bruthafez

8 ms·

1.
by bruthafez 8y ago
That's fair. Sorry dude ! :)
2.
by bruthafez 8y ago
I'm with u dude, it's extremely odd phrasing to say that the airbnb "LETS" you run the bookstore when the article makes clear that running the bookstore is a requirement of staying at the airbnb. There's no option d
3.
by bruthafez 8y ago
He's not the greatest solo climber g, he's the greatest solo climber who doesn't use ropes.
4.
by bruthafez 8y ago
I did not miss the word "solo." Honnold is not the worlds greatest solo climber by a Longshot. He's the greatest "free solo" climber. A ton of solo climbers are way better than him, they just use ropes
5.
by bruthafez 8y ago
The idea that honnold is the world's greatest climber is patently absurd and false, he's just the only dude willing to do the crazy solos without a harness -- aka the world's most risk taking climber. But "greatest climb
6.
by bruthafez 8y ago
Serial was basically a Black Swan event dude, no one I know listens to narrative audio content when they could watch narrative video content instead. It's true that listening is easier to do on the move, but people just prefer to liste
7.
by bruthafez 8y ago
You appear not to understand the concept of a safe word. The entire point of a safe word is that it is SHORT and MEMORABLE, not long and generic. "I quit the experiment" is a highly generic phrase, easily forgotten. Calling that p
8.
by bruthafez 8y ago
For real. This dude could have just said "the lone wolf alpha-male archetype is rooted in truth" and then wrote a listicle supporting his points and he would have gotten his argument across so much better. He formatted it as a lon
9.
by bruthafez 8y ago
Zimbardo has lost all credibility, the fact that this begins with anything but a point-by-point refutation of the Medium article just highlights that fact. The Medium article was highly illuminating and included so many different sources th
10.
by bruthafez 8y ago
This reminds me of the recent Johnny Depp Rolling Stone article a truly hilarious amount. Lolol
11.
by bruthafez 8y ago
Realest HN comment of the day. Damore ignored all natural laws (re: conform or get ostracized) to try and make a point about how natural laws will always assert themselves. Ironically he proved his own point that natural laws will always as
12.
by bruthafez 8y ago
> siosonel 1 hour ago | parent | on: Harvard discrimination lawsuit: data show penaliza... "... I bet you cry during political speeches ... half-assed ... can't even believe ... " You make a very unemotional, well reasone
13.
by bruthafez 8y ago
I Dunno dude we were talking about fairness in admissions and now you're talking about the goals of colleges. I agree different colleges have different goals. I'm just saying that taking finances into consideration is so gameable
14.
by bruthafez 8y ago
I never said it was impossible to be discriminated against based on race. Obviously it is. And obviously race exists. I was pointing out the absurdity of colleges factoring race into admissions while simultaneously employing professors who
15.
by bruthafez 8y ago
What differences? Just saying that height, facial attractiveness/symmetry, weight etc all could (unquantifiably but obviously) easily outweigh race in terms of societal privilege and it's just absurd to cherry pick the issue of ra
16.
by bruthafez 8y ago
Yes it's better but still so gameable it's essentially unusable. Also if you factor in assets reported to the IRS it would be damn near impossible not to be biased towards kids whose families have more assets and thus higher chanc
17.
by bruthafez 8y ago
>Correcting the effects of slavery is much more important because its effects are much more pervasive. Uh, source? You're just making an arbitrary value judgement. Who are you to compare the effects of racism-against-blacks against
18.
by bruthafez 8y ago
>The idea that we can create distinct categories based on skin colour is incredibly misguided. Yet the "idea" that we can create distinct categories based on geographical heritage is not only not-misguided, it's obvious. Y
19.
by bruthafez 8y ago
>There aren't massive systematic factors working to negatively affect specific slices of those population groupings. It's not a good comparison. Yes there are massive systemic factors working against people disadvantaged in tho
20.
by bruthafez 8y ago
Even that would make little sense. Jeff Bezos' income is $0 (or maybe $1, can't remember) — you really think his kids would be disadvantaged tho? That just massively incentivizes financial trickery in order to reduce stated income
21.
by bruthafez 8y ago
Real talk. $136,000? That's just "the cost of doing business." That fine is so small it's almost like, nice to the guy they're fining.