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

[ciaza]

i've barely started it if it makes you feel better

i promise you i'll slaughter everything once i get on hols

also, best subreddit ever?: http://www.reddit.com/r/awwnime/

i reckon if you gave that to zero he'd never get off it

 

[sirlaser]

ok going off wikipedia:

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology.

to use your argument, exceeding in all these subjects would make him inhumanly intelligent. surprise surprise, he did exceed in all these subjects with a lot of his work still shaping the fundementals of modern civilisation

as per usual, clubba is right, newton was a g

I'm not saying Aristotle and Newton is not inhumanly intelligent. I'm arguing that their accomplishments, though equally amazing when compared to da Vinci's, do not encompass as many different fields, therefore the scope of their intelligence is not as wide and da Vinci is more intelligent overall. It's kind of like Superboomfan vs. Isai (sorry boomfan), where Isai is da Vinci and boomfan is Newton/Aristotle.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not saying Aristotle and Newton is not inhumanly intelligent. I'm arguing that their accomplishments, though equally amazing when compared to da Vinci's, do not encompass as many different fields, therefore the scope of their intelligence is not as wide and da Vinci is more intelligent overall. It's kind of like Superboomfan vs. Isai (sorry boomfan), where Isai is da Vinci and boomfan is Newton/Aristotle.

i'm tempted to grammar troll you but i won't

anyway i don't think you can say that accomplishments are a perfect measure of intelligence. i especially question using artistic accomplishments as a measure of intelligence. a solid definition of intelligence would be useful here. if you're using IQ then i'm pretty sure math and science accomplishments will correlate MUCH better than artistic accomplishments.

you can certainly argue that Da Vinci's accomplishments are more impressive than Newton's or Aristotle's (though I think that's very debatable). he had more breadth than Newton but the depth of Newton's accomplishments in math and science make Newton more historically significant IMO.

 

[M!nt]

this thread is pretty lolz

 

[sirlaser]

this thread is pretty lolz

Was that really necessary?
P.S. Rainbow Dash is the best.

 

[KnitePhox]

OH YEEEEH RAVE ROUND 3

 

[TANK64]

So NTA helped Taylor set up hosting P2P via a magical program called Hamachi- and for this alone, he is high B tier!

So now I can host! =D And play anyone I goddamn please!

Although it was 5 frames ...../fail. Idk why, but I'm hoping to get that issue ironed out soon.

 

[SSBPete]

cotton on is fairly mainstream but definately has some nice clothes every so often

 

[SSBPete]

it was completely necessary

yeah, what ballin said

 

[cheeseball341]

The biggest problem with cotten on is you can never know if its one that also has dudes clothes from the outside.

So you end up walking into a shop looking for some dudes clothes and all the chicks look at you like wtf are you doing in here.

 

[asianaussie]

with the sort of shops i imagine you go into (inb4 smiggle), im surprised you haven't become accustomed to those looks

 

[cheeseball341]

I once walked past a chick's shoes shop that was playing 'I wish i was a punk rocker'. It was a tough choice but i walked in and just sorta chilled so i could listen to the song.

Luckily I was dressed hella fash so I blended in.

 

[SSBPete]

mad props.

 

[asianaussie]

the world just doesn't care, yo

i don't want to know anyone who uses the pseudo-word 'fash' without thoughts of self-harm

 

[cheeseball341]

Would you prefer effay?

I'm fine with that as well.

 

[asianaussie]

better

your username is really starting to get me down

f u queranus

 

[cheeseball341]

I think i can get the filthy mod who went along with it tried as an accomplice.

In fact I might lobby for a ban on both ciaza and moderator.

 

[sirlaser]

i'm tempted to grammar troll you but i won't

anyway i don't think you can say that accomplishments are a perfect measure of intelligence. i especially question using artistic accomplishments as a measure of intelligence. a solid definition of intelligence would be useful here. if you're using IQ then i'm pretty sure math and science accomplishments will correlate MUCH better than artistic accomplishments.

you can certainly argue that Da Vinci's accomplishments are more impressive than Newton's or Aristotle's (though I think that's very debatable). he had more breadth than Newton but the depth of Newton's accomplishments in math and science make Newton more historically significant IMO.

Thank you. I think we've addressed this issue in another thread.

Anyway, I'm not saying accomplishments are a perfect measure of intelligence, I'm saying, if we choose to extrapolate the intelligence of the deceased by their accomplishments (this is what most of the studies I've went through did), then I argue that since da Vinci's accomplishments encompass more intellectual fields and are no less amazing than what Aristotle or Newton have done he appears to be more intelligent, because:

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways, including the abilities, but not limited to, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving.

Of course it's very debatable whether or not da Vinci's accomplishments are more or less impressive than Newton's. It's just that I, and apparently the people behind the studies I've gone through, are more amazed by what da Vinci has done; therefore I believe/find him to be more intelligent, simply because there is nothing he failed at. From what he has showcased in 67 years of life, he is so diversely talented that he appears to have succeed in everything he has done.
Also, I've said nothing about historical significance; that's a very different discussion. (For the record, I agree with you that Newton's accomplishments are more historically significant, because of F = ∂p/∂t)

Question: I've heard rumors of recent matches about Isai going 1v2 and winning. Is this true? I would say I find it hard to believe but it is Isai.
Also, smashboards should totally make :isai: display a picture of Isai's face.

 

[ciaza]

well that'd just be bloody rude

i spent one of my hard-earned name changes on you and you don't even appreciate me for it

 

[ballin4life]

Thank you. I think we've addressed this issue in another thread.

Anyway, I'm not saying accomplishments are a perfect measure of intelligence, I'm saying, if we choose to extrapolate the intelligence of the deceased by their accomplishments (this is what most of the studies I've went through did), then I argue that since da Vinci's accomplishments encompass more intellectual fields and are no less amazing than what Aristotle or Newton have done he appears to be more intelligent, because:

i understand but it still seems like a bit more argument or explanation is necessary here. otherwise why not say "Da Vinci is more accomplished" rather than "more intelligent"? there's still a definitions problem there but less so.

i also think Newton's accomplishments in math and science are more amazing than any of Da Vinci's, though I agree Da Vinci's breadth over various fields is incredible.

 

[SSBPete]

just get the mod to change it back :|

 

[SSBPete]

i personally reckon archimedes was the smartest dude ever

he pretty much invented calculus 2000 years before newton/leibniz

 

[DMoogle]

I hate to close this, as the discussion is pretty good, but... can't have threads on individual members.

I can merge this with the Social Thread is someone wants me to (assuming malva00 is OK with it, which he seems to be). Just shoot me a PM if so.

 

[The Star King]

I didn't know you can change people's usernames against their will. This makes premium sound like it's actually worth it. Now THAT'S a prank

This makes ciaza 5x cooler even though he's a weeaboo otaku nerd who likes wrestling

Dang, I feel less cool now. Although I'm kind of like a highschool girl so it's fine.

/wut

I know that feel bro

 

[kys]

Wow Derrick Rose is out with an ACL. Sucks to be a Bulls fan.

Unless Boston can conjure up some magic, the Heat are riding EZ into the Finals.

 

[Armada]

"but if person B's DK can beat your everyone person B is better"

I really agree with that qoute Battlecow. If someone can't beat your best char whatever he use he can't reach that level that is your best level.

Playing all chars and be good with them all is really cool to see but I have hard finding a argument that makes that person better when he can't reach player Bs best possible level.

 

[sirlaser]

i understand but it still seems like a bit more argument or explanation is necessary here. otherwise why not say "Da Vinci is more accomplished" rather than "more intelligent"? there's still a definitions problem there but less so.

i also think Newton's accomplishments in math and science are more amazing than any of Da Vinci's, though I agree Da Vinci's breadth over various fields is incredible.

Well, how else can we extrapolate, with some degree of general acceptance, the intelligence of dead people without grading their accomplishments? 'Cause some of them, by historical records and what has been passed down to us (I'm thinking F=ma and the Mona Lisa), sure seem more intelligent than anyone you or I have ever seen due to said achievements.

The amazingness of accomplishments are definitely debatable. Are you saying Newton has one particular accomplishment you find more amazing than any one of da Vinci's accomplishments? Or am I reading your message wrong and you actually meant something else?

he pretty much invented calculus 2000 years before newton/leibniz

Huh. Could you show me the evidence for this? Like a link maybe?

 

[ballin4life]

Well, how else can we extrapolate, with some degree of general acceptance, the intelligence of dead people without grading their accomplishments? 'Cause some of them, by historical records and what has been passed down to us (I'm thinking F=ma and the Mona Lisa), sure seem more intelligent than anyone you or I have ever seen due to said achievements.

well i'm saying you can't really do it, so saying "how else" isn't very convincing. i mean you can get some idea that these were really smart guys but i don't think you can make solid comparisons of intelligence, but then again i don't even think intelligence is well defined so whatever.

The amazingness of accomplishments are definitely debatable. Are you saying Newton has one particular accomplishment you find more amazing than any one of da Vinci's accomplishments? Or am I reading your message wrong and you actually meant something else?

we still use stuff today that was invented by Newton, particularly in math and physics. calculus in particular is the basis of tons of the engineering we use today. can the same be said of da Vinci?

Huh. Could you show me the evidence for this? Like a link maybe?

yeah i was interested in this too. by my recollection he discovered some calculus-like things, but to say he completely invented calculus is going too far.

 

[SSBPete]

i didn't say he completely invented calculus. he did however invent the basis of it. he invented the idea of summing an infinite series to find the area under an arc and he used limits to predict the value of pi by increasing the number of sides of a regular polygon. he realised that the more sides, the more accurate pi would be.

he's often considered the father of calculus. his work on calculus was lost until recently, which slowed the process of modern calculus being discovered.

http://www.shsu.edu/~mth_jaj/math467/hill.pdf

 

[malva00]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZjr2Z9S_E&feature=b-cat-film

 

[RickySSB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wZjr2Z9S_E&feature=b-cat-film

The first top comment..

 

[sirlaser]

well i'm saying you can't really do it, so saying "how else" isn't very convincing. i mean you can get some idea that these were really smart guys but i don't think you can make solid comparisons of intelligence, but then again i don't even think intelligence is well defined so whatever.

So are you saying there's no way to compare, even partially objectively, the relative intelligence of the deceased?
Also, by saying that "intelligence is [not] well defined" I feel you are essentially avoiding by arguing that the language is vague (which is a logical fallacy, BTW. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy)

we still use stuff today that was invented by Newton, particularly in math and physics. calculus in particular is the basis of tons of the engineering we use today. can the same be said of da Vinci?

It seems to me you're trying to argue historical significance again, which I've already addressed two posts back.

But if you want to make this argument again, fine. I'm a student in engineering, and for basically all cutting edge technology we've moved past classical mechanics. For microprocessors, for example, we've found that classical simulations of electrons and behavior of materials at the nanoscale do not give an accurate enough model due to quantum tunneling effects; quantum simulations must be done, the problem is that no one really knows how to do quantum simulations on transistors. We've some educated guesses but that's really it.
Also, most of the calculus done today utilizes the Leibniz notation, even though historically the discovery of the fundamental theorem of calculus have been attributed to Newton.

For the case of da Vinci, nobody knows how the **** he created the Mona Lisa. If there wasn't substantial and irrefutable evidence that a man painted this piece the Mona Lisa would have been attributed to a transhuman or divine source. If you want something more concrete, his work on Anatomy included the first drawing of a fetus in utero and a design for a single span 220m bridge for the Golden Horn of the Istanbul Strait was was built in 2006 by the Turkish government.

yeah i was interested in this too. by my recollection he discovered some calculus-like things, but to say he completely invented calculus is going too far.

i didn't say he completely invented calculus. he did however invent the basis of it. he invented the idea of summing an infinite series to find the area under an arc and he used limits to predict the value of pi by increasing the number of sides of a regular polygon. he realised that the more sides, the more accurate pi would be.

he's often considered the father of calculus. his work on calculus was lost until recently, which slowed the process of modern calculus being discovered.

What Archimedes did was essentially Riemann Sums in a mathematically informal manner (Method of Exhaustion). Yes, it did lead up to the fundamental theorem of calculus, but he did not explicitly state it in any way, shape or form. Archimedes didn't take that final step (huge and difficult step, considering, but still).
I'm not qualified to judge whether or not his work would have sped up the discovery of Calculus or not.

 

[ballin4life]

So are you saying there's no way to compare, even partially objectively, the relative intelligence of the deceased?
Also, by saying that "intelligence is [not] well defined" I feel you are essentially avoiding by arguing that the language is vague (which is a logical fallacy, BTW. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy)

i'm not rejecting your claim because it's vague. i'm saying your claim is vague. i don't see how this continuum fallacy relates.

anyway, i don't think a person's intelligence can be quantified in the manner you want. for starters, there are different types of intelligence. Newton probably would rank higher on mathematical intelligence, and da Vinci would rank higher on artistic intelligence, and to make some kind of overall comparison there is impossible.

now, at this point i've accepted that your definition of "intelligence" is just "accomplishments". but i would argue that this definition goes against the typical definition. we can imagine someone who is intelligent but has no accomplishments due to lazieness, for example.

It seems to me you're trying to argue historical significance again, which I've already addressed two posts back.

well, what criteria are you using to evaluate accomplishments?

But if you want to make this argument again, fine. I'm a student in engineering, and for basically all cutting edge technology we've moved past classical mechanics. For microprocessors, for example, we've found that classical simulations of electrons and behavior of materials at the nanoscale do not give an accurate enough model due to quantum tunneling effects; quantum simulations must be done, the problem is that no one really knows how to do quantum simulations on transistors. We've some educated guesses but that's really it.
Also, most of the calculus done today utilizes the Leibniz notation, even though historically the discovery of the fundamental theorem of calculus have been attributed to Newton.

Yes, Newton didn't figure out 100% of the secrets of the universe. That doesn't mean his classical mechanics aren't important or impressive. Classical mechanics are still used all the time.

For the case of da Vinci, nobody knows how the **** he created the Mona Lisa. If there wasn't substantial and irrefutable evidence that a man painted this piece the Mona Lisa would have been attributed to a transhuman or divine source. If you want something more concrete, his work on Anatomy included the first drawing of a fetus in utero and a design for a single span 220m bridge for the Golden Horn of the Istanbul Strait was was built in 2006 by the Turkish government.

while certainly impressive i don't think these accomplishments compare to inventing a type of math used today in nearly all forms of engineering and physics. basically, if Newton's mathematical and scientific contributions had never happened then modern science and modern society would not exist. i don't think the same can be said of da Vinci.

 

[clubbadubba]

SirLaser, you are just trying to state who is more accomplished, which is not a great measure of intelligence. Accomplishments require that you have the ambition to achieve them, which has nothing to do with intelligence. It is very plausible that someone even smarter than Newton and Da Vinci has existed, but was a lazy mofo and got nothing done. I think ballin is right in saying there is no good way to measure it. Just because that's not the answer we want doesn't make it wrong. If you think about it, wouldn't it be quite a feat to determine the intelligence of someone when they're dead and have no brain activity left to measure? I think if someone comes up with an accurate way to do that, they might be the smartest person alive.

And yea as an engineering student about to graduate, classical mechanics is probably the most used idea in engineering. It doesn't work well on quantum scales, but for everyday scale it works extremely well and is used to govern the design of most machines you've ever worked with.

 

[Pachinkosam]

My eyes burn so much.XD

 

[malva00]

so when is that australian tourney that's handing out free plane tickets to people happening?

So Jousuke said he might be able to go to Australia in May/June/July

I might be able to go in June/July

 

[Claire Diviner]

so when is that australian tourney that's handing out free plane tickets to people happening?

I didn't know tourneys handed out free tickets to overseas players... do they?

 

[Sangoku]

I thought it was cancelled? Or maybe I just made that up.

 

[Morin0]

I didn't know tourneys handed out free tickets to overseas players... do they?

I think it was more of a good player fund type of deal.

 

[Battlecow]

We haven't heard from james in a while

I hope it's still on!