i wish there was an easier way to tell the difference between an “if it sucks hit da bricks” situation and a “sometimes being an adult means doing things that you dont wanna” situation
The best answer to this that I’ve seen is “You are free to do whatever you like. You must only live with the consequences.”
“If it sucks, hit da bricks” is for when you realize that you actually definitely can live with the consequences of Not Doing The Thing.
“Sometimes being an adult means doing things that you don’t wanna” is for when you’ve thought it over and it turns out you would strongly prefer NOT to live with the consequences of Not Doing The Thing.
I once wrote a 1500 word essay on something I’d forgotten to read in the 40 minutes before class. Including the time it took to read the thing I’d forgotten to read.
I got an A on that paper.
Writing is a skill. Skill is muscle. If you don’t use a muscle, it atrophies. If you are a student and you are tempted to use genAI to cheese an assignment, I am begging you for your own sake to not do it.
This is not a moral stance about genAI (which is shit at what it’s ostensibly for, and full of lies and evil, and fueled by art theft and burning rainforests, and there is no good reason to ever use it for anything; that’s the moral reason for why you shouldn’t use it), it is a purely pragmatic stance based on the fact that if you use it you will never learn the single most essential skill that is used in every single workplace.
You will never learn to bullshit.
And if you cannot bullshit, you will not understand when you are being fed bullshit by others.
For your own sake you must learn to do your own thinking, your own bullshitting, because our trashfire society runs on bullshit and for your own good you must become fluent in it, because very few people will bother to translate it for you. It was asinine in the late 90s, and it is asinine today, but it is the central truth of adult society: everything is bullshit, and you need to know what is going on beneath the bullshit, and you need to be able to bullshit back if necessary.
I know that the expectations being placed on you are ever-increasing, and I know that it does not seem rational to put effort into explaining the plot of a Charles Dickens novel to someone who has read the thing 50 times and will read 50 identical essays about it over the weekend. I know you are being handed ever-greater heaps of what is functionally mindless busywork because of an institutional obsession with metrics that don’t actually measure learning in a useful way. High school was nightmarish in the 90s and I am fully aware that it has only gotten worse.
Nevertheless, you must try, if only for your own sake. Curiosity is your best hope, and dogged determination your best weapon. Learn, please, if only out of spite.
I was able to get an A on that paper because I was able to skim the reading, figure out what it was about, and bullshit for 1500 words in the space of 40 minutes.
Imagine what you can do if you learn to bullshit like I can bullshit.
For my senior year of AP English, I was assigned reading over Easter break. We were instructed to read The Old Man And The Sea, and save the rest of the short stories in the book for the first week back.
Unfortunately, what I heard was “read everything BUT The Old Man And The Sea.”
Double unfortunately: the first day back was a test, on The Old Man And The Sea. Which I had read exactly zero words of. It was, notably, a short essay test. It wasn’t multiple choice or fill in the blank. It was designed to require deliberate answers from scratch, entirely out of your own head, with nothing to go on BUT what was in your head.
And in the course of about 45 minutes, I was able to use the questions of the test itself to piece together a vague enough sense of how the story went to bullshit my way through other questions. I gave wide, thematic answers that were extremely light on details, since I did not know any of them, and did not even know this test would be happening until it was in front of me. An essay test for an AP-level English class.
I had a starting point of zero information, and an essay test about the thing I was supposed to have read.
I bullshitted my way to a B+ on it.
On a test I should have gotten a ZERO on.
It’s been 16 years since I took that test.
I couldn’t tell you a damn thing about The Old Man And The Sea.
But you better fucking believe I still know how to bullshit, and when someone is trying to bullshit me.
The power and utility of knowing how bullshit works CANNOT be overstated. It is one of the most important skills you can ever have.
My favorite part of this is the little “Yet I’m still failing” at the bottom of the screencap. It’s not yet occurred to you to change something you’re doing? Maybe try not using ChatGPT?
I once wrote a 1500 word essay on something I’d forgotten to read in the 40 minutes before class. Including the time it took to read the thing I’d forgotten to read.
I got an A on that paper.
Writing is a skill. Skill is muscle. If you don’t use a muscle, it atrophies. If you are a student and you are tempted to use genAI to cheese an assignment, I am begging you for your own sake to not do it.
This is not a moral stance about genAI (which is shit at what it’s ostensibly for, and full of lies and evil, and fueled by art theft and burning rainforests, and there is no good reason to ever use it for anything; that’s the moral reason for why you shouldn’t use it), it is a purely pragmatic stance based on the fact that if you use it you will never learn the single most essential skill that is used in every single workplace.
You will never learn to bullshit.
And if you cannot bullshit, you will not understand when you are being fed bullshit by others.
For your own sake you must learn to do your own thinking, your own bullshitting, because our trashfire society runs on bullshit and for your own good you must become fluent in it, because very few people will bother to translate it for you. It was asinine in the late 90s, and it is asinine today, but it is the central truth of adult society: everything is bullshit, and you need to know what is going on beneath the bullshit, and you need to be able to bullshit back if necessary.
I know that the expectations being placed on you are ever-increasing, and I know that it does not seem rational to put effort into explaining the plot of a Charles Dickens novel to someone who has read the thing 50 times and will read 50 identical essays about it over the weekend. I know you are being handed ever-greater heaps of what is functionally mindless busywork because of an institutional obsession with metrics that don’t actually measure learning in a useful way. High school was nightmarish in the 90s and I am fully aware that it has only gotten worse.
Nevertheless, you must try, if only for your own sake. Curiosity is your best hope, and dogged determination your best weapon. Learn, please, if only out of spite.
I was able to get an A on that paper because I was able to skim the reading, figure out what it was about, and bullshit for 1500 words in the space of 40 minutes.
Imagine what you can do if you learn to bullshit like I can bullshit.
For my senior year of AP English, I was assigned reading over Easter break. We were instructed to read The Old Man And The Sea, and save the rest of the short stories in the book for the first week back.
Unfortunately, what I heard was “read everything BUT The Old Man And The Sea.”
Double unfortunately: the first day back was a test, on The Old Man And The Sea. Which I had read exactly zero words of. It was, notably, a short essay test. It wasn’t multiple choice or fill in the blank. It was designed to require deliberate answers from scratch, entirely out of your own head, with nothing to go on BUT what was in your head.
And in the course of about 45 minutes, I was able to use the questions of the test itself to piece together a vague enough sense of how the story went to bullshit my way through other questions. I gave wide, thematic answers that were extremely light on details, since I did not know any of them, and did not even know this test would be happening until it was in front of me. An essay test for an AP-level English class.
I had a starting point of zero information, and an essay test about the thing I was supposed to have read.
I bullshitted my way to a B+ on it.
On a test I should have gotten a ZERO on.
It’s been 16 years since I took that test.
I couldn’t tell you a damn thing about The Old Man And The Sea.
But you better fucking believe I still know how to bullshit, and when someone is trying to bullshit me.
The power and utility of knowing how bullshit works CANNOT be overstated. It is one of the most important skills you can ever have.
My favorite part of this is the little “Yet I’m still failing” at the bottom of the screencap. It’s not yet occurred to you to change something you’re doing? Maybe try not using ChatGPT?
“The trolley problem makes you ethically complacent because it releases you from a third option” the Trolley Problem is a fucking thought experiment, idiot, and a real-life comparison to matters where you DO NOT HAVE A THIRD FUCKING OPTION.
I feel like they did pick a third option. When given a messy decision, where good and evil isn’t black and white, they will break down and scream at clouds, rather than make a decision.
But in practice, this means no lever is pulled, simply by inaction. You don’t have time to think, and only one of two things is going to happen, however you dress it. Choose to walk away, or waste time cursing god for putting you there. In the end, the result is the same.
The trolley problem speaks to what is in someone’s heart, when all the chips are down, and you’ve got a terrible decision to make. We all know that the objective correct decision is to flip the switch to save the most lives. But could you really make yourself do it, if you were in that situation? Could you choose who lives and who dies, even for the greater good? Is that even your decision to make? And that’s why it’s such a good thought experiment.
But is it the objectively correct decision? I think most people would instinctively agree. It’s the most harm reduction, after all. But then you look at it more- is personally killing one innocent more moral than watching as five people die?
We look at variations- what if the single person is someone you love dearly? What if the single person is the sole scientist working on life saving research? What’s the most moral option to you? What do you think is the most morally correct? Which do you hold more responsibility for?
There’s the- I did not name or come up with this- fat man variation. You’re standing on a bridge over some train tracks. There are five people tied to them and the train is coming. You are the only one who can do something. You’re too small and too high up to do anything, but next to you is a man of the perfect size and weight to stop the trolley. All you have to do is push him off the edge and into the path to save those five. Is it more moral to murder him, or to let the five die? How different does it feel now? Is there an objectively correct option here?
And another one of my favorites. You are a surgeon. There are five people who desperately need organ transplants fast, or they’ll die. You do not have matching organs available to you. However, there is a perfectly healthy person in your custody whose organs would match all of the patients. He does not want to die to save them. Is it more moral to take his organs and kill him, or to let the five die?
That one has a very different result than the original trolley problem, doesn’t it? Sure, there’s other factors that we’ve created in the medical field, but ultimately, the medical field has decided that it is NOT more moral to save the five by killing one. The “objectively correct” decision would be to let the five die. When people and places do take organs by force, it’s horrifying.
What people see as the “objectively correct” decision changes completely based on context. It would also change based on moral philosophy. Utilitarianism, if I remember correctly, would always say that saving the five is more moral than saving the one… even in the organ donor problem. Some moral philosophies would say that inaction would not be a moral wrong, and that the moral wrong would be to personally take a life.
The trolley problem is wonderful. It makes you uncomfortable, it forces to you to make a binary choice, and more importantly, it forces you to think about why you made that choice. It questions underlying assumptions. If an option is “objectively correct”, why is that? If you’re so uncomfortable that you need to search for another option, why? What moral concepts are motivating that?
I love the trolley problem.
yeah the point of the problem is to force you to defend a position and say why pulling or not pulling the lever, or pushing the man, or not doing so, or whatever other variant is the best option given a binary choice. You can come up with a lot of reasons to defend either choice, it’s not a binary “this is why someone would pull the lever”, but you have to be honest with your consequences. People complaining there isn’t a third option are missing the point because they’re not answering the question.
Let’s use a physics example since the notes seem to like this metaphor. You are asked to give the rate at which something is accelerating down a slope. Complaining that the problem excludes the third option is like answering this physics problem with “well who put it on the slope”. Sure, it might be meaningful in a bigger picture, but it does nothing to answer the question in front of you. Every number in existence is a valid answer (though many are wrong), but “why is it on the slope?” isnt an answer.
However, by criticizing the problem people manage to avoid actually defending their positions. “I think 5 people dying is preferable to me killing 1 person” is a lot harder to say than “I shouldn’t have to make this choice”. What these people miss is that in life, you will be faced with hard choices, and even though it might not be fair that you have to make them, “this isn’t fair” is not its own choice.
I understand the value of artistic liberties but what exactly is Yugio’s haircut supposed to be. I’ve wondered this since childhood
Yes yes yes its just supposed to look interesting and cool, it’s not supposed to translate into the 3D space, but if it did what would it be
As we can see above, this haircut:
Is dark in the back, blached in the front
split into minimum two groupings: Body and Bangs
Spiked in the back, likely with the use of gel or styling mousse
Obviously this is an anime, and as other features such as eyes, ears, and legs are exaggerated I feel it is safe to interpret the length of hair as exagerrated as well.
This is a convenient assumption because otherwise, spiking shoulder-lrngth hair into seven (minimum) rigid vertical spikes would be impossible to maintain.
Assuming a real-life Yugio haircut could exist as inspiration got this style, I imagine a haircut that is either short and spiked in the back with natural bangs, or long in the back and textured with shorter bangs to frame the face. Either way, either the front is bleached, or the additional blond spikes in the back could be interpreted as highlights throughout the darker, perhaps natural hair.
Given these criteria, I have narrowed the possibilities dow to these three hair styles:
For research purposes please enter your interpretations to the poll attached below
So there is a definitive answer for this, according to the people I know who Cosplay Yugi/Yami of Yugioh and style wigs for it: They start with No-Bangs Bobcut , Dye it the appropriate colors but in the same pattern as “That Thing” (AKA ‘White bangs") above, usually by applying sucessive layers of warm colors (yellows, then reds, then warm blacks), and then Gel into a Hyper-Karen Bob.
So it’s a Red-shift-White-Bangs-Hyper-Karen-Bob cut-and-color, and that’s one hell of a mouthful, so it’s fine to just call it a Yugioh for short.
I think I may have a guess for this
Yugi and Atem have slightly different hair, with Atem having a more extreme version of Yugi’s hair. However, it is important to note that there is likely no actual physical difference in Yugi and Atem’s appearances. His close friends, before finding out Atem existed, simply noticed that Yugi seemed more confident, not that he got taller, voice changed or hair changed. So that might not be diegetic, but a difference for the audience’s sake.
It’s also worth noting that anime tends to exaggerate things, particularly hairstyles. So in reality, Yugi’s hair may be less like this:
But more like this:
This is a bonkers haircut for a shy, quiet, goody two shoes Japanese schoolboy to have
That’s cus he’s goth!
He wears chokers and stuff. He’s shy cus nobody talks to the weird goth kid who loves gaming.
It’s actually Visual Kei, though there was definitely overlap between the goth/punk subcultures and the Visual Kei world! The author was pretty openly inspired by the Visual Kei culture of the 80’s and 90’s, which has many many hairstyle examples that are similar to what Yugi wears:
The show itself had many collaborations with Visual Kei performers and bands, too, so it’s pretty obvious how the series takes inspiration from the culture aesthetically as well. You can see it in some of the fashion choices, too, not just the hairstyles, as well as how visual kei took cues from and overlapped with goth and punk styles as well:
It’s the costume designer in me, but I always think it’s important to remember and reference the period and location something was made when you’re trying to figure out why it was designed the way it was, and how to realistically recreate it.
Yugioh is very obviously of its time, and that’s a good thing! Take a dive into learning about the period subcultures and you’ll find lots of cool things there, and a lot of insight into why your favorite things were made the way they were, too. :)
his grandpa’s hair is uniformly grey but the same shape
so either he’s imitating the old man or it’s genetic
