Makaze

Afternoon...

I... can't think of anything. Maybe I haven't changed that much in terms of tastes... Thought of it. Minarchism.

Yes. There were three options: A, B and C. At this point, each has 1/3 chance of being pardoned. The judge then has to name one person who will be executed to A. A never learns about their fate. The judge must choose between the other two options. If the judge eliminates B, A has not learned anything because no matter what the judge will pick B or C. However, having picked B, C now knows the identity of at least one of the others and knows that they were not picked. Consider the following: Scenario 1: A will be pardoned. The warden must flip a coin. They get B. (1/6) Scenario 2: A will be pardoned. The warden must flip a coin. They get C. (1/6) Scenario 3: B will be pardoned. The warden must tell A that C will be executed. (1/3) Scenario 4: C will be pardoned. The warden must tell A that B will be executed. (1/3) The judge choosing B eliminates Scenarios 2 and 3, leaving us with two unequal options: Scenario 1: A will be pardoned. The warden must flip a coin. They get B. (1/6) Scenario 2: C will be pardoned. The warden must tell A that B will be executed. (1/3) The judge is twice as likely to say that B will be executed if C will be pardoned than they are to say that B will be executed if both will be executed. Therefore the probability that C will be pardoned is 2/3.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=14905&page=26066#entry2901735 -> now.

Um... I advise against it. You'll only hate yourself and others more for it. If you decide to dissent because it isn't good for you, dishonorable discharge will make things worse for you outside of the military. All around a bad deal.

Wow. I am harsh.

Your friend from university gives you a book which you read over a span of days. You like it enough that you want to give it another friend, but they left for the holidays on the day you got the book. You go back in time and leave the book in the dorm where you know they will find it before they leave. You go back to the future, believing everything is set. Your past self finds the book before your friend and reads it over a span of days. They like it enough that they want to give it another friend, but your friend left for the holidays on the day your past self got the book. When your past self reaches the present, they go back in time and leave the book in the dorm for their friend again. This creates an infinite stable loop. You will always go back in time and give yourself the book and you will always return to the present, leaving the book behind. Your current self goes back to the future and the world goes on as normal. As a side effect, you have erased the event of receiving the book and created a copy of the book so that both you and the friend who gave you the book have a copy of the same book for the duration of the loop. You could get a similar effect if you set it up so that your friend would get the book but you would not know it. As long as you believe your friend has not read the book, you will always go back in time to give it to them. This would not erase the act of being given the book but would create two permanent copies of the book at the same time. The key to a stable loop is to not alter the knowledge that you had when you decided to go back in time. If what you do in the past doesn't change the things that affected your decision, it can happen. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban had an example of this, but with one problem in the film:

I have no regrets.

Very well. /gets juice Is this a bad time to mention that I posted in the thread?

What is it? After some study I have to the conclusion that it is possible under very particular circumstances.

Hahaha. I only looked at the thread because you linked me, but I did have a reason for challenging you here. I often see people making fun of extremists within their own group. The existence of these people is not funny to me because they undermine the cause and you. Most people who mock them do so to use them to make a caricature of a whole group. A group that includes far more rational people. While you understand them to be radicals only posturing, those who read what you post will take them to be the very core of the movement. It will not stop there. If you bring up someone worse at a later time, that new person will become their new face of the movement. They will take whatever they can get and throw it back in your face when you make a reasonable statement in line with it. They want to look down on you.

That's too bad. I would have liked to hear those better defenses. And after you posted popcorn, too.

No disagreement. I'm not seeing where she succeeds. There is a factor someone else brought up that is better defense than yours: Link saves the day because he is the protagonist. Of course the protagonist will beat the boss. The problem is that he disproportionately saves damsels in distress. It's a common trope that is even more common in Zelda. It happens multiple times in most of the games. While Zelda and Sheik are powerful enough to easily out-strip Link in any fight, they do not. This applies to Sheik to a lesser extent, but again, Sheik is decidedly masculine during these parts of the game. It is this masculinity that appears to give her strength, not just physically but of character. As soon as she is turns into Zelda she becomes a symbol of quiet feminine dignity. Zelda is constantly treated as a prize to be fought over. While you could argue that defeating Ganon is the goal of the game, Link would not set out if not to save Zelda, who can actually save herself. Many other female characters fall to the same flaw. They have powerful abilities but for some reason still need saving. On their own, this would not be a problem. Were there more males in similar positions, this would not be a problem. But there are not. This type of 'holding back when playing a girl' stereotype harkens back to distinct Feudal-era Japanese standards that live on in Japan's culture today. If you went on a train ride in Japan today and did not take one of the women only cars, you would be expected to make no fuss if or when someone began feeling you up. Both the other women in the car and the men would take more issue with you making a fuss than that you were being molested. The reason? Calling out is a masculine thing to do. No, this is not an exaggeration. This has happened to people I know. Sexism in Japanese media is easy to see as harmless when you have people defending womens' honor in Western cultures, but in reality, the sexism is far more subtle and pervasive than in most Western countries. Would it be worth posting these comments on that site?

You seem reasonable (though I cannot understand the first sentence of that last paragraph). I'm having trouble understanding why you seem so derisive towards the OP. They were completely off base about Dark Link, but they hit the mark on a few things. There were several instances where it was explained how Sheik and Tetra's portrayals were sexist in all of the games they were portrayed in. You already get Tetra's, so I'll move on. Both Zelda and Sheik consistently fail to defeat any kind of enemy without help. Sheik's gender is portrayed as male and this makes the reveal that she is Zelda even stronger. While Sheik was dependent on her own, the moment she becomes a Princess again she becomes weak and frail. There seems to be a strong, consistent theme that femininity means frailty and dependence on male counterparts. The fact that the Gerudo are all female except for one male is inexplicable and raises my eyebrows by itself. Why are there no males? This becomes even more pronounced by the fact that they view the only male of their race, Ganandorf, as a righteous leader despite his both looking differently and having different behaviors from them. The female majority inexplicably chose a leader who represented them only in name. This leader happened to be a man. This would never happen in a real society and is definite cause for questions of sexism; if not active sexism, then passive. It seems the designers simply assumed they needed a male to lead the culture. There is no rational explanation for this occurrence. It is also a good point that Link could be given the option of being a girl with little to no change to the story in all but perhaps one game. The racist undertones are quite strong, but I do not think they are as offensive because Japan does not have a history with it like the West does. Ignorance is different from entrenched prejudice. Despite that, it would be offensive if you were from the Middle East and played Zelda, seeing yourself portrayed as a race and culture of disgusting foreign thieves. All of these good points were brought up by people other than the OP, which is why I say that they asked the right questions but were on the wrong track. There were problems to be found, but they weren't the ones the OP was finding.

I read the OP carefully and am on page 3. The OP is asking good questions, but lacks the sense to answer them for themselves. All of their points about females are valid, but their points about racism are largely unfounded. The others in the thread are equally bad at getting to the heart of the problem. Two questions. Do you hold an anti-feminist mindset? Do you think that these questions about racism should not be brought up?

Sounds like the OP has valid, if misguided points that others are bad at correcting.

It isn't beneficial to us. That's why I respect it. I have more respect for independent people than dependent people. I don't see animals as owned assets, but as companions. If I can't respect them, there will be problems.

But reminding you might not be of use to me.

10/10 Would slap knee.

Zeno's paradoxes are some of my favourites, along with: Unexpected hanging paradox Prisoner's dilemma Willpower as a paradox Not a paradox, but a problem in game theory: Guess 2/3 of the average

Domestic cats are the only (or first) known species to approach humans on their own. Domestic cats are opportunistic survivalists. They love humans because they are useful to them. They are less loyal than dogs because they prefer themselves over others. They see humans as equals or pets and do not try to protect their housemates. These are reasons to like cats, not dislike them. Loyalty to a friend that has outlived their usefulness is a waste, not a virtue.

Norway is in a similar way, but even they had those outbursts of insanity not too long ago. People don't fear back alley murders. They fear things they don't expect, like someone shooting people up for no apparent reason.

People have been attacking each other since before the bronze age... The problem is always human...

　／l、 （ﾟ､ ｡ ７ 　l、 ~ヽ 　じしf_, )ノ Mreow.

Beautiful work. Awe-inspiring. Never give it up. Your skills could be worth a lot to the right buyer and your audience sure loves them.