Overefficiency is one thing, muppet, and I agree with you on that, but I should be clearer: I'm talking about rampant, unreasonable waste.
Speaking only from anecdotal experience here as my mother rented a mcmansion, suburban style, stick-build house in South Carolina that was an absolute energy wasting nightmare, It seems to me that a lot of the suburban places in this country are way on the other end of the efficiency spectrum and there can be no excuse to waste important technological developments on propping that kind of living up.
This I agree with. This is really the only point that I was trying to make before I hit yet another row of personal hot buttons. Sorry guys, but this forum has way too many of those. I don't agree that not trying to navigate them all is insensitive. Political correctness is good until it's a hindrance to discussion. It's supposed to be the opposite.
Many people really don't understand what OCD is, so what you are doing is not helping. Whether you have it or not is moot. You are just perpetuating stereotypes.
I don't think I'm at a very great risk of misinforming anyone on this forum about OCD or any other entry in the DSM V. I think you all have that covered exceedingly well. I'm not worried about it.
Many people really don't understand what OCD is, so what you are doing is not helping. Whether you have it or not is moot. You are just perpetuating stereotypes.
I don't think I'm at a very great risk of misinforming anyone on this forum about OCD or any other entry in the DSM V. I think you all have that covered exceedingly well. I'm not worried about it.
Hey babe, you're being a dick right now and I'd appreciate it if you just stopped arguing the OCD point and made your argument with other words so we can keep discussing this like real human beings. Thx dollface i u
You just made the argument that you joke about suicide all the time. I fail to see how joking about OCD, even if it's subtle, is worse than that. But hey, we all have something we're hypocritical about. Some way more things than others.
Hey girl, I joke about suicide because I've been there and seriously considered it. I'm not getting sidetracked on this, though. Talk more about the aesthetics of efficiency with LESS sensitive buzzwords, n we'll b cool~
Hey girl, I joke about suicide because I've been there and seriously considered it. I'm not getting sidetracked on this, though. Talk more about the aesthetics of efficiency with LESS sensitive buzzwords, n we'll b cool~
I joke about OCD, having OCD. My list of rituals is around two typed pages long. Still not seeing the distinction. Stop sitting on a high horse and distracting from the argument.
Okay, so you understand it, and also feel comfortable stereotyping it. Fine. But people also take stereotypes seriously and believe them. This is like that Futurama argument that we had way back when where you were talking about stereotypes about women and it is fine to laugh about them because no one believes them anymore. I said that it was not good to use them for jokes because people still DO believe them even though they are wrong.
In fact, my OCD is untreated because as a kid I was honestly afraid I'd be committed for it (teenage paranoia) so I didn't tell anybody and hid my rituals, which stressed me the fuck out, let me tell you. Now I'm just used to dealing with it and it's still untreated.
If suicide attempts are license to joke about suicide then I've got a carry permit on OCD jokes.
Anyway, I already agreed with Grover. Efficiency in moderation.
Hey girl, I joke about suicide because I've been there and seriously considered it. I'm not getting sidetracked on this, though. Talk more about the aesthetics of efficiency with LESS sensitive buzzwords, n we'll b cool~
I joke about OCD, having OCD. My list of rituals is around two typed pages long. Still not seeing the distinction. Stop sitting on a high horse and distracting from the argument.
Sweetheart, you're the one that won't keep discussing efficiency. Please just continue with your argument!
Okay, so you understand it, and also feel comfortable stereotyping it. Fine. But people also take stereotypes seriously and believe them. This is like that Futurama argument that we had way back when where you were talking about stereotypes about women and it is fine to laugh about them because no one believes them anymore. I said that it was not good to use them for jokes because people still DO believe them even though they are wrong.
And being sensitive to that, I wouldn't make stereotypical jokes with an audience that would be likely to take it to heart. I think adjusting your conversation for the audience is not a bad thing. Since this place has a very high level of intelligence and sensitivity, it would be nice if there could also be less fear.
Okay, so you were like "obviously these people know the real deal with OCD so I can use stereotypes and they will know they are wrong!" And then you go cranky when I yelled at you for using wrong stereotypes. *sigh*
How easy would it be to have a home-based algae/energy reactor? Is this something that is possible or is the minimum footprint too large?
Doable. You'd probably need an outside company to process your algae, but it's feasible for a family to produce a fuel oil stockpile during the other three seasons and then use it to heat the home in the winter.
Okay, so you were like "obviously these people know the real deal with OCD so I can use stereotypes and they will know they are wrong!" And then you go cranky when I yelled at you for using wrong stereotypes. *sigh*
It had more to do with you calling me an asshole.
Also, I was trying to convey the point that efficiency for efficiency's sake is extremely obsessive, which I think you got despite your annoyance with the phrasing.
Dee Reynolds: You know what I gotta be honest with you, I think these supplements are doing a great job on their own, you know what I mean? I got tons of energy, my heart rates up, things are going great... Dennis Reynolds: Absolutely. I feel great too. Look how vascular I am, look at how my veins are poppin'. Dee Reynolds: Holy Shit. Dennis Reynolds: Yeah, I look good AND I feel good. Dee Reynolds: I feel good too apart from the recent bounds of explosive diarrhea. Dennis Reynolds: Ohh. You've been having diarrhea? Dee Reynolds: Oh God, all over the place. Dennis Reynolds: Really? Well you know what that is, that's probably your body flushing out all the toxins. Dee Reynolds: You think so? Dennis Reynolds: I do think so yeah, yeah. I on the other hand have not taken a shit in days. Dee Reynolds: Days? Dennis Reynolds: Days. Dee Reynolds: That doesn't sound good. Dennis Reynolds: Ohh, no it's good. My body's working at 100% efficiency. Yeah, my body is absorbing every single nutrient and it's not wasting a single thing. Dee Reynolds: Your body is taking it's job very seriously. Dennis Reynolds: My body's doing it's job like it's never done it before.
You'd probably need an outside company to process your algae, but it's feasible for a family to produce a fuel oil stockpile during the other three seasons and then use it to heat the home in the winter.
That's interesting. It would be neat if you could take your algae to a center (something like a recycle center or one of those places where you can recycle metal for cash) and get the oil that your algae would yield right there on the spot...
There's no such thing as too much efficiency; there is only wrong optimization criteria.
"Soft" requirements like psychology are often not given a lot of weight and I think the culture of optimization (if there is such a thing) tends to have a blindspot there. There are physical ergonomics and then there are "mental" ergonomics.
I'm sorry I called you an asshole. That was rude and mean of me. Do you feel better now, you poor man?
Also, efficiency is not the only criteria. Efficiency without comfort is not great design, but I think that efficiency is one of the things that should always be considered when designing systems, regardless of the availability of resources.
I'm sorry I called you an asshole. That was rude and mean of me. Do you feel better now, you poor man?
Also, efficiency is not the only criteria. Efficiency without comfort is not great design, but I think that efficiency is one of the things that should always be considered when designing systems, regardless of the availability of resources.
I'm not crying over it but don't act all affronted that an inflammatory discussion followed.
Also, that statement is a lot more qualified than the ones I was responding to regarding efficiency.
Comments
You are borderline spamming.
Also when can I drive my giant truck around?
If suicide attempts are license to joke about suicide then I've got a carry permit on OCD jokes.
Anyway, I already agreed with Grover. Efficiency in moderation.
And then you go cranky when I yelled at you for using wrong stereotypes.
*sigh*
Also, I was trying to convey the point that efficiency for efficiency's sake is extremely obsessive, which I think you got despite your annoyance with the phrasing.
Dennis Reynolds: Absolutely. I feel great too. Look how vascular I am, look at how my veins are poppin'.
Dee Reynolds: Holy Shit.
Dennis Reynolds: Yeah, I look good AND I feel good.
Dee Reynolds: I feel good too apart from the recent bounds of explosive diarrhea.
Dennis Reynolds: Ohh. You've been having diarrhea?
Dee Reynolds: Oh God, all over the place.
Dennis Reynolds: Really? Well you know what that is, that's probably your body flushing out all the toxins.
Dee Reynolds: You think so?
Dennis Reynolds: I do think so yeah, yeah. I on the other hand have not taken a shit in days.
Dee Reynolds: Days?
Dennis Reynolds: Days.
Dee Reynolds: That doesn't sound good.
Dennis Reynolds: Ohh, no it's good. My body's working at 100% efficiency. Yeah, my body is absorbing every single nutrient and it's not wasting a single thing.
Dee Reynolds: Your body is taking it's job very seriously.
Dennis Reynolds: My body's doing it's job like it's never done it before.
Also, efficiency is not the only criteria. Efficiency without comfort is not great design, but I think that efficiency is one of the things that should always be considered when designing systems, regardless of the availability of resources.
Also, that statement is a lot more qualified than the ones I was responding to regarding efficiency.