so a fairly major bjj instructor/his gym/his fight team have always had a really brash, disrespectful kind of attitude. they would say "maybe 3% of the world is winners, the rest is losers, be the 3%"
now his gym has been affiliated with two rapes (including one for which he was allegedly present) and he hasn't done any sort of mea culpa, no warning word, nothing.
so the bjj community has totally rounded on him and now dudes are getting patches on their gis "97%", with all sales going towards support groups and such
warms my cockles
Awesome! People who miss out on the character building aspect of martial arts make me sad, glad to see that most of the community there gets it.
this is for @spacekungfuman, but I am tossing it in [chat] for general amusement:
Alright. I meditated on this a little bit. Let me try to characterize your narrative, if I got it right.
We stylize firms as essentially learning entities that might not be aware that they can dispense with employees. If they are obliged to dispense with employees, they may discover that they never really needed them, and so they never re-hire them. Thus, following firms doing this en masse, we may expect the level of workforce participation to decrease permanently.
Let me point out some similarities in the literature. There's the loose notion of the bezzle that might appeal to you, due to John K. Galbraith and is generally associated with Minsky and the post-Keynesians:
In many ways the effect of the crash on embezzlement was more significant than on suicide. To the economist embezzlement is the most interesting of crimes. Alone among the various forms of larceny it has a time parameter. Weeks, months or years may elapse between the commission of the crime and its discovery. (This is a period, incidentally, when the embezzler has his gain and the man who has been embezzled, oddly enough, feels no loss. There is a net increase in psychic wealth.) At any given time there exists an inventory of undiscovered embezzlement in – or more precisely not in – the country’s business and banks. This inventory – it should perhaps be called the bezzle – amounts at any moment to many millions of dollars. It also varies in size with the business cycle. In good times people are relaxed, trusting, and money is plentiful. But even though money is plentiful, there are always many people who need more. Under these circumstances the rate of embezzlement grows, the rate of discovery falls off, and the bezzle increases rapidly. In depression all this is reversed. Money is watched with a narrow, suspicious eye. The man who handles it is assumed to be dishonest until he proves himself otherwise. Audits are penetrating and meticulous. Commercial morality is enormously improved. The bezzle shrinks.
Conversely, from the right-wing and the Austrians, there's the notion of the Austrian-type 'entrepreneur', who has to discover unknown profit opportunities:
But in the Austrian context a decision can be corrected as a result of the decision-maker's discovery of an earlier error in his view of the world. Whereas earlier plans had overlooked available profit opportunities (as, for example, where some buyers buy goods at high prices, that were being sold elsewhere in the same market for lower prices), subsequent plans can be expected to reflect discovery of the profit opportunities implicit in (and constituted by) the earlier plans.
After all, it may be objected from the mainstream economist's point of view, if an available opportunity for profit was universally overlooked yesterday, why should we expect that opportunity to be noticed today? It is not as if that profit opportunity was the object of systematic search (in which case it might be expected that a time consuming search process would identify it sooner or later). An opportunity for pure profit cannot, by its nature, be the object of systematic search. Systematic search can be undertaken for a piece of missing information, but only because the searcher is aware of the nature of what he does not know, and is aware with greater or lesser certainty of the way to find out the missing information. In the economics of search literature, therefore, search is correctly treated as any other deliberate process of production. But it is in the nature of an overlooked profit opportunity that it has been utterly overlooked, i.e., that one is not aware at all that one has missed the grasping of any profit. From the neoclassical perspective, therefore, a missed opportunity might seem (except as a result of sheer, fortuitous good luck) to be destined for permanent obscurity.
It is here that the Austrian perspective offers a new insight, into the nature of surprise and discovery. When one becomes aware of what one had previously overlooked, one has not produced knowledge in any deliberate sense. What has occurred is that one has discovered one's previous (utterly unknown) ignorance. What distinguishes discovery (relevant to hitherto unknown profit opportunities) from successful search (relevant to the deliberate production of information which one knew one had lacked) is that the former (unlike the latter) involves that surprise which accompanies the realization that one had overlooked some- thing in fact readily available. ("It was under my very nose!") This feature of discovery characterizes the entrepreneurial process of the equilibrating market.
Kirzner is not, I think, being very fair to the neoclassicals, but it is true that the Austrians make a bigger thing out of this that the neoclassicals do; this is because neoclassicals expect that people place zero expectation on the fruits of things they don't expect to happen, whereas Austrians don't:
Without knowing what to look for, without deploying any deliberate search technique, the entrepreneur is at all times scanning the horizon, as it were, ready to make discoveries. Each such discovery will be accompanied by a sense of surprise (at one's earlier unaccountable ignorance). An entrepreneurial attitude is one which is always ready to be surprised, always ready to take the steps needed to profit by such surprises. The notion of discovery, midway between that of the deliberately produced information in standard search theory, and that of sheer windfall gain generated by pure chance, is central to the Austrian approach profit opportunities created by earlier entrepreneurial error do tend systematically to stimulate subsequent entrepreneurial discovery. The entrepreneurial process so set into motion, is a process tending toward better mutual awareness among market participants. The lure of pure profit in this way sets up the process through which pure profit tends to be competed away.
Me, being decidedly neoclassical, will resentfully note that Kirzner cannot seem to decide whether the entrepreneurial process is rationally profitable or not, despite being admittedly costly to undertake. If it is deliberately pursued, then it is deliberate; Kirzner is handwaving. But that's not really the point. Rather, the point is that this is a wonderful and coherent idea, with a presence in diverse schools of thought in economics.
But it has some odd aggregate properties. Consider a single firm. Let us say that the firm discovers a profit opportunity in dispensing with employees that it has discovered to be negative-value-generating, and pursues it. Since this a profitable opportunity, the firm must be better off - it must be making more profit, gaining more in reduced wage payments than it lost in the value the employee generated. Sensible, right?
Now: what happens to the profit generated?
Surely it must go somewhere. If the firm spends it, then someone sells marginally more investment goods. If the shareholders take it instead and consume it, then someone sells marginally more consumption goods. If someone loses the savings down the couch, then there's deflation and everyone else's stuff gets a little easier to buy. For one firm dismissing workers, this effect is negligible. But if every firm dismisses workers, then this effect is huge. Suddenly there is a surge of business! That would provoke hiring, and the effect would be shuffling of workers around to jobs at their lower, true marginal productivity, not lower workforce participation.
Thus, in the aggregate there is no self-evident reason to link many individual firms dismissing workers to an aggregate lower workforce participation rate, be it through entrepreneurial discovery, 'bezzle' discovery, or... straightforward technological advancement. Y'know. There are no hordes of unemployed horse-cart drivers haunting the street.
It is a possible outcome, mind you. We could cheat and argue that workers were shuffled to household production (aka homemaking) and vanished from the economic statistics whilst still doing work (but this would imply remarkably little unemployment, as when countries demobilized following WW2 and ejected women from the workforce).
Or, more in the spirit of the argument, we could say that the discovery is "really" that the advancement is so large that there is a vast aggregate pursuit of leisure instead of consumption, and thus the hike in demand is not enough to overcome the fall in labour demand. So people work less. That's a completely fair idea and is exhibited in the rise of the five-and-a-half-day workweek during the Depression, plus longer and longer non-working years and holiday periods. It's accepted in long-term growth. Unfortunately, it is generally mocked in the context of short-term business because of the implausible implication that people are positively celebrating how unemployed they are, that the collapse in workforce participation is due to a preference for not being employed! It is very hard to reconcile the palpable suffering with a hypothesis that implies a positive-value discovery.
Now heterodox economists are not really this dumb and are quite aware that they need to justify the feeling of impoverishment in recessions. Real Business Cycle theory invokes technology shocks: glibly, people are less productive, and leave. Austrian theory invokes malinvestment: glibly, people were never as productive as they thought they were, and leave. The problem with these are in the details; for instance, Austrian theory requires that consumption falls during booms, as resources are siphoned into investment to exploit the illusory productivity - which is just as unbelievable.
Specifically teamfight nuker, since his ult does insane damage if it bounces between heroes. If he uses it when only one enemy is around it is not too dangerous, or if creep are around it will bounce to them too. Similar to moon queen/luna but with the extra pre-requisite that there is at least two heroes.
So in a teamfight it will do a combined damage of about 2000+.
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I had a really good time playing Juggernaut. HoN copied him over almost exactly, he is so good.
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Lich also hurts early game cs for the opposing team as long as you repeatedly eat your ranged creep.
omnomnomnom
I solo laned him earlier today, totally demolished in my lane but I had trouble later because I still struggle with understanding what item names correspond to what I'm used to. And the other team had like 2 or even 3 invis heroes that I didn't know what their skills were.
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Lich also hurts early game cs for the opposing team as long as you repeatedly eat your ranged creep.
omnomnomnom
I solo laned him earlier today, totally demolished in my lane but I had trouble later because I still struggle with understanding what item names correspond to what I'm used to. And the other team had like 2 or even 3 invis heroes that I didn't know what their skills were.
Posts
Awesome! People who miss out on the character building aspect of martial arts make me sad, glad to see that most of the community there gets it.
If CPU uses it: 5 times, all crits
If you use it: 2 times, no crits
Alright. I meditated on this a little bit. Let me try to characterize your narrative, if I got it right.
We stylize firms as essentially learning entities that might not be aware that they can dispense with employees. If they are obliged to dispense with employees, they may discover that they never really needed them, and so they never re-hire them. Thus, following firms doing this en masse, we may expect the level of workforce participation to decrease permanently.
Let me point out some similarities in the literature. There's the loose notion of the bezzle that might appeal to you, due to John K. Galbraith and is generally associated with Minsky and the post-Keynesians:
Conversely, from the right-wing and the Austrians, there's the notion of the Austrian-type 'entrepreneur', who has to discover unknown profit opportunities:
Kirzner is not, I think, being very fair to the neoclassicals, but it is true that the Austrians make a bigger thing out of this that the neoclassicals do; this is because neoclassicals expect that people place zero expectation on the fruits of things they don't expect to happen, whereas Austrians don't:
Me, being decidedly neoclassical, will resentfully note that Kirzner cannot seem to decide whether the entrepreneurial process is rationally profitable or not, despite being admittedly costly to undertake. If it is deliberately pursued, then it is deliberate; Kirzner is handwaving. But that's not really the point. Rather, the point is that this is a wonderful and coherent idea, with a presence in diverse schools of thought in economics.
But it has some odd aggregate properties. Consider a single firm. Let us say that the firm discovers a profit opportunity in dispensing with employees that it has discovered to be negative-value-generating, and pursues it. Since this a profitable opportunity, the firm must be better off - it must be making more profit, gaining more in reduced wage payments than it lost in the value the employee generated. Sensible, right?
Now: what happens to the profit generated?
Surely it must go somewhere. If the firm spends it, then someone sells marginally more investment goods. If the shareholders take it instead and consume it, then someone sells marginally more consumption goods. If someone loses the savings down the couch, then there's deflation and everyone else's stuff gets a little easier to buy. For one firm dismissing workers, this effect is negligible. But if every firm dismisses workers, then this effect is huge. Suddenly there is a surge of business! That would provoke hiring, and the effect would be shuffling of workers around to jobs at their lower, true marginal productivity, not lower workforce participation.
Thus, in the aggregate there is no self-evident reason to link many individual firms dismissing workers to an aggregate lower workforce participation rate, be it through entrepreneurial discovery, 'bezzle' discovery, or... straightforward technological advancement. Y'know. There are no hordes of unemployed horse-cart drivers haunting the street.
It is a possible outcome, mind you. We could cheat and argue that workers were shuffled to household production (aka homemaking) and vanished from the economic statistics whilst still doing work (but this would imply remarkably little unemployment, as when countries demobilized following WW2 and ejected women from the workforce).
Or, more in the spirit of the argument, we could say that the discovery is "really" that the advancement is so large that there is a vast aggregate pursuit of leisure instead of consumption, and thus the hike in demand is not enough to overcome the fall in labour demand. So people work less. That's a completely fair idea and is exhibited in the rise of the five-and-a-half-day workweek during the Depression, plus longer and longer non-working years and holiday periods. It's accepted in long-term growth. Unfortunately, it is generally mocked in the context of short-term business because of the implausible implication that people are positively celebrating how unemployed they are, that the collapse in workforce participation is due to a preference for not being employed! It is very hard to reconcile the palpable suffering with a hypothesis that implies a positive-value discovery.
Now heterodox economists are not really this dumb and are quite aware that they need to justify the feeling of impoverishment in recessions. Real Business Cycle theory invokes technology shocks: glibly, people are less productive, and leave. Austrian theory invokes malinvestment: glibly, people were never as productive as they thought they were, and leave. The problem with these are in the details; for instance, Austrian theory requires that consumption falls during booms, as resources are siphoned into investment to exploit the illusory productivity - which is just as unbelievable.
i bet @kalkino has been preserved in a glacier and @mojo_jojo is studying the corpse
sweep the leg
Hm, no, that was the previous election.
I am betting it won't last long enough for anyone to finish watching it
He gives you the M?
is there really a show called Mike and Molly where the shtick is that they're a fat couple
really
Greece still has mildly positive inflation, apparently. Intriguing.
Agree.
Though he isn't strictly a carry in HoN, but if you don't kill him quickly in a team fight you're gonna have a bad time.
It can be devastating if not properly controlled.
Specifically teamfight nuker, since his ult does insane damage if it bounces between heroes. If he uses it when only one enemy is around it is not too dangerous, or if creep are around it will bounce to them too. Similar to moon queen/luna but with the extra pre-requisite that there is at least two heroes.
So in a teamfight it will do a combined damage of about 2000+.
what's up, ell?
omnomnomnom
Lich is more "yeah split up when you see that coming, no point eating more damage than you really have to"
I suppose HoN swapped out his QWE as well, then
'yeah... kind of got a late start this morning, sorry'
he'll be here 2 hours after the appointed time 2_2
I solo laned him earlier today, totally demolished in my lane but I had trouble later because I still struggle with understanding what item names correspond to what I'm used to. And the other team had like 2 or even 3 invis heroes that I didn't know what their skills were.
I'm in a solo instance, the door is blocked, the npc I'm supposed to be fighting is bugged out and invincible, I'm locked in combat, and I can't die.
and we hadn't seen dredd so we watched that
i was entertained
I....wow.
Wow.
What happens if you log out?
I think the QWE is the same actually. Though I haven't compared stats I think all around he does way more damage in HoN.
What's up?
I can't log out
I'm in combat
I shan't. To me you will forever be Lord of the Dance
(Listing was. . . "Loves to cook")
Hang in there, Honk. You'll get it.
Are you playing with other PA dudes?