StarCraft® II

Uninstalling.

Posts: 4,456
06/25/2013 08:39 PMPosted by TechNo
And main stream knowledge, with knowledge passed down from people in the field. Just because you get a degree doesn't mean you aren't able to think critically, or build on what has been discovered in your field.

Yes. But you can aqcuire all that and not suffer from tree-stagnation. Why waste 4-8 years of your life jumping through societies hoopes when-if you have the ability too-you can learn all that on your own in a fraction of the time and start making money now? Education is a crutch for people who aren't smart enough to make it on their own :).

06/25/2013 08:39 PMPosted by TechNo
You can daydream all day that you are Will Hunting if you want. Hey maybe you are, this is the internet after all where we can pretend to be smarter, more athletic, and more popular than we actually are. Most of the really intelligent people I meet don't strike me as the type of people who post in anonymous video game forums about how smart they are.

Intellectuals tend to be reserved, for a number of reasons. The vast majority of people who know me have no clue how smart I am. Why? Because showing your smarts off does not make friends (consider the scenario in this thread). Therefore, if one is to have friends one must not show off how smart they are. Pro tip of the day. But, I am not here to make friends. Therefore that behavioral pattern is not needed for my end-goal.

06/25/2013 08:39 PMPosted by TechNo
I don't quite see what SSE accelerated polygon collision testing has to do with viable counters to a 2 base immortal sentry all-in, but I suppose I will have to take your word for it.

The logical skills required to implement (a) SSE accelerated polygon collision testing far exceed the logical skills required to solve the (b) 2 base immortal sentry all-in. Therefore, if you can solve (a) then solving (b) will be a piece of cake. Common sense, Horse.

I understand how electricity works, and electricity governs all computing technology, does that mean I have an innate understanding or all things computational!?!?!?! Whoa... Suddenly everything I type looks like this: http://hackertyper.com/

Hahaha... You are funny. Nice try at a straw man. You should read up on this magical thing I call "logic" before blatantly proving you have no clue what it is! :)

06/25/2013 08:39 PMPosted by TechNo
Why are you bringing up something that is taught in the first week of any introductory CS class?

Isn't it obvious or are you really that dumb?

06/25/2013 08:39 PMPosted by TechNo
1's compliment

TBH I was surprised anyone knew the answer, despite its simplicity (do also note that you are the only one here that knew the answer). Kudos to you. Would you like a more challenging problem? :D

06/25/2013 08:39 PMPosted by TechNo
I am going to bow out of this thread now

Hah. The classic "sucker-punch and run". Come back, coward :).

06/25/2013 08:39 PMPosted by TechNo
I have never met an intelligent person that went out of their way to brag to an online gaming community how smart they are


Lets think this over - A person is making a claim about how ALL intellectuals act based off of the limited experience he has personally aqcuired. He does so without providing any facts (only his opinion) in is what is clearly an insult (suggests a serious bias).

For fun, lets assume your opinion wasn't biased AND that you are actually telling the truth. You know, what, 2-3 intellectuals? Actually, you probably only have ever met one in your entire life (if that). You've met smart people, but I am talking about the tier way above that.

For fun lets say you've met 100 of them AND that you knew them well enough to know what each of them does and doesn't do on the Internet. Lets also say that the IQ for a "intellectual" is >150. That means that you have met 0.01125% of the intellectuals on Earth. That means that the chance of you guessing the correct behavioral patterns for the majority of the intellectual populous is <= 0.01125%. What are the odds of you being right?

For fun, lets say you are right. In every statistical model there is always the exception--just because the general populous of intellectuals lack a specific behavioral pattern does not mean that ALL intellectuals do. And it certainly doesn't prove a person with the behavioral pattern isn't an intellectual.

Do you see how illogical your insult is? Why you even thought that I would be offended by it is HILARIOUS.

06/25/2013 09:06 PMPosted by Tamerlane
The physics (and math, in this case) are considerably more complex.

Nope. Take a closer look, Horse. You are ignoring 95% of the complexity in that program. The real "complexity" isn't found in the code you wrote--its in the code the intellectual wrote whom's work you are stealing and misrepresenting to support your fallacious argument. Please read up on complexity theory. What you are arguing against is already proven true and is taught in schools.
Edited by tEhbAtZ on 6/25/2013 9:51 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 16,548
. You are ignoring 95% of the complexity in that program. The real "complexity" isn't found in the code you wrote--its in the code the intellectual wrote whom's work you are stealing and misrepresenting to support your fallacious argument


Where?

And it's not stolen, it's open source as long as credit is given (Which it was, including in the actual hpp file).

And for the record, it's 1000 lines, with spaces, and extraneous code (such as creating the matrix class, etc). That is still shorter than the requisite mathematics and physics, especially if you encapsulate all the supporting concepts like you're trying to do with code. Nor is the supporting code actually needed for a process this sort. You can manually code basic matrix operations for a matrix of that size in a handful of lines. It's essentially just 3 vectors.

I'm assuming you don't actually understand the code posted. Which would explain why it seems more complex than it is. Basic matrix operations are something that could be done by a freshman CS student.

Libraries are used to save time recoding work done by others. Their complexity largely stems from being as robust as possible.

If it truly is that complex, you should be able to point it out with examples, without resorting to vague rhetoric that we don't understand it. You shouldn't need to rely on sounding pseudo intellectual.

06/25/2013 09:43 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
Education is a crutch for people who aren't smart enough to make it on their own :)


Yeah...have fun rederiving several hundred years of mathematics. Tell us when you can construct the real numbers.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. Don't take it for granted.
Edited by Tamerlane on 6/25/2013 10:51 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,456
06/25/2013 10:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
I'm assuming you don't actually understand the code posted.

Why, do you think that crap is hard to read? LOL. I rolled my eyes when I read that code, and I just face-palmed when I read this. News flash - any idiot could read that code, and that was the point I was making in the last thread.

You are one of those idiots that grabs some FOSS code on the web and thinks he is a genius. Grow up kid.

You think the code you wrote isn't as complex as the algorithm it implements because someone else has taken care of all the hard work for you. Sure, I can import GNU MP and implement RSA with a Diffie-hellman key exchange algorithm in 10 minutes, and the code would be simpler than the implied math BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TAKEN CARE OF IT FOR YOU. It was implied in my original post that you weren't STEALING someone else's work and that you where actually implementing it yourself.

The reason you should implement it yourself is to A) make sure the code is quality, B) make sure the code is minimalist yet sufficient and C) to learn the concepts yourself. With a plethora of open source code you can master any form of mathematics you can imagine. Just dig through the source of GNU MP, for example.

06/25/2013 10:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
That is still shorter than the requisite mathematics and physics

Hahaha.... Length is a poor measurement of complexity. How dumb are you? I mean, really? I have seen 10k lines of code that is so easy to understand any child could do it (like my nephew :D). On the other hand, there are one-liners that can blow your mind:

if((*this).*(myPtr.*(reinterpret_cast<u32 (Polygon<T>::*)(T *) * (PolygonCaster<T>::*)(T *) *>(&ptr)(this)))(other) & 0x4190AF4C) { }

06/25/2013 10:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
vague rhetoric that we don't understand it.

Yah, you might actually have to use your brain! We wouldn't want it too be too hard for you, now would we? :)

06/25/2013 10:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
And for the record, it's 1000 lines, with spaces, and extraneous code (such as creating the matrix class, etc). That is still shorter than the requisite mathematics and physics, especially if you encapsulate all the supporting concepts like you're trying to do with code.

Now for a lesson in complexity theory: a + b = c

Simple, right? Now consider the following line(s) of code: float a = 1.0, b = 1.0; float c = a + b; The code implements the same algorithm that the math does. That means the code is AT-LEAST as complex as the algorithm. Add in the complexity of the programming language (C in this case) and you have the complexity of C plus the complexity of the algorithm which is guaranteed to be > than the complexity of the algorithm alone.

In your example you implement some code that calculates the "eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a linear triatomic molecule". Assuming the code is right and outputs the correct values, it therefore must implement the algorithm. That means the code is AT-LEAST as complex as the algorithm. Add in the complexity of the programming language (C++ in this case) and you have the complexity of C++ plus the complexity of the algorithm which is guaranteed to be > than the complexity of the algorithm alone.

06/25/2013 10:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
Yeah...have fun rederiving several hundred years of mathematics. Tell us when you can construct the real numbers.

Never once did I state that I was re-deriving hundreds of years of math. The only thing I stated is that getting an education is a waste of time. Getting a education is a waste of time != re-derive hundreds of years of math. One can easily buy a book, for example, and still learn the said mathematics without ever having to get an education.

What you are doing here is whats called a "straw man fallacy". You are misrepresenting my argument to make it more vulnerable, then attacking it. What you fail to realize is that by proving the misrepresented argument wrong you do not prove the original argument wrong. This is what is called a "fallacy" or a "logical error".

Yes - there is this cool thing that I call "logic" and "reading comprehension" which help you to avoid making errors like this. You would do well to master both of those! Let me help you out: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=logic

06/25/2013 10:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
vague rhetoric that we don't understand it.

Was that too vague for you? Or do I need to elaborate more? :)

06/25/2013 10:41 PMPosted by Tamerlane
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Don't take it for granted.

They are not as "genius" or amazing as you (obviously) think. Don't worry though, their accomplishments do seem impressive for those who lack the intellect to comprehend how the said "giants" derived their work. Its only natural for lesser minds to be amazed.
Edited by tEhbAtZ on 6/26/2013 8:49 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 16,548
Sure, I can import GNU MP and implement RSA with a Diffie-hellman key exchange algorithm in 10 minutes, and the code would be simpler than the implied math BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TAKEN CARE OF IT FOR YOU. It was implied in my original post that you weren't STEALING someone else's work and that you where actually implementing it yourself.


The gnuplot is purely for visualization, and has nothing to do with the actual physics involved. It's completely unnecessary. I copied it from a course i'd taken, because i'm not going to rewrite the code for you. You could easily output it differently.

Images in CS is something that falls under "very complicated in it's own right", but it has nothing to do with implementing the physics of the problem.

There are definitely problems where it might be more complicated. This is not one of them. We just happened to like pretty pictures.

In your example you implement some code that calculates the "eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a linear triatomic molecule". Assuming the code is right and outputs the correct values, it therefore must implement the algorithm. That means the code is AT-LEAST as complex as the algorithm. Add in the complexity of the programming language (C++ in this case) and you have the complexity of C++ plus the complexity of the algorithm which is guaranteed to be > than the complexity of the algorithm alone.


Except implementing the algorithm doesn't imply understanding the subject. Yes, using c++ has complexity. Linear algebra also has a ton of implicit complexity in just figuring out that you're actually allowed to even do something like basic operations with matrices. Plus deriving the model for the actual molecule, and the physics that causes that interaction.

You can't ignore all the complexity under the hub in one field, and not the other.

The complexity of the physics comes into developing the model in the first place. You seem to be under the impression that it's easy. Once someone hands you the equation, it's almost trivial. I've implemented plenty of code before where i didn't even fully understand the physics behind it.

PDEs are a perfect example.

Implementing the code to finite difference a PDE is easy. Or even understanding the basics after having it done for you in a textbook. Truly understanding it...not nearly as easy.

You can implement the code without much understanding, which is why you're able to do so with your job. (not saying you're not intelligent, but you haven't mentioned a physics background). You're taking just as much, if not more credit, for all the work behind the scenes, just like you were afraid i was doing for gnuplot.

Never once did I state that I was re-deriving hundreds of years of math. The only thing I stated is that getting an education is a waste of time. Getting a education is a waste of time != re-derive hundreds of years of math. One can easily buy a book, for example, and still learn the said mathematics without ever having to get an education.


I had assumed you meant doing it without the aid of books.
If you're just talking about picking up the book, i'm not sure why that's impressive, that's something anyone can do. In fact, it's something you would have to learn to do to have any sort of success in a college environment. It's not something to brag about. Besides which, said books are essentially professor's work/teaching in written form. Who do you think wrote them?

Apparently i made a poor assumption.

They are not as "genius" or amazing as you (obviously) think. Don't worry though, their accomplishments do seem impressive for those who lack the intellect to comprehend how the said "giants" derived their work. Its only natural for lesser minds to be amazed.


I wasn't talking about your average professor, see above.

For someone so quick to go on about lesser minds, i'd love to see your published work. I'm guessing you're too busy being amazing to bother though.

Yah, you might actually have to use your brain! We wouldn't want it too be too hard for you, now would we? :)


No, it means i have to assume you know what you're talking about in order for it to sound credible, which means you could be bull!@#$ting.
Edited by Tamerlane on 6/26/2013 1:33 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 269
tEhbatZ - as a physicist who had to audible in to a computer programming career, I will say that your comments at least made me laugh.

You place computer science above all else, including theoretical physics, and yet without the work of Atanasoff who built the first electronic computer in 1939 (a feat for which he was mostly ignored and only recognized in the last 20 years) - there would be no computer science.

The transistor was also created by physicists. three of them, who did receive fair recognition some 60+ years ago. That intel or AMD chip you rely on so much not only to program but play this game, talk on forums, is made up of millions of transistors.

Why do I chose, instead pasting my latest coding project to try and prove my intellect, to talk about history?

Because you show a total lack of regard for what your entire career and success is built on.

Here's an important quote for you to remember and perhaps it will offer you a bit of humility.

"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants" - you can google who said it. Tamerlane clearly knows the quote and you simply didn't understand what he was trying to tell you.

You disregard traditional education, and yet the one thing you can learn from a traditional education is an appreciation for your history and why you are where you are today. If you allow a degree to limit your thinking, then you aren't learning the lessons your professors are trying to teach.

I am sure you are an excellent computer programmer. You are likely significantly better than I am. I have only my job to assure me that I am doing things well since things are working and stuff is getting done.

But at least I get to experience the delight of being in awe of the latest discovery in quantum physics. Or the discovery of a planet around a star millions of miles away, something we just couldn't have done 20 years ago. I appreciate the millions of man hours that got us here, I know the blood that was sacrificed, the passion required and the love of discovery needed to move just one millimeter along a path that is millions of miles long. Carl Sagan and Brian Cox aren't a pure joy to watch because they are the best in their field (not that Cox is any kind of slouch) - it's because they make you feel the love and excitement they have for their field.

It is clear you love something other than the science and for that, I feel quite sorry for you.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,073
I'm not really sure how a thread about being frustrated with StarCraft 2 evolved into a discussion about education, intellect and computer science.. but I must say I don't think I've ever been this genuinely impressed by a post on any forum before.

Well said, Sanlumiere.

+1
Edited by Meneliki on 6/26/2013 1:44 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 658
Batz...

Ego.

Please.

All too often, I see you throwing intellectual weight around in threads when you're bored. This time, I can't even be bothered to read it all to see just what you were driving at.

If you find yourself with this much free time on your hands and nothing to do but think... I recommend you find an additional hobby. Clearly, you're lacking a bit of intellectual satisfaction in your life.

Edit: So I read through anyway and now I'm even more disappointed in you. Those precious few people gifted with the intellectual capacity to teach themselves and master a field should use that intellect to improve the lives of themselves and those around them, not show it off like a cheap trophy in a high school showcase.

Also, I'm disappointed in you professionally, batz. Any good programmer recognizes that they are not solving the same problems the mathematicians solve. We figure out how to make the math work in our world, we don't figure out the math. When an engineer approaches a problem, they don't know that it can be solved, and that uncertainty adds many layers of complexity to the task. When a software engineer approaches a problem, they know that it can be solved but don't know that it can be implemented, which adds a different kind of complexity. The difference is subtle, but significant... and the two cannot be directly compared. You should realize that much, no matter how you were educated.

In a final note, education (especially university-level) was never about learning. It was always about showing your determination and will to persevere on your own. It's proof that you can and will jump through society's hoops, and it is necessary because there are many 'hoops' in life. Sure, you learn things... but you don't really learn until you begin to work in a field. By forgoing education, you begin working(and therefore learning) sooner, but you also effectively state that you are too special to be bound by the 'needless constraints that bind others'. You are, in effect, saying that you will not be a cog in the machine. It is not 'better' to be that individualistic... it's just different.

Most employers have little use for employees who do not follow instructions, and few entrepreneurs are successful. For the sake of those who may find themselves looking up to you, don't encourage anyone to shun school. Congratulations to you for making it... but you should understand that few others would be able to do the same.
Edited by Ataraxia on 6/26/2013 2:34 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,456
06/26/2013 01:15 PMPosted by Tamerlane
Except implementing the algorithm doesn't imply understanding the subject.

That must be where you and I differ. You write high-level junk without understanding how it works and/or steal code. Your whole opinion suddenly makes sense when you look at it that way!

06/26/2013 01:15 PMPosted by Tamerlane
For someone so quick to go on about lesser minds, i'd love to see your published work. I'm guessing you're too busy being amazing to bother though.

You don't understand how making money works, do you? Hahaha... Sharing is not part of the equation, Horse.

06/26/2013 01:15 PMPosted by Tamerlane
I had assumed you meant doing it without the aid of books.

You assume a lot of things, which speaks to your scientific nature (or, rather, the lack thereof). For example, most of your last post is just you regurgitating the same concepts I have already refuted in previous posts, without providing support to your disproven points. (You: "Maybe if I ignore him and just post it again he won't notice!" tehbatz: "/facepalm"). If you want answers you must read my posts and comprehend them, I have spoon fed you enough.

06/26/2013 01:25 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
your comments at least made me laugh.

At-least someone other than me enjoys the banter :D.

06/26/2013 01:25 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
You place computer science above all else, including theoretical physics, and yet without the work of Atanasoff who built the first electronic computer in 1939 (a feat for which he was mostly ignored and only recognized in the last 20 years) - there would be no computer science.

That's what you call a straw man, horse, and a similar ones have already been refuted across the thread. If you want your opinion to hold any weight you CANNOT--I repeat--CANNOT plaster a giant logical error right at the start.

06/26/2013 01:25 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
Because you show a total lack of regard for what your entire career and success is built on.

I appreciate others work, but unlike you I am not impressed with it.

06/26/2013 01:25 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
Tamerlane clearly knows the quote and you simply didn't understand what he was trying to tell you.

Hahaha.... Please. Make me laugh, more, MORE!

06/26/2013 01:25 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
You disregard traditional education, and yet the one thing you can learn from a traditional education is an appreciation for your history and why you are where you are today.

How are you so naive? Who the heck would go to school if they didn't teach that? I mean, seriously? "Lets make a school and teach people to be free-thinking... and possible to hate school and disrespect authority!".

There are reasons they subjugate and indoctrinate you with such mentalities (lets just say its "in their best interest").

06/26/2013 02:09 PMPosted by Ataraxia
Clearly, you're lacking a bit of intellectual satisfaction in your life.

I have my reasons, and you will never know them! :D

06/26/2013 02:09 PMPosted by Ataraxia
not show it off like a cheap trophy in a high school showcase.

Showing off? I guess you could see it that way, but may I remind you that this is the Internet. There is no shame, there is no pride. Do you think the way I am acting in this thread is something to be "proud" of? I didn't think so. Why, then, do you think I am showing off? Hahaha....

06/26/2013 02:09 PMPosted by Ataraxia
We figure out how to make the math work in our world, we don't figure out the math.

I am sorry, YOU may not figure out the math. That seems to be Tamerlane's flaw, too - he is just a copy/paste newb that has no clue what he is implementing (note to self - never hire Tamerlane or Ataraxia, they incorporate terrible coding philosophies!)

06/26/2013 02:09 PMPosted by Ataraxia
It's proof that you can and will jump through society's hoops

Rofl. You keep jumping, my friend! Less competition is always a plus. Meanwhile I will be making 80/hour while I browse sc2 forums as my code is compiling. ;)

Sure, you learn things... but you don't really learn until you begin to work in a field.

Computer programming IS logic. It IS logic incarnated.

Once you master logic through years of programming--implementing DNA sequence searching, particle simulators, real-time physics engines, GUI's, networking, statistical models, parallel computing and most importantly: Artificial Intelligence--mastering anything else based upon logic is a piece of cake because you have mastered logic.

Computers have application to EVERY area of science, and as your experience grows working on various projects your comprehension of each area of science it is incorporated with grows as well.

Sure, some newbs can learn the basics scrape by with copy/pasting code and/or importing other's peoples work. I am so glad I am not in that category. If you are one of them I challenge you to move up--become more: Understand the code and algorithms you are implementing, rather than blindly pasting it into your work.
Edited by tEhbAtZ on 6/26/2013 6:11 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 269
06/26/2013 06:02 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
There are reasons they subjugate and indoctrinate you with such mentalities (lets just say its "in their best interest").


Oh geez, you are a conspiracy nut. Never mind, no point in responding further - we will never get past your tin foil hat.

I will go continue reading discussions about how zerglings can or cannot make good pets, it's a more intellectual discussion than can be had with you.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,456
06/26/2013 06:30 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
Oh geez, you are a conspiracy nut.

Nah. Conspiracy theories fall too far outside the bounds of logic for me to appreciate. You might like them, though!

06/26/2013 06:30 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
Never mind, no point in responding further - we will never get past your tin foil hat.

There are people who have done it, but it takes an intellect far superior to yours! :)

06/26/2013 06:30 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
I will go continue reading discussions about how zerglings can or cannot make good pets, it's a more intellectual discussion than can be had with you.

Yes, get the last insult in before you leave! Excellent plan! If and when your IQ is high enough to play at this level feel free to come back and take another swing. Until then: toodaloo!
Edited by tEhbAtZ on 6/26/2013 6:38 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 260
Yes, get the last insult in before you leave! Excellent plan! If and when your IQ is high enough to play at this level


I'm sorry I've read everything so far, and I'm glad it ended with this. I really cracked up.

You can't be serious. Really? It's okay. I just hope everything's settled for a while.
Edited by Paladin on 6/26/2013 6:50 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 658
Now I know you're just trolling.

No rational human being could seriously expect a programmer to reinvent all the math behind Fourier transforms before implementing them. That would be as ridiculous as suggesting that I should re-develop the JPEG compression algorithm before using an image in a GUI I've written. If I wasted company time reinventing the wheel (something any seasoned coder would find to be repulsive), I would quickly find myself looking for new employment.

If you choose to reinvent the TCP/IP layer from the ground up (for example) before writing code to utilize a simple berkley socket, that is on you... but nobody will respect you for it. There is a significant difference between productive use of time, and an academic pursuit. Pet projects(as all academic pursuits really are) have their place... but not in a business. Not on the clock.

More directly, I just don't believe you do as you say you do. I don't believe you truly understand all of the code you claim to understand. I don't believe you even follow your own advice. I very much doubt you're capable of writing an entire compiling language and operating system from the ground up before beginning your 'numerous' more advanced projects. That's without even going into the hardware side of things, as Sanlumiere mentioned. Furthermore, if you ever did such a thing, I would question your sanity and intelligence. After all, part of 'intellect' is knowing not only how, but when and in what way you apply your time.

No, instead I think you're more around my level. I think you have a working understanding of the nuances of a compiler, of an OS, of hardware interfaces, etc. Enough to grasp what your code is doing on a level deeper than what the average programmer understands, would be my guess. I think you probably understand a lot of theory behind a lot of things, as well. I don't think your expertise goes nearly as deep as you think it goes, however. That is likely the greatest difference between your abilities and mine: you are very impressed with what you know. I do not share that weakness with you.

Tamerlane is correct: we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Some of us chose to ignore that fact, others choose to respect it.

In closing (and I will most certainly not post in this thread again) I would simply like to add that you remind me entirely too much of a Pastor. You consistently attempt to evoke an air of mysticism around your knowledge, and cast it as far beyond the rest of your audience's understanding. You focus your responses on [gently] downplaying the efforts and intellect of those around you [like a father passing down his wisdom to a young child], adding to that shroud of greatness you've worked to craft. When pressed, you provide a bare minimum of details designed to seem more impressive than they actually are, and again cloak them in that same air of mysticism. It consistently seems as if you are handing down some amazing tidbit of information that is somehow extremely impressive 'if only we had your understanding'.

This doesn't seem to be the right crowd for that sort of conversation style.
Reply Quote
Posts: 260
In closing (and I will most certainly not post in this thread again) I would simply like to add that you remind me entirely too much of a Pastor. You consistently attempt to evoke an air of mysticism around your knowledge, and cast it as far beyond the rest of your audience's understanding. You focus your responses on [gently] downplaying the efforts and intellect of those around you [like a father passing down his wisdom to a young child], adding to that shroud of greatness you've worked to craft. When pressed, you provide a bare minimum of details designed to seem more impressive than they actually are, and again cloak them in that same air of mysticism. It consistently seems as if you are handing down some amazing tidbit of information that is somehow extremely impressive 'if only we had your understanding'.


I like this a lot. I think there's an important lesson to be learned here. Thanks Ataraxia! Something for me to definitely reflect on.
Reply Quote
Posts: 269
Yes, get the last insult in before you leave! Excellent plan! If and when your IQ is high enough to play at this level feel free to come back and take another swing. Until then: toodaloo!


I will just have to hug my MSc from a notable English university and cry myself to sleep.

You seem obsessed with IQs. I wonder what number that facebook app told you that makes you feel so self-important.

I'm probably baiting you with that IQ part, I am sure your superior grasp of logic will allow you to deduce why.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,456
06/26/2013 06:55 PMPosted by Ataraxia
No rational human being could seriously expect a programmer to reinvent all the math behind Fourier transforms before implementing them.

If you choose to reinvent the TCP/IP layer from the ground up

Uh, no duh - you should really read a post before criticizing it. Right now you are just embarrassing yourself!

You know, I am absolutely amazed. I mean, even after I spoon feed it too you you still completely miss the point. Wow. I am just amazed how stupid some people can be. It's a shame, really. Maybe its your reading comprehension, maybe my banter was too strong and you weren't able to isolate the facts enough to think objectively, or maybe your just dumb. Probably the latter.

06/26/2013 06:55 PMPosted by Ataraxia
Tamerlane is correct: we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Some of us chose to ignore that fact, others choose to respect it.

Lol. LOL. LAWL! You should really, REALLY, REALLY read up on this thing called "logic" and quit plastering ENORMOUS errors all over your argument. How on earth do you honestly expect your opinion to hold any weight when you constantly demonstrate you lack the intellect to think logically?

Here is a challenge for you: Re-read my posts and then re-read your response. See if you can spot the fallacy in the above quote (or, rather, all over your post! yikes!)

06/26/2013 06:55 PMPosted by Ataraxia
I don't believe you truly understand all of the code you claim to understand.

Don't worry, I expected as much of you. Someone can't do it themselves, therefore it can't possibly be that someone else can do it. Sounds like a sore case of physiological projection - why are you on the defensive, horse? :D

06/26/2013 07:57 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
I will just have to hug my MSc from a notable English university and cry myself to sleep.

Yes, let it remind you of all those wasted years. I mean-seriously-just look at your posts across this thread. Your "notable English university" obviously didn't teach you much!

06/26/2013 07:57 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
You seem obsessed with IQs.

Just in this particular context. I am experimenting with it in my latest regime of tactics. So far, it seems to work fairly decent. There are other strategies that seem to be more effective, however.

06/26/2013 07:57 PMPosted by Sanlumiere
I am sure your superior grasp of logic will allow you to deduce why.

You really have no idea - you've been played. :D

06/26/2013 06:55 PMPosted by Ataraxia
When pressed, you provide a bare minimum of details designed to seem more impressive than they actually are

Hahahaha.... you really crack me up, kid. Lol. I give you plenty of information to ascertain the solution yourself, but apparently I over-estimated your intelligence and needed to dumb it down some more. Hahaha...

*shakes head*
Edited by tEhbAtZ on 6/27/2013 11:09 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 302
You're not macroing perfectly. You're in gold.

You could win every one of your games if you had the macro of someone like Life or Soulkey. But you don't. If you honestly believe your macro is flawless, than you're limiting your own improvement.
Reply Quote
Posts: 260
Tehbatz, I hope the best for you, and my intention in this post is that you realize you gain nothing legitimate talking to people like this. If your intention was to "win" you came at this the wrong way.

You'll tell yourself what you can to feel good, and that's okay but don't mistake this thread as you winning anything. You're only seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest. Your "arguments" are purely situational at best and lack context.

For example, someone above did note time management. I think you accidentally missed it. Lean methodologies are pretty common place right now and I assumed it was implied. If you wanted to talk about time management maybe that would have been a better direction to go in than the way you handled this.

Take it easy and try to relax a little bit. There are still nice people left on the boards. I would hate to think you spend your whole life so bitter at potential colleagues that you miss the point of society.
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,456
06/27/2013 10:38 AMPosted by Paladin
you gain nothing legitimate talking to people like this

Lol. When did you figure that out? Took you long enough. A person like me has little to gain from anyone, except maybe killing time.

06/27/2013 10:38 AMPosted by Paladin
If your intention was to "win" you came at this the wrong way.

One decides what one's goal is. If ones goal is to "win", one decides what constitutes a "win".

06/27/2013 10:38 AMPosted by Paladin
I think you accidentally missed it.

I made Ataraxia aware in a previous post I would not read his replies if he plastered a giant fallacy at the beginning of his post. Without fail he has done so every time hence.

06/27/2013 10:38 AMPosted by Paladin
miss the point of society.

Society isn't complex--Its simply a particle swarm optimizer. Its mechanics are fairly easy to work to one's advantage. Just because an individual exhibits a specific behavioral pattern on Battle.net does not imply it is indicative of their entire social nature.

06/27/2013 10:38 AMPosted by Paladin
Your "arguments" are purely situational at best and lack context.

Look a little deeper, friend. You might be surprised what you can find when you use your brain! :D
Reply Quote
Posts: 269
There were many things I was going to post.

I was going to note that thebats doesn't actually refute any opposing viewpoint, he merely eludes to a greater understanding in a vague, intentionally obtuse manner and challenges his "opponents" to figure the magical mystery and thus refute their own arguments so he doesn't have to - most likely because he can't.

I was going to say that thebats appears narcissistic, self-aggrandizing and a stereotypical pseudo-intellectual internet tough guy who feels this "intellectual sparring" is demonstrating to the world his perceived dominion over the universe (or whatever). It appears lost on him that actually intelligent, thoughtful people have read what he is typing and they have absolutely no clue what he is talking about.

It can only be assumed that is because Thebats doesn't know what he is talking about either.

I was going discuss IQ, and it's relative value as it relates to determining actual intelligence. In my days of being a "gifted" child, I was tested multiple times. I remain unconvinced that a higher IQ means much other than you are good at taking IQ tests.

And I was going to suggest that people read sentences like:

06/27/2013 10:55 AMPosted by tEhbAtZ
Society isn't complex--Its simply a particle swarm optimizer.


And ask, is it actually worth your time to respond more to this thebats guy when he clearly thinks we live in the matrix. Were you reading what I was typing... or were you looking at the girl in the red dress?

Then I noticed something cool about this forum, and all was good with the world.
Edited by Sanlumiere on 6/27/2013 4:23 PM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]