subject quote is referring to Teresa Halbach's key and is taken from Ken Kratz's closing arguments during Avery's trial. Included below is a more thorough excerpt from this part of the trial, and, I want to take a moment to share why this quotation sticks out for me, as this is Kratz literally giving the jurors instruction and permission to overlook police officers illegally planting Teresa Halbach's key.
There are a few reasons a law enforcement officer might plant the victim's key. The most common, I suppose, is that the officer is convinced of guilt and wants to be sure the bad guy is locked up. This post is going to ask you to consider one other possible reason: the person in possession of the key gave it to them, and he wasn't Avery.
For months I have studied Blaine D's map. It is quite curious. It shows interesting markings - a word scribbled out in the garage, burn barrel 4 circled several times (ETA - remember one Dassey barrel was also tagged with the same evidence number as "a key"), Avery's burn barrel circled several times, a date crossed out and corrected, except corrected with another date that was wrong, a square and a circle that "marks the spot" for the burn pit, a trailer on the side of the garage (the one Avery cut his finger on) - if one didn't know better, one would think that Blaine gave the cops, on November 5th, not 7th or 8th, a map to all of the stashed evidence.
This map was supposedly drawn on November 7th, in the presence of Blaine's boss... he's the guy police didn't like because of his inappropriate behavior with Blaine as observed/documented during their interview. It was almost like law enforcement were going to accuse him of molesting Blaine - for a while, anyway.
And, that doe Blaine crossed out on the map... the Dassey's owned several .22's, had bullets everywhere, plus had blood all over their garage from the deer, yet they escaped the luminol tests. Blaine escaped DNA testing. Barb escaped an interview on the 5th when she was oddly hauled in to jail. Officers created no Halbach case record documenting what they asked her about on November 5th, after finding the victim's RAV on the Avery Salvage yard, following Teresa's appointment there to photograph Barb's own van. They didn't get her on record on the 5th to explain that phone call to her home... to explain the message that, still today, one wonders who returned the call to provide the address and confirm the appointment.
But, back to the key.
... keep reading on reddit β‘
I know the following theorem:
Theorem: Let S be a set, and ~ an equivalence relation on S. Then the equivalence classes with respect to ~ form a partition of S. In particular, if a is in S, the a is in [a] and furthermore, a is in [b] if and only if [a]=[b].
But I'm completely stuck as to how to apply it.
Any sort of tips or help would be appreciated.
I know you are tempted to say that only I can decide that but I would need some input.
As for people relations, I find it to be an impasse with almost everyone, doesn't go deeper than the age/sex/location topic and I do have social skills but trying to make me interested in this is like trying to make a father interested in his daughter's doll games.
