• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

Pet Peeves v. 5.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fjones said:
6) pedestrians don't even appreciate the stupid law that has given them power over a 3000 pound vehicle. Instead of attempting to cross in a timely manner, they often stroll across the street in a most leisurely manner, almost mocking the cars for having to sit there and wait for them.
Click to expand...

[Seymour can't wait for two mothers and their many kids to cross an intersection]
Seymour: What are we, in slow motion here? C'mon, what are you, hypnotized? Have some more kids, why don't you.

0.jpg
 
Fjones said:
you checked all 4 previous threads? :?:?:?:?:?:?

I tip my hat. Still, for a (mostly) guess, I was close.
Click to expand...

I actually only checked this thread.
When I'm not as stoned. 8)
Can I say "stoned" in SO????




EDIT: Total at this point, you have posted 14.02% of allllllllllllllllll Pet Peeve threads/posts (including this one)
 
Last edited:
Fjones said:
Traffic/pedestrian pet peeve:

In a crosswalk in the middle of the street with no traffic light, why do pedestrians have automatic right of way with cars forced to yield to them?
Click to expand...
because a person driving a car is no more important than a person on foot.

it's a facet of a civilised society. all a car needs to do is stop for a few seconds and then continue on its way. it's really not a big deal. if a driver doesn't understand how it works, then he's at fault, not the rule.

-----

why oh why does every single fucking youtube video have to have such wildly different volume levels? :X
 
Why does everyone on youtube focus their comments on the negatives for a cheap laugh & try to get a thumb up approval. Shit is tired yo.
 
Why don't you all just ignore the comments and watch the video? Isn't that the reason you opened the page?
 
AmorRoark said:
Pretty sure that confuses people more... There is a lot easier way of explaining this.
Click to expand...

eh. there are 5 or 6 different ways of explaining it. But most of the other ones elicit confused stares from people. They can't get past the "Well, there's two doors left so it's 50-50" line of thinking.

That is why the Monte Hall problem fools people initially - because with only three doors to start with, removing one door doesn't dramatically change the number of doors involved.

They need to understand that what the problem is really asking is, "Do you think you originally picked the right door from among the three doors?"

Using an example with many more doors will make it more clear that the
originally chosen door was incorrect.

I am not sure why a larger number of doors would confuse people more.

The example could be done with a deck of cards and the ace of spades. Eventually, after I keep turning over the ace of spades in my hand (after removing 50 wrong cards and offering the person to keep his original card or change to the one in my hand), I think the person would realize that switching is the right thing to do.

As it happens, when this problem was published in Marilyn Vos Savant's column, some mathematicians were writing in arguing with her.
 
felix said:
because a person driving a car is no more important than a person on foot.

it's a facet of a civilised society. all a car needs to do is stop for a few seconds and then continue on its way. it's really not a big deal. if a driver doesn't understand how it works, then he's at fault, not the rule.
Click to expand...

What you just wrote is pretty much the opposite of correct, and ignored my entire post.

1) Yes, a person driving a car is no more important than a person walking, AND VICE VERSA. So why do they give SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANCE to the person walking?

Also, in case you missed it in my original post, there's a flow of traffic argument to me made that applies to cars but not to pedestrians. Many driving laws are designed solely for the purpose of keeping the flow of traffic moving as swiftly as possible, so why not apply the same approach to pedestrian crossing laws?

2) As for your second point - Are you serious? Did you somehow completely misunderstand my post? the cars have to wait a LOT longer than people. 4 or 5 cars could go b in the time it takes ONE person to clear the crosswalk. SO actually, it would be correct to say, "All the PERSON has to do it wait a few seconds for the car to go by, then cross." I am not sure how you flipped this around by switching PERSON with CAR in my previous sentence.

Furthermore, you then say "If a car doesn't understand this, it's his fault and not the law's fault." Huh? What does a driver's COMPREHENSION of a law have to do with whether the law makes SENSE or not? I UNDERSTAND the existence and wording of the law just fine; I just happen to disagree with it.
 
cletus said:
Why does everyone on youtube focus their comments on the negatives for a cheap laugh & try to get a thumb up approval. Shit is tired yo.
Click to expand...

Because there are a lot of really stupid people out there who actually think their inane drivel is clever or funny. Sad as it is to say, most of these people actually think they are making insightful remarks or valuable contributions. They don't realize they are too stupid for their ill-thought opinions to matter. I blame this on the educational system that has this fantasy that all people are smart enough to "be whatever they want to be in life." The sooner we realize the futility of that approach, the better. If someone isn't very bright, we should try to push him toward a vocation of some sort where he actually has a chance to make a nice career for himself despite his intellectual shortcomings.
 
silentangst said:
Why don't you all just ignore the comments and watch the video? Isn't that the reason you opened the page?
Click to expand...

"looks liek 1 person duzznt liek mi peeve lol rofl lmao!"

Yes, this is an option. I'm merely commenting on the fact that each person who posts one of these mundane responses thinks they are being original, but it seems like every video on there has the same bullshit as the highest rated comment. It's my peeve, so it's my right to be annoyed by it =D
 
Fjones said:
1) Yes, a person driving a car is no more important than a person walking, AND VICE VERSA. So why do they give SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANCE to the person walking?
Click to expand...
Because fossil fuel burning motor vehicles are evil, toxic, deadly things that should be discouraged at all times and in as many ways as possible. Like, gas should cost at least $1000/gal. Legs, on the other hand, rarely kill, maim, or pollute anything.
 
Fjones said:
What you just wrote is pretty much the opposite of correct, and ignored my entire post.
Click to expand...
uh no, i read and understood your post completely, i just happen to disagree with it.
Fjones said:
Furthermore, you then say "If a car doesn't understand this, it's his fault and not the law's fault." Huh? What does a driver's COMPREHENSION of a law have to do with whether the law makes SENSE or not? I UNDERSTAND the existence and wording of the law just fine; I just happen to disagree with it.
Click to expand...

i was referring to this part:

2) It causes cars to behave unpredictably, since different drivers yield differently in this situation (meaning, some drivers will come to screeching halt if a pedestrian is 25 feet away from the crosswalk even though the car and about three more cars behind it would have easily gone before the pedestrian reached the crosswalk)
Click to expand...
 
Fjones said:
eh. there are 5 or 6 different ways of explaining it. But most of the other ones elicit confused stares from people. They can't get past the "Well, there's two doors left so it's 50-50" line of thinking.

That is why the Monte Hall problem fools people initially - because with only three doors to start with, removing one door doesn't dramatically change the number of doors involved.

They need to understand that what the problem is really asking is, "Do you think you originally picked the right door from among the three doors?"

Using an example with many more doors will make it more clear that the
originally chosen door was incorrect.

I am not sure why a larger number of doors would confuse people more.

The example could be done with a deck of cards and the ace of spades. Eventually, after I keep turning over the ace of spades in my hand (after removing 50 wrong cards and offering the person to keep his original card or change to the one in my hand), I think the person would realize that switching is the right thing to do.

As it happens, when this problem was published in Marilyn Vos Savant's column, some mathematicians were writing in arguing with her.
Click to expand...

lol, who are you speaking to? I'm aware all of this... :)
 
I had never heard of the Monty Hall problem so I checked out the wiki on it. It was hard to grasp for me till I read this:
An even simpler solution is to reason that switching loses if and only if the player initially picks the car, which happens with probability 1/3, so switching must win with probability 2/3.
Click to expand...



Fjones said:
What you just wrote is pretty much the opposite of correct, and ignored my entire post.

1) Yes, a person driving a car is no more important than a person walking, AND VICE VERSA.
Click to expand...
You're in a car man. You're going to get where you're going way faster than anyone on foot. I agree with Felix, it's a courtesy.
cletus said:
Why does everyone on youtube focus their comments on the negatives for a cheap laugh & try to get a thumb up approval. Shit is tired yo.
Click to expand...
14.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top