@JsBangs If you read Homestuck then that would explain the familiar avatar. If you've been on forums with lots of people with Homestuck avatars that would also explain it.
@Kit Mmm. Fats shouldn't be the problem then. I personally have never managed to give up enough carbs to go into whatchamacallit... ketosis? I have some friends who tried for a few weeks and they said the first couple days they felt bad/sick and headachey, and then after that, great. But I think they even gave up a lot of fruits.
@Mana Which one do you think I'd be asking you specifically about, whilst smiling sincerely yet still radiating an ideally threatening aura in your general direction? ♪
What I'm talking about is summed up in this question.
This is, unfortunately, a legitimate question about English, however poor in quality and whatever its Beavis & Butthead quotient (off the charts, I should think), but it's headed straight for the multi-collider, and we know what happens t...
The mods have previously agreed that whenever a question is dealing with an "offensive" term, we protect it as soon as we see it. Pre-emptively.
So, one idea we just had in chat would be to take protected questions off the Collider (and the cross-site ads, and the Twitter feed). Wholesale. Afte...
@RegDwight I'm aware of the argument, yes. And, yes, it's essentially the same question. But it needs to be said again. Note that my question doesn't infringe on your patent rights because mine suggests a separate flag for this purpose, not a wholesale prevention of all protected questions from multi-collidering.
@RegDwight I'm unconvinced that that's the best approach, though. There are good, inoffensive questions on other sites which get lots of upvotes and poor answers from new users, forcing protection.
@GraceNote I don't think the community would mind taking the question off the collider like that. As to the OP, well, all they should care about is getting an awesome answer. For which they certainly can wait an additional day, right? Right?
@RegDwight The number of people whining about not being able to put bounties on the very first day gives me less than confidence on the subject of how many people are patient on getting answers.
@Robusto More attacking than that, but I could just be defensive here.
@GraceNote Sure, but if I go visit a site to get an awesome answer for free, I don't get to pester the community about not being fast enough. And if I don't understand that, I shouldn't be welcome on that site.
@RegDwight What people are entitled to, versus what people are more than happy to give heat for, are largely independent. You, me, we all know that they don't really get any such entitlement.
@Jez That's why they want the bounty, and it is impatience at waiting a couple days before they can "stand out".
@drm65 When it was announced earlier today that he was stepping out.
I'm not faulting the motivation behind wanting a bounty. I'm just noting that people who can't wait the 2 days to host a bounty are not unlike those who would not enjoy waiting 2 days for their question to get unlocked - the volume speaks that this will yield heat.
The following is what I've found on the net about this phrase:
The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang lists the
original form as "Doodly-squat," dating from 1934. No clue given as to
the origin. Doodle means, variously, a fool, a Union soldier, a penis,
to cheat, and t...
@GraceNote I doubt that that would happen with language questions. If you've lived your entire life without knowing the generic word for clitoris and penis, then surely you can wait just one more day. This is not the same as "I need to fix this bug now, or I'm fired".
@GraceNote Well, two things. 1. I am only barring them from receing quick-and-dirty answers. Which could be considered a good thing. 2. I am actually not barring anyone at all, remember that this is just a hypothetical discussion that only exists because people just won't give us proper tools to address the situtation.
What I am saying is, if you are not given any proper tools and are forced to use a crappy workaround, you shouldn't get blame for the workaround being crappy.
Especially not if you had asked for proper tools over and over and over again.
@Mana Attacking is not merely in the actual act, but in the direction you approach from. You can determine this from the direction that your opposition defends against, since after all, no one likes to take a sword to the rib nevermind to the gut.
This came up over in EL&U chat, but since it affects the whole network I'm bringing it up here.
It sometimes happen that a question comes up which is clearly on-topic for the site in question, but which is likely to wind up on the multicollider and attract a lot of attention for bad reasons....
The following is what I've found on the net about this phrase:
The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang lists the
original form as "Doodly-squat," dating from 1934. No clue given as to
the origin. Doodle means, variously, a fool, a Union soldier, a penis,
to cheat, and t...
I found often in technical documentation sentences like "All of the above examples" "As in the above example" etc. but the actual examples are after the sentence, that is "below" in the page. :)
I'd like to be sure this usage is really correct and if someone knows the origin of it.
@Mana First and foremost, the joke had to go. The editorial note was for clarification; the poster didn't know the link was a joke, so I didn't want to edit his answer to have him say that it was a joke.
Hm... if there's anyone that I'd know who would probably know about a mixture of tech and neuro, it'd be you, @jcole. Mind popping into the other room? ♪
@aedia 1st meaning actually kinda provides the leaning as well, too. That it surpasses the mathematical meaning says a lot about why the phrase is the way it is.
In the physical world, when a person is confronted with hallucinations or other horrors, that person will usually speak and act in a fashion that shows how real these apparitions are to them. Usually not of a strong enough mind as a result, so to speak.
I'm one of the people who always professes the point that net communication is just as much a part of the real world as regular speech, but the thing is, typing is a much more complex activity than talking is.
@Kit More, the conveyence of experiencing these physically, but conveyed across the Internet as a medium.
Years ago, I would instantly pass off any such act as clear deception. There's just too much involved in typing a sentence (especially a coherent one, and if you throw in emoted actions) to reasonably believe that someone is actually experiencing the delusions that they are expressing in their typing.
But I'm curious if, in the now age, where people have gotten so comfortable with technological communication (especially those who are more comfortable at a keyboard than in spoken verse), if they actually can sincerely express it across this medium now.
@Kit Delusional states are not that simple, so maybe it's my own not-having-this-kind-of-experience perception that purports this, but I question the reaction to a physical apparition right in your face being "Type to my friend about it for 30 minutes"
I suppose it might be possible that the person having the delusion might believe that by typing and only by typing, they are holding the apparition at bay.
And plenty of people in hallucinogenic states write things down. In Go Ask Alice, I remember that she wrote about the devil sitting in the corner of her room.
@Cerberus There's an async between the medium of communication and the actual usage of it in that scenario. A cellphone is handy because even if you drop it, your shouting can still get through.
@Kit That is actually a very good point. I never thought about that.
@Cerberus Hahahaha, no. I apparently had a brain disconnect when trying to express something that is disconnected and apparently settled on "asynchronous"
@GraceNote Well, it is more effective for some people, probably because it requires more cognitive resources to commit something in writing than it does to repeat it. You can repeat without thinking about something, but it's much harder to write without thinking about what you are writing.
@GraceNote Doesn't that have more to do with the different types of learning? I.e. if you hear something, it's auditory learning, and if you repeat it out loud, it's still auditory learning, but if you write it down, it's now visual learning. Or something.