Social Social Thread - Talk About Anything (You Are Allowed to Talk About)!

[Olikus]

All this pokemon talk gives me strength and hope, which I need to get a full pokedex on Pokemon SS. 334 of 497 and still going strong!

 

[asianaussie]

451 here on HG, only event legendary i have is jirachi :\

no manaphy either

trying to get gold battle factory atm...it's freaking impossible i tell you

 

[NovaSmash]

Eh, I don't think he has an account on here, so hopefully he doesn't mind me saying. Guy was Pwn iXi PigBenis (he puts it in fancy characters).

Oh, well that explains it, I used to 5 stock him when I first started and his name was chuckgrillz.

 

[The Star King]

I had, like, 470 out of 497 or something like that on Platinum. I was planning on completing it over the summer, but I lost motivation somehow.

I tried finding my Platinum because of this conversation and I couldn't find it. ****. All I could find it is my HeartGold.

They need to ban Samus in order to win

what weaklings

Spoiler

welcome back, moved to social

This character's aerials are way too good and it's hard to combo this character and this character's recovery is pretty good seriously and like every tourney is dominated by this character seriously Metaknight is broken what are you talking abo - oh wait

 

[Surri-Sama]

Spoiler

welcome back, moved to social

haha good call.

Welcome back Zen. You gonna be playing again or just came to say hello? :o

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Meeting in #brawl64 is cancelled, some stuff beyond my control has come up. I'm going to get skype this week so people can catch me on that, and hopefully there's a point over the next week when we can get that chat together.

 

[Battlecow]

also you can donate money to research cancer and stuff

People give too much money to cancer research. A Cancer research donation of $1000 pays for about 2 hours of work from a scientist researching a marginally better way of doing chemotherapy, which may or may not ever help anyone after all. There are so many other, more worthy charities... People never think before they give these days. It's all a passion thing. I blame Hollywood.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Can someone tell me the exact amount of respawn invincibility?

*EDIT* Just realized I posted this in Social by accident, but w/e.

 

[dandan]

People give too much money to cancer research. A Cancer research donation of $1000 pays for about 2 hours of work from a scientist researching a marginally better way of doing chemotherapy, which may or may not ever help anyone after all. There are so many other, more worthy charities... People never think before they give these days. It's all a passion thing. I blame Hollywood.

that is all fine and good, but will you say the same thing if you or someone you are really close to had cancer? (and do not take it the wrong way please, just making conversation).

 

[Gammelnorsk]

i think we should just take all that charity money and use it to make nukes and then blow up the planet but i will survive in my hammerheart bubble and watch as ur ashes delicately float through the universe

 

[The Star King]

Can someone tell me the exact amount of respawn invincibility?

*EDIT* Just realized I posted this in Social by accident, but w/e.

I'm pretty sure it's 2 seconds (120 frames), but I can't 100% confirm this.

 

[ballin4life]

People give too much money to cancer research. A Cancer research donation of $1000 pays for about 2 hours of work from a scientist researching a marginally better way of doing chemotherapy, which may or may not ever help anyone after all. There are so many other, more worthy charities... People never think before they give these days. It's all a passion thing. I blame Hollywood.

Depends on what sort of cancer research ... also isn't the type you mention primarily funded by drug companies, not charities?

Plus cancer research may actually come back to help you someday. If you just give all yo monies to teh poorz it's lost forever

that is all fine and good, but will you say the same thing if you or someone you are really close to had cancer? (and do not take it the wrong way please, just making conversation).

I hate arguments like this. Yes if he were completely biased and in a horrible situation he probably wouldn't say the same thing.


One thing I don't like is people promoting "awareness". ESPECIALLY when the things they do to promote it make no sense, like girls making cryptic facebook statuses or whatever (how does making something cryptic promote awareness?)

It's like, there is no illness that I am more aware of than cancer.

 

[dandan]

i agree that my argument sucks, lol fox news style demagoguery.
the point was for him not to rule things out so fast.

a better argument for charity will be that money that we give is money that we do not save, and it is used partially also to fund the work of the doctors, who will take some of that money and purchase stuff with it and so on.
it can actually increase the economy.
yay macro economics theories 101.

 

[NixxxoN]

i agree that my argument sucks, lol fox news style demagoguery.
the point was for him not to rule things out so fast.

a better argument for charity will be that money that we give is money that we do not save, and it is used partially also to fund the work of the doctors, who will take some of that money and purchase stuff with it and so on.
it can actually increase the economy.
yay macro economics theories 101.

money money money money -.-

the best charity act is to donate money for ecological and environment purposes.

everybody in the world needs to watch

THIS

 

[ballin4life]

i agree that my argument sucks, lol fox news style demagoguery.
the point was for him not to rule things out so fast.

a better argument for charity will be that money that we give is money that we do not save, and it is used partially also to fund the work of the doctors, who will take some of that money and purchase stuff with it and so on.
it can actually increase the economy.
yay macro economics theories 101.

Except that money saved is good for the economy because it increases investment.

Although spending money on research is investment as well.

But the point is that consumption does not lead to a good economy. A good economy leads to consumption.

 

[Olikus]

451 here on HG, only event legendary i have is jirachi :\

no manaphy either

trying to get gold battle factory atm...it's freaking impossible i tell you

Battle factory? Is that one of the battle frontiers or something? I play that allot with a friend, like 2 pokemons vs 2 pokemons. Its easy in the start but afterwards you need to be tactical. Sleep powder and toxic FTW!

 

[Korrupshen]

Anyone mind telling me what song this is on the 3rd match Final Destination. Thanx in advance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyJ6P1KJAMY

 

[dandan]

Except that money saved is good for the economy because it increases investment.

Although spending money on research is investment as well.

But the point is that consumption does not lead to a good economy. A good economy leads to consumption.

depends on which economic model you use.
although iirc in almost every model personal savings != investment.
you save at the bank and the bank invests in others, but you can use the same logic with donation. the point is, if you just sit on your money (and not save it in a bank, farfetched, i know) you are not investing in anything.

 

[asianaussie]

Battle factory? Is that one of the battle frontiers or something? I play that allot with a friend, like 2 pokemons vs 2 pokemons. Its easy in the start but afterwards you need to be tactical. Sleep powder and toxic FTW!

Battle Factory is the stupid attraction where you rent pokemon, and the opponent always hits with OHKO moves, gets freeze on you like 50% of the time, never misses with things like Zap Cannon, and your focus blast/stone edge/anything with less than 100 accuracy are bound to miss unless you have Wide Lens.

 

[The Star King]

And you only get terrible Pokemon while your opponent gets **** like Latios that outspeeds and OHKOs everything.

 

[Evoke]

I always get decent pokemon. Tyranitar and Metagross twice, a really awesome golduck, and something else.

And I set up with dragon dance w/ salamence or something once but was against a freaking glalie.

 

[asianaussie]

I can't count the number of times my best pokemon was a Quagsire. Same goes for the number of times where I trade that Quagsire for a Milotic or something, only to find the next opponent has two electric types or something stupid like that.

 

[Battlecow]

Depends on what sort of cancer research ... also isn't the type you mention primarily funded by drug companies, not charities?

Plus cancer research may actually come back to help you someday. If you just give all yo monies to teh poorz it's lost forever

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm by no means the very best informed on the subject), no amount of money donated to "Cancer research" will get us a cure, because no one has anything but the very haziest and least likely ideas for how such a thing would be accomplished. This is the one thing that money, in all likelihood, actually won't solve, even if you put a kajillion scientists on it.

My understanding is that charity money for cancer research mostly goes to developing slightly better chemotherapy methods- which means that for your money, you essentially give someone a very small amount of extra life, during which they're miserable. A million dollars of cancer charity money does almost nothing, whereas some other charities can do almost exponentially more for the money. I'm not saying people shouldn't give to charity- giving to almost any charity is a very good thing, one that we all should do- I'm just saying that you need to have a plan for how much you're going to give and to where. Generosity should still be emphasized, but you shouldn't give spontaneously. Of course, this might reduce the total amount given- which would suck.

If I had cancer, I would almost certainly think differently. But then, I'd be biased, wouldn't I?

 

[Ocean]

so you're legitimately telling us that because know one knows how to find a cure for cancer, we shouldn't even bother? that is the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard of.

it's not that all the charity goes to improving chemotherapy (some of it might, but not a majority), it's that the majority of it goes to funding fletching ideas, many of which fall through, for many reasons. it's a trial and error process, which is costly and time consuming, but it's the only thing we can do at the moment.

I would rather donate $1000 to an idea that could possibly change the life of millions, than donate to the poor. but that's just me.

 

[asianaussie]

It's about how much faith you're willing to entrust to the people working for a cancer cure. There's no guaranteed amount needed to reach a cancer cure, but we can hardly stop because of it.

 

[Olikus]

But the best donation is to the environment. Cus if we(China/USA) keep pollution it, it doesn't matter if you have cancer or not. Then we all gonna die.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Where I live I just got literally buried by snow.

 

[th3kuzinator]

There is this giant rumor going around that we are getting like a foot of snow tomorrow night. I am so excited.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

I already got a foot and some snow, GL HF

 

[NovaSmash]

We got snow here in Atlanta, like 5 inches

 

[NixxxoN]

we got loads of snow in my place last year and this winter is like... warm o_O

 

[Surri-Sama]

Oddly we have very little snow here in Newfoundland...


i blame Al Gore

 

[Battlecow]

But the best donation is to the environment. Cus if we(China/USA) keep pollution it, it doesn't matter if you have cancer or not. Then we all gonna die.

Not really. Global warming is hardly a doomsday scenario. More like... A really huge inconvenience. Pollution in levels that will wipe out humanity isn't at this point a reality. Conservation of the environment is important, but some of the stupidest charities out there are environmental. I mean, when you get right down to it, trying to save the polar bears or whatever is a lot less important than saving other humans.

so you're legitimately telling us that because know one knows how to find a cure for cancer, we shouldn't even bother? that is the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard of.

it's not that all the charity goes to improving chemotherapy (some of it might, but not a majority), it's that the majority of it goes to funding fletching ideas, many of which fall through, for many reasons. it's a trial and error process, which is costly and time consuming, but it's the only thing we can do at the moment.

I would rather donate $1000 to an idea that could possibly change the life of millions, than donate to the poor. but that's just me.

I don't know what a fletching idea is (perhaps you meant "fledgling?") but I sincerely do not believe that trial and error will have any effect when NO ONE has ANY IDEA what to try. If that's the dumbest reasoning you've ever heard, you've lived a very sheltered life. Show me a budding cancer cure and I'll show you something that will never, ever work. Did you know that people die because of the harmful effects of smoking all the time? I know, let's invent a totally affordable and healthy cigarette, with all the extant positive effects and none of the negative! It'd save the lives of millions of people, in the long run!

Oh wait, that's a stupid idea. Because no one knows how to create such a cigarette. In the same way, we have no idea of how to cure cancer. People figure it's a matter of time because hey, we cured polio, but this is a whole different animal. It will take an entirely new treatment to cure cancer, and giving money to alternate causes is a far more efficient way of raising the overall felicity of the human race.

Basically, I'd donate every penny I had to the search for a Cancer cure, if my money would have any noticeable effect. It's ridiculous to just throw money at something, assuming that a cure will materialize.

 

[DMoogle]

I would rather donate $1000 to an idea that could possibly change the life of millions, than donate to the poor. but that's just me.

Then clearly you should play the lottery.

It's all about EV (expected value). Try to put a price on how much it costs to find the cure for cancer - let's say it's $10 billion (I'm just pulling this number out of nowhere). So your $1,000 is 1/10,000,000 of a cure. Looking at it another way, let's say that donating the $1,000 lets cancer be cured an hour faster - thus allowing an extra hour's worth of cancer patients (which may end up being, on average, less than one) to have an extra so many years that they wouldn't have had.

Now compare this to the amount of life time added to those who would benefit from the $1,000 otherwise (perhaps towards research for more efficient genetically modified vegetation... more food for the world), and you can find your answer as to which charity would benefit most from your $1,000.

Of course, the answer with the highest expected value (in this case, in terms of years added on to life, although you might want to measure it in different ways - such as total happiness increased in the world) isn't necessary the best charity to give to if your goal is also satisfying your own happiness. Perhaps you've lost loved ones to cancer specifically. Donating to a cause that fights cancer may make you feel better than donating to another cause, even if the reason is illogical. A person's happiness often stems from on-the-surface illogical reasons.

 

[Battlecow]

^^ Pretty much that.

Although I think it's our duty to give in a way that benefits others, not us. So giving to a bad cause make yourself feel better about the death of a loved one is... certainly not "bad," but perhaps a teensy weensy bit ignoble if it takes away from the overall happiness export from you to the world.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

Here "Snow" is just a word with some meaning. And thanks God, because I'm kind of sick right now.

 

[DMoogle]

Although I think it's our duty to give in a way that benefits others, not us. So giving to a bad cause make yourself feel better about the death of a loved one is... certainly not "bad," but perhaps a teensy weensy bit ignoble if it takes away from the overall happiness export from you to the world.

I disagree with this, but that's just a personal value thing.

 

[Ocean]

I don't know what a fletching idea is (perhaps you meant "fledgling?") but I sincerely do not believe that trial and error will have any effect when NO ONE has ANY IDEA what to try. If that's the dumbest reasoning you've ever heard, you've lived a very sheltered life. Show me a budding cancer cure and I'll show you something that will never, ever work. Did you know that people die because of the harmful effects of smoking all the time? I know, let's invent a totally affordable and healthy cigarette, with all the extant positive effects and none of the negative! It'd save the lives of millions of people, in the long run!

Oh wait, that's a stupid idea. Because no one knows how to create such a cigarette. In the same way, we have no idea of how to cure cancer. People figure it's a matter of time because hey, we cured polio, but this is a whole different animal. It will take an entirely new treatment to cure cancer, and giving money to alternate causes is a far more efficient way of raising the overall felicity of the human race.

yes, I meant fledgling, sorry, just an error.
yes, no one has any idea what to try, but just letting the problem sit there will help absolutely nothing. who are you to say that a possible idea will never work? did you go through 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, 8 years of internship, and then spend a large chunk of your adult life researching cancer? I highly doubt you have, and you probably have about the same amount of knowledge about cancer as I do. you are in no position to say something will or will not work. being cynical about the entire issue will not solve anything.

creating a healthy cigarette is not the same thing as finding the cure for cancer. I'm not saying that we need a 100% accurate, 100% effective perfect cure for cancer, because that's extremely illogical, and will never exist. a typical cure is completely possible though. and what "alternate causes" would you suggest? you talk about how there's always something better to put your money towards, but what is it? it's better to put money to something that might work, then completely take away all it's funds just because you think it won't work.

Basically, I'd donate every penny I had to the search for a Cancer cure, if my money would have any noticeable effect. It's ridiculous to just throw money at something, assuming that a cure will materialize.

of course your wealth wouldn't have a noticeable effect, and it's stupid to think otherwise. but you're not just throwing money at something, assuming that a cure will materialize. you're putting money forth at the chance that a cure can be found. $1,000 added to a cause might not show for much, but it's better than sitting there, not contributing, just because you think that you wouldn't have an effect (when you would, it would just be unnoticeable to your eye).

Then clearly you should play the lottery.

It's all about EV (expected value). Try to put a price on how much it costs to find the cure for cancer - let's say it's $10 billion (I'm just pulling this number out of nowhere). So your $1,000 is 1/10,000,000 of a cure. Looking at it another way, let's say that donating the $1,000 lets cancer be cured an hour faster - thus allowing an extra hour's worth of cancer patients (which may end up being, on average, less than one) to have an extra so many years that they wouldn't have had.

Now compare this to the amount of life time added to those who would benefit from the $1,000 otherwise (perhaps towards research for more efficient genetically modified vegetation... more food for the world), and you can find your answer as to which charity would benefit most from your $1,000.

Of course, the answer with the highest expected value (in this case, in terms of years added on to life, although you might want to measure it in different ways - such as total happiness increased in the world) isn't necessary the best charity to give to if your goal is also satisfying your own happiness. Perhaps you've lost loved ones to cancer specifically. Donating to a cause that fights cancer may make you feel better than donating to another cause, even if the reason is illogical. A person's happiness often stems from on-the-surface illogical reasons.

you're trying to place a monetary value on something that can't have a monetary value. it comes down to what you care about. you can say that donating genetically modified vegetation would help more, but it does not help more in my mind. I buy all my food from a local farmer's market, which doesn't benefit from the genetically modified vegetation, in fact it does just the opposite, so I see no reason for my money to go to it instead of attempting to find a cancer cure. you want to donate to that instead? sure, go ahead, but don't tell me that I'm illogical just because you disagree with my value of things, that just makes you an *******.

 

[felipe_9595]

National SSB 64 Results:

Spoiler

1- Danny SSB
2- Tambor
3- Oblivion

Gonna upload the matchs another day. Tambor have the m64.

 

[Ocean]

how many entrants were there?