My Theory on Hi I’m Mary Mary (May Contain Spoilers)

I have a theory on Hi I’m Mary Mary; Mary was an Internet troll and she’s either in hell for it or her situation is caused by —witchcraft that is being performed by someone who she trolled.—

Why People Like Sheldon Cooper (this is an opinion)

Hello mainstream TV audiences aka —morons that make up most of society, which is why it's so fucked up.—  I'm here to give a little bit of insight of why you love Sheldon Cooper so god damn much, and for all you SJW bedwetters, NO, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTISM AWARENESS (ALTHOUGH I STRONGLY ADVOCATE AUTISM AWARENESS) SO GO PEE AND CRY ON A WATER TURBINE, AND SOLVE AN ENERGY CRISIS.

Sheldon is an annoying bastard and if you like him, you're an annoying bastard too.  Remember that episode of the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon didn't let his roommates buy a new table and they're all pissed off at him?  If you find that funny, it's because you wanna piss people off!  Deep inside you're a bastard who wants to make a big troll face smile while you —annoy people and get away with it,— but you're too spineless to admit to being a fucking jackass.  I wanna shove that fucking table up his (Sheldon's) annoying, smug ass!  That way he'll be in diapers so when he says, "sometimes the baby gets his way," he'll fucking look like one.  And I'm talking about the character, not the actor.  I have NOTHING against —the actor who portrays him;— I'm talking about the character; I even LIKED the trailer for Young Sheldon because the TV show doesn't have annoying, unnecessary laughter and it actually has more than one fucking camera angle and more importantly, as a child, the character has more of the appeal of Larry David's character on Curb Your Enthusiasm; something the adult Sheldon Cooper should do!

I'm kind of an asshole and selfish too, but I'm not too much of a fucking pussy (I WILL USE THE WORD, PUSSY LIKE THAT IF I FUCKING WANT TO, IF YOU THINK IT'S SEXIST FOR ME TO DO SO, I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS) to admit it.  I'm also lazy and want to be able to rely on video game livestreaming as source of income and hope I can make a of money doing little effort like Ryan Seacrest (who I don't hate, I'm actually jealous of,) and —reality show celebrities.—

Steve Harvey's Morbidly Obese Ego

Steve Harvey is just as narcissistic as Donald Trump.  Everything he's in is, 'Steve Harvey's this' or, 'Steve Havey's that!'  For example, Family Fued.

When Family Feud debuted, it was hosted by Richard Dawson, but it wasn't called, "Richard Dawson's Family Feud;" it was just called, "Family Feud."  Also even if Richard Dawson did create it, it still wouldn't be called that because it was created by Mark Goodson and it's not called, "Mark Goodson's Family Feud."  Who does Steve Harvey think he is, Tom Clancy?

I tell you what Steve, why don't you make your own damn shit and then put your fucking name in it?  You jackass!

How to physically attack someone and get away with it

Ever hated someone enough that you want to beat their ass?  Well now you can?  Simply twist that person's words around to make them sound bigoted, call them a Nazi and when an angry mob starts up (and believe me it will,) punch that person in the face.  Congratulations, you're a Social Justice Warrior.

But don't feel bad about what you're doing because even if the person wasn't a bigot, no one will believe them over you.  You'll look like a hero advocating for tolerance even if you couldn't care less about it and your motives for hating that person had nothing to do with any assumptions of bigotry.

Now you can get away with anything and still be a hero.  In fact, if you're a minority, you can do anything and not be called a racist, you can even abduct and torture people with special needs if they're white.  Isn't it great that SJW policies advocate equality so well?

Regarding Racial Pride and Affirmative Action

Ok, before I start this, I'm not racist, I'm not trying to be racist.  But you should not be proud to be white, you should not be ashamed of it either, also you should not be proud to be black or ashamed to be black.  No matter what race you are, it should not affect how you feel about yourself because you shouldn't let it define who you are.

Let's say for example you're white and there's a racial protest going on and you stay home, it doesn't make you racist; it means you either don't agree with the protest's views or you're just lazy.  If you stay home because of laziness, you're not a saint, but most importantly, you're not a racist.  —Anyone who tells you that you have to go anywhere or do anything just because of the color of your skin— is a racist no matter what race that person is.

If you're black and a white person says to you, "you have to feel this way because you're black," it's just as racist as if you're white and a black person says, "you have to feel this way because you're white."

Also regardless of whether or not there is —a cycle of poverty among blacks (if it's happening, it's very sad, but I'm neither confirming or denying it because I don't have the facts)— it doesn't mean that we should hire people more if they're black; that's racist against whites.  We should help people who aren't very qualified for jobs but only because they aren't very qualified, and if the —amount of help we give to each unqualified person— is based on —how unqualified he/she is,— guess what? we'll help more black people than white people.  And if —more black people than white people— need help, we're —lowering the income gap between different races— without —treating one race better than another.—

So in conclusion, your race shouldn't define who you are and affirmative action should be replaced with —education programs to help people who aren't qualified enough to get hired.—

How to treat a Bigot

Please read through this entire document before forming an opinion on my views on this issue.  Most people would say to treat bigots with disrespect, but I think that it's better to ask them why they feel that they have bigoted views.  We should have intellectual discussions with an open mind to consider all viewpoints so that we can understand how we can get along better.

I'm not saying it's gonna be easy, I'm not saying it's gonna be a walk in the park, in fact it's a hard thing to do.  But if someone hates a certain group of people, we need to ask them why?  We need to listen to their reasoning and convince them with logic, not insults or emotionally charged statements.  And while we listen to the vies of bigots, we can also use that as an opportunity to find out why people are becoming bigoted, to find out what's being done wrong to determine why people are getting illogical ideas and how we can change the way we act so that we can get along better without compromising our principles.

I'm not saying I could do it, I probably couldn't, but I think that's what needs to be done.

So in conclusion, to deal with bigotry, everyone calm down and talk and listen.

P.S. You don't have to be politically correct in your discussions for it to work; that's just gonna make it harder to figure out how to word your statements.

A retraction about the Turning the Bass up to11 post that I made

A while back I made a blog entry about the scene in the movie, "This is Spinal Tap" in which a member of a heavy metal band says that his amplifier is louder that most amplifiers because most amplifiers have a label that goes from 0 to 10 and his went to 11.

Now first of all, I had been misinformed —which character the writers were implying was right;— I thought that the writers were saying that the band member was right in thinking that —just writing a different number on an amplifier— would make it louder.  That is why I thought the joke was stupid.

The truth of the matter is that the movie's writers were saying that the band member is stupid for thinking that —the text on the amplifier's label— somehow magically affected the overall volume.  Knowing that, I do think it's a good joke, but I don't think it was executed well enough.

I think the joke would've worked better if:

• There was a backstory that the that the band used to have —a humongous amplifier that only went up to 10— and then traded that amplifier with —a smaller one that went up to 11— and there were a whole bunch of pictures to back it up including —a picture of the person who they traded the bigger amplifier to.—
• —The first and only exposition for said backstory— was in a dialogue in which —the band member— showed the aforementioned pictures to —the interviewer— and said something to the affect of, "we traded this amplifier to this sucker for this amplifier, which is clearly louder because it goes to 11."

You see I feel like the joke works better that way because —the band member— in my opinion is annoyingly blissfully ignorant, not just blissfully ignorant and I feel that —the only way to effectively parody an annoying character— is to have —his annoying characteristic— cause him to end up screwing himself over.  I don't think it works if you just present —a character's off putting characteristic(s)— to an audience; in my opinion, the character has to suffer for said annoying characteristic(s.) to be entertaining from a comedic standpoint if he's the butt of the joke.

About the N Word

Ok, I'm white, so if I say, "Nigga," it's racist, but if a black person says, "Nigga," it's fine.  So how about this?  If you're white, you can call white people, "Cracka."  But let's say you're part black and part white?  If you're part black and part white and you're mostly black you can say, "Crigga," if you're mostly white, you can say, "Nicka," and if you're half and half then let's just make up another word ending in, "a" that only you can say.  Is this complicated to you?  Then how about this?  For each word, either anyone can say it or no one can say it?  Otherwise it's segregation of vocabulary and segregation eliminates equality.

Now let me clarify some things, —everything that I said after, "Ok, I'm white, so if I say, "Nigga," it's racist, but if a black person says, "Nigga," it's fine." and everything I said before, "Is this complicated to you?"— was sarcasm.  The point I'm trying to make is that equality means you can't judge people based on what ethnicity they are, that means that you can't have mindsets like, 'this person doesn't deserve to be allowed to use this word because of this person's race.'

So let's promote equality and let's all have the mindset, 'I don't have a problem with people using this  word no matter what ethnicity they are,' or the mindset, 'I do have a problem with anyone using this word no matter what ethnicity they are.'  Just pick one mindset and stick with it.

How I feel about the events at Charlottesville, Virginia

If —your ideals— are motivated by a hatred towards —the hypervigilance of the Left,— I understand your frustration.  However, I don't condone violence in protests because it proves your naysayers right.  Self-defense if you are not the aggressor is ok, but a real person with balls will say what's on their mind and if someone physically attacks them, they document it to discredit the aggressor.

It's like those anti-segregation protests where the black people would eat at the white restaurants; those people had balls; they didn't pester anyone and didn't get their asses kicked and didn't even fight back when they got their asses kicked.  They shouldn't've had to get their asses kicked and they were either very brave or very stupid for doing it, but when you look at the footage, who looks like the bad guy and who looks like the good guy?

I'm not saying that you should have to get the shit beaten out of you for your opinion to be heard; I'm saying that violence at its worst can result in death.  Negative words (with the exception of harassment) at their worst can result in hurt feelings.  Now which one do you think can hurt your credibility more?

Anyway, it's bad to be prejudice, but it's also bad to bend over backwards to new ideas (mine included) without considering their implications.  How about trying to have an intelligent discussion no matter what side you're on instead of being a fucking caveman?  Fox and CNN are biased, but you don't see any of their staff physically attacking people do you?

What is and isn't racist

Ok, let me clear up some things.  I don't advocate racism, so I'm going to clarify what is and isn't racist because society clearly doesn't realize.

The following is a list of statements followed by whether or not they're racist AND OUR GOAL IS EQUALITY ABOVE ALL:

1. Whites are better than Blacks=Racist
2. Blacks are better than Whites=JUST AS RACIST AS POINT 1, NOT LESS RACIST 

That's pretty simple because OUR GOAL HERE IS EQUALITY!  With that said, here's some other advice that most people don't get:

1.  Scenario Set 1:
1. If, "White Power"=Racist:
1. "White Power"=Racist
2. "Black Power"=JUST AS RACIST
1. If, "Black Power"=Racist:
1. "Black Power"=Racist
2. "White Power"=JUST AS RACIST
2.  Scenario Set 2:
1. If, "White Power"=Not Racist:
1. "White Power"=Not Racist
2. "Black Power"=Not Racist
2. If, "Black Power"=Not Racist
1. "Black Power"=Not Racist
2. "White Power"=Not Racist

So that's pretty reasonable right?  Also if you want to stop someone from being racist, DON'T VIOLENTLY ATTACK THEM; YOU WILL CAUSE THEM TO NOT ONLY BE RACIST, BUT HATE EVERYONE WHO ISN'T ALSO RACIST!  YOU WILL ALSO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT —VIOLENCE TO GET A POINT ACROSS— IS OK.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH —ANYTHING I'VE SAID IN THIS BLOG ENTRY,— PLEASE COMMENT AND I WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME YOU'RE RACIST!

Clowns are overrated among circus performers and comedians in general

First of all, if you like clowns, that's fine with me, but —what makes a clown a clown— is not —an amount of talent, superior to that of types of performers that get less recognition,— but —the fact that they dress and act like complete whack jobs.—
Granted, —the ones that juggle and do magic and ride unicycles— are entertaining, but they're only entertaining because —magic, juggling, and the ability to ride a unicycle— are entertaining (and the latter two activities require —skill, practice and talent that deserves recognition)— without dressing and acting like —a prostitute who put on her make up while she was high on crack.—

Now you can't juggle or ride a unicycle without being afraid people will think you're a clown or training to become one.  Both of those things require —skill, practice, and talent that deserve recognition,— but you can't do any of them without looking like —an untalented comedian who puts all of his efforts into looking and acting like a complete moron,— who makes people feel scared or and/or awkward to be around because of —his/her uncanny valleyish attire and strange mannerisms.—  And yes, I act like a complete moron on my video game streams, but I don't want most people to think —all video game streams— are like mine.

That would be like if —everyone learning how play a video game— felt like everyone assumed that they were practicing to be like me.  Also if you like my streams, that's fine and I appreciate your patronage.

So in conclusion, clowns do not deserve any more recognition than other children's entertainers.

On CNN, can we talk about something other than the fact that we hate Trump?

Ok, I'm not saying Trump is good, I'm not saying Trump is bad.  —Whether he's good or bad— is an important issue, but not the point that I'm trying to make via this blog post.  My point is that CNN spends way too much time talking about how much they hate Trump.

I don't mind if CNN hates Trump; what irritates me is the fact that they say it over and over and god damn over again like a fucking HeadOn™ commercial.  That's what CNN sounds like to me now, "Trump, remove directly from the White House, Trump, remove directly from the White House, Trump, remove directy from the White House."  If you hated Trump, you would still get sick of hearing that.  If CNN wants to constantly express —their hatred for Trump,— they should put —a non-moving watermark that says, "we hate Trump"— on screen.  That way, they can assure —people who are paranoid of CNN becoming pro-Trump— of how they feel without being annoying to —the people who don't need them to repeat themselves endlessly to trust them that they hate Trump—

Battery Charger Life Hack With More Detail

Ok, let's go over what we've already established:

Some of you might have devices that take longer to charge than to deplete.  For example, if you have a device that takes 4 hours for the battery to run out and 15 hours to recharge.  How do you use it non-stop?  I have the answer.  The answer is basically a modification of the duty cycle theorem on wikipedia.

But make sure that while most —devices that are charged by plugging them in rather than removing the batteries— (such as bluetooth headsets/headphones and cell phones and many other devices not listed) are safe to leave plugged in and left unattended, —BATTERIES THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THEIR DEVICES— SHOULD NEVER BE CHARGED UNATTENDED UNLESS —THE CHARGER AND THE BATTERIES— DOCUMENTATION EXPLICITLY STATES THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.

Before I continue, let me remind you that this applies to both single batteries, or groups of batteries.

Some of you may be thinking, "why don't I use multiple batteries and multiple chargers?"  That's correct.  But we need to know how many batteries and how many chargers we need.

Here's how we figure it out:

We'll use c the variable for our charge time and u as the variable for our usage time.  First we use the formula:

(c+u)/u then we round up if there is a remainder.  So in this cause c=15 and u=4 let's plug it into our formula:

(15+4)/4=4.75

We will round up 4.75 and get 5 for the amount of batteries.

Also the charger amount = (the battery amount-1).

Now as I said before will use a is the charger amount and b as the battery amount.

Now some of you might think that we only need 4 batteries in this example I will now show you what happens if we use 4 instead of 5.  Keep in mind that we will not start charging a battery until it's dead, this is so that we spend as little as possible switching, so we will log the progress of our imaginary batteries in increments of 4 hours.

So at the start (0):

Battery A is full, placing it into device
Battery B is full
Battery C is full
Battery D is full

Four hours later (1):

Battery A is dead, placed in charger 0 hours ago
Battery B is full, placing it into device
Battery C is full
Battery D is full

Four hours later (2):

Battery A is dead, placed in charger 4 hours ago
Battery B is dead, placed in charger 0 hours ago
Battery C is full, placing it into device
Battery D is full

Four hours later (3):

Battery A is dead, placed in charger 8 hours ago
Battery B is dead, placed in charger 4 hours ago
Battery C is dead, placed in charger 0 hours ago
Battery D is full, placing it into device

Four hours later (4):

Battery A is dead, placed in charger 12 hours ago
Battery B is dead, placed in charger 8 hours ago
Battery C is dead, placed in charger 4 hours ago
Battery D is dead, placed in charger 0 hours ago

Ok now we have a problem, we've reached stage 4, meaning we've depleted 4 batteries (since our first stage was stage 0) and all of our batteries are dead before our first is fully recharged.  Battery A is closest to being charged, but we need a 5th battery so that we can use our controller until then.  So let's list stage 4 again, but this time, let's add a new battery and pretend it was there all along, let's call it, Battery E.

Four hours later (4):

Battery A is dead, placed in charger 12 hours ago
Battery B is dead, placed in charger 8 hours ago
Battery C is dead, placed in charger 4 hours ago
Battery D is dead, placed in charger 0 hours ago
Battery E is full, placed into device.

So in this version of stage 4, battery E is in the device ans we still haven't run out of batteries.  Also notice that because 4 batteries were full at the beginning, 4 chargers were available until Battery D died.  This means that if Battery E was dead and started being charged at stage 0, it would've been fully charged by stage 4, since 4 stages of charging times 4 hours>15 hours of charging.  So we only need 4 chargers.

Four hours later (5):

Battery A is full, placed into device
Battery B is dead, placed in charger 12 hours ago
Battery C is dead, placed in charger 8 hours ago
Battery D is dead, placed in charger 4 hours ago
Battery E is dead, placed in charger 0 hours ago

So now we're at stage 5 and Battery A is fully charged again, so we can start using it again.  Also it's no longer in a charger so Battery E can go into the charger it was just removed from so we don't need more than 4 chargers.

Let's see if we we run out of batteries or chargers four hours later.

Four hours later (6):

Battery A is dead, placed in charger 0 hours ago
Battery B is full, placed into device
Battery C is dead, placed in charger 12 hours ago
Battery D is dead, placed in charger 8 hours ago
Battery E is dead, placed in charger 4 hours ago

So now we know that in this scenario, as soon as a battery dies, a battery becomes full or is already full and a charger becomes available.  It should also be noted that when you start using the device, not all batteries have to be fully charged; in this exampled, only one needs to be fully charged and in use, one needs to have been charged for 12 hours, another for 8, another for 4, and another has to have been just placed into the charger.

As a final note, you can keep the charged batteries in the charger until they're needed.

The Monty Hall Problem With a Simpler Explanation

Ok, let's replace the goats with red boxes.. The red boxes have 0 gold bars in them. Now let's replace the car with a green box, the green box has 1 gold bar inside of it. Now I will list how many gold bars that you can get if you always pick door 1 and always switch in 3 different box configurations.

First we have our first scenario, which has a 1/3 chance of happening if we always pick door 1:

1st and most confusing scanario: Door 1: Green Box, Door 2: Red Box, Door 3: Red Box.

Now if pick door 1 and switch from it.  We have a 0% chance of getting a green box  —The chances of us getting a green box— are the only chances that are relevant.

2nd scenario: Door 1: Red Box, Door 2: Green Box, Door 3: Red Box.

Now MONTY CAN ONLY LET US SWITCH TO THE GREEN BOX.  So we have a 100% chance of getting the green box.

3rd scenario: Door 1: Red Box, Door 3: Red Box, Door 2: Green Box.

Again MONTY CAN ONLY LET US SWITCH TO THE GREEN BOX.  So we have a 100% chance of getting the green box.

So let's recap: Scenario 1: 0% chance of winning, Scenario 2: 100% chance of winning, Scenario 3: 100% chance of winning.  So if we always switch (or always stay) we either definitely win or definitely lose.  And if we always switch, we definitely win in 2 out of the 3 scenarios.

The worst pencil sharpener ever

Ok, so I've looked online for examples of why electric pencil sharpeners are impractical and in all fairness, that's not true unless you're sharpening a whole bunch of pencils in one sitting.  Then it depends on the sharpener and some sharpeners have cooling fans so the sharpener doesn't overheat and it allows for continuous use.  But if you have a bunch of pencil to sharpen and you want an electric sharpener that's absolutely dreadful for your project look no further than the LEDAH 222 Electric Office Pencil Sharpener.

Here is a link to the webpage https://www.especiallyoffice.com/shop/contents/en-us/d94_Pencil_Sharpeners.html and here is a screenshot of the webpage with some of the text hightlighted:

Ok, at first glance it just looks like a normal electric pencil sharpener except when you look at the price, $94.14!  So now we know that it's an expensive pencil sharpener so for that price, it must be pretty good.  I'm sure it can go all day without overheating, making it great for what we need, why else would a pencil sharpener cost that much?  But then let's look at the duty cycle.  It's the second thing I've highlighted.

Now the Duty Cycle means how long it for before it has to shut down / how long it has to shut down.  For example this device can run for 4 minutes before it has to shut off for 30 minutes (probably because it takes 4 minutes to overheat and takes 30 minutes to cool down.)  So it's ALMOST like a battery that runs for 4 minutes and then has to be recharged and take 30 minutes to recharge.  So it's the same math as the previous blog post, but we're not gonna go over it again, I'll just cut to the result.

The result is 9 pencil sharpeners for continuous use.  That's 9 time's the price of $94.14, so will end up having to pay $847.26 if we actually want to buy more than one of these for continuous use (if you don't believe me, I'll explain it in the next paragraph.)

So if you don't believe me about the Duty Cycle, here's a runthrough of what would've happened if you had a whole bunch of pencils that you had to sharpen non-stop.  Think if it as the script for a very boring movie.

At the start (1)

Sharpener 1 is in use

Four minutes later (2)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 is in use

Four minutes later (3)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 is in use


Four minutes later (4)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 8 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 is in use

Four minutes later (5)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 12 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has overheated 8 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 5 is in use
Four minutes later (6)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 16 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has overheated 12 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 has overheated 8 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 5 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 6 is in use

Four minutes later (7)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 20 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has overheated 16 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 has overheated 12 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 has overheated 8 minutes ago
Sharpener 5 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 6 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 7 is in use

Four minutes later (8)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 24 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has overheated 20 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 has overheated 16 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 has overheated 12 minutes ago
Sharpener 5 has overheated 8 minutes ago
Sharpener 6 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 7 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 8 is in use

Four Minutes later (9)
Sharpener 1 has overheated 28 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has overheated 24 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 has overheated 20 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 has overheated 16 minutes ago
Sharpener 5 has overheated 12 minutes ago
Sharpener 6 has overheated 8 minutes ago
Sharpener 7 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 8 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 9 is in use

Four Minutes Later (10)

Sharpener 1 is in use (it cooled down two minutes earlier, but during that time, we had to
use Sharpener 9, so we still need 9 sharpeners.)
Sharpener 2 has overheated 28 minutes ago
Sharpener 3 has overheated 24 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 has overheated 20 minutes ago
Sharpener 5 has overheated 16 minutes ago
Sharpener 6 has overheated 12 minutes ago
Sharpener 7 has overheated 8 minutes ago
Sharpener 8 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 9 has overheated 0 minutes ago

Notice how we've added 1 sharpener for each phase until phase 10, that's because we need to have at least 1 sharpener available at all times.  And our first sharpener (Sharpener 1) doesn't cool down until we've overheated 8 others while waiting for that to happen so 1 + 8 = 9 as in Sharpener 9, the last sharpener to be added before Sharpener 1 can be used again.  If you're wondering why we don't need more, here's what happens in the next step.

Four Minutes Later (11)

Sharpener 1 has overheated 0 minutes ago
Sharpener 2 has cooled and is now in use
Sharpener 3 has overheated 28 minutes ago
Sharpener 4 has overheated 24 minutes ago
Sharpener 5 has overheated 20 minutes ago
Sharpener 6 has overheated 16 minutes ago
Sharpener 7 has overheated 12 minutes ago
Sharpener 8 has overheated 4 minutes ago
Sharpener 9 has overheated 0 minutes ago

So each time a sharpener cools, —the sharpener that overheated after it— will have cooled for long enough that by the time the former sharpener overheats, the latter sharpener will have cooled.  For example, in this case, after by the time Sharpener 2 has overheated, Sharpener 3 will have cooled,

Battery Charger Life Hack (updated 8/24/2017)

Some of you might have devices that take longer to charge than to deplete.  For example, if you have a device that takes 4 hours for the battery to run out and 15 hours to recharge.  How do you use it non-stop?  I have the answer.  The answer is basically a modification of the duty cycle theorem on wikipedia.

But make sure that while most —devices that are charged by plugging them in rather than removing the batteries— (such as bluetooth headsets/headphones and cell phones and many other devices not listed) are safe to leave plugged in and left unattended, —BATTERIES THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THEIR DEVICES— SHOULD NEVER BE CHARGED UNATTENDED UNLESS —THE CHARGER AND THE BATTERIES— DOCUMENTATION EXPLICITLY STATES THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.

Before I continue, let me remind you that this applies to both single batteries, or groups of batteries.

Some of you may be thinking, "why don't I use multiple batteries and multiple chargers?"  That's correct.  But we need to know how many batteries and how many chargers we need.

Here's how we figure it out:

We'll use c the variable for our charge time and u and the variable for our usage time.  First we use the formula:

(c+u)/u then we round up if there is a remainder.  So in this cause c=15 and u=4 let's plug it into our formula:

(15+4)/4=4.75

We will round up 4.75 and get 5 for the amount of batteries.

Also the charger amount is the battery amount-1.

Now if you don't believe me, I will show you why a later blog, but just remember, in that later blog, we will use a as the charger amount and b as the battery amount.

If you spin a wheel real fast, how big would it have to be for the outer perimeter to move at the speed of light?

Ok, some of you probably have wondered, "If I have a large enough wheel," would I be able to spin it fast enough for the outer diameter to move faster than the speed of light?  Well unfortunately you wouldn't because the laws of physics would prevent the wheel from spinning fast enough, but if it was possible for a wheel to spin at that speed, here's how big it would be.

Now its size would be dependent on RPMs or Revolutions Per Minute, which means the amount of times that the spinning object spins 360 degrees within 1 minute.  Now the lower the amount of RPMs a wheel spins at, the larger the wheel has to be for it's outermost perimeter to be travelling at the speed of light.  So we will use an RPM that someone actually was able to spin something at; so according to this website https://www.cnet.com/news/fastest-man-made-spinning-object-clocks-in-at-600m-rpm/ , the fastest spinning man-made object spins at 600,000,000 RPM.

So a quick Bing search indicates that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 Meters per second, but since RPMs are in Minutes, we will multiply that by 60 to get 17987547480 Meters per minute.

So now we want to take the circumference 17987547480 (the speed of light in Meters Per MInute) and convert it into a diameter.  this WILL TELL US THE DIAMETER WE NEED AT 1 RPM, NOT —THE DIAMETER AT 600,000,000 THAT'S OUR FINAL answer.— according to this website http://circumferencecalculator.net/circumference-to-diameter-calculator , Diameter=Circumference/pi or as it says on the website D = C/π.

So let's take 17987547480 (the speed of light in Meters per Minute) and divide by pi to get —about 5725614191.0843307106666780005284 Meters of diameter FOR 1 RPM.—  Since we're gonna be spinning the wheel at 600,000,000 RPM, we can take —the previous diameter— and divide by —600,000,000; the RPM we're using— to get our final answer; 9.5426903184738845177777966675473 Meters, but let's round that up to 9.543 Meters and convert it to feet by dividing it by .3048 (the amount of feet in a Meter) and we get our final answer:

About 31.30906 feet.

Here's the theorem:

((17987547480/pi)/rpm)/.3048=Diameter in feet

The Mind Games that Therapists Play

So if you've ever been to a psychiatrist's office, you know it's the worst. You gotta talk to this asshole every fucking three months about every fucking thing that happened since the last time you talked to him, and there's only one thing you want to say to him, JUST GIVE ME MY FUCKING MEDICINE AND STOP WASTING MY TIME. But you don't say that because you need that medication more than you need your patience with this asshole. The other reason is because he fucking plays mind games with you so you don't talk about anything with him.

Here's how it works, you might think of telling him about all things other than him that piss you off, but that never happens and here's why.

Right when you come into the building, you go to the waiting room, EVERY WALL IS BLUE AND YOU FEEL SUDDENLY STONED like you smoked a joint, which is bad because you can't talk about —anything that irritates you— if you're relaxed.

Then you wait like a fucking hour and the walls are covered with the ugliest artwork every and all you can think about is how ugly it is how you hate it and want to set the office on fire. But —that angry beast that was just spawned— is being drowned in blue paint, but it just doesn't die and your mind putting all of its energy into fighting with itself and you can't think about shit.

Then after you get to talk to the doctor, it just gets worse, you're not looking at the artwork anymore, but you still can't focus on jack shit, because the walls are blue in the doctor's office as well, and he has all this tacky shit on the wall like a fucking thrift store exploded in it.

Then he asks you, "how are you doing?" And that's where they got you, before you went into the building, you thought that you were gonna go on a big rant about everything that pissed you off, but after all the distractions and the fucking blue paint, all you're thinking is, "Who am I? Where am I? Who are you?" Then you tell him that everything is great because there's still a small part of you that wants to escape from the madhouse that you're in but not until you get your pills.

So you say as little as possible about what's going on, because that's —all that comes to mind,— your psychiatrist is lazy and selfish! he doesn't want to hear about your problems, he wants to show you all the ugly shit he has.

So I thought of a solution, I wrote down on my phone before I even left for the fucking office, —every fucking thing I wanted to talk about— and man it was fucking awesome. He told me I was right, —the cunt rags who piss me of are wrong,— and that was just music to my ears, too bad I couldn't fucking enjoy it amongst the distracting imagery, so I found a solution. Now I'm gonna wear a pear of laser safety glasses, because they make everything look red and so his mind games aren't gonna work on me any longer.

Does Kamen Rider Gaim Contain Meta-Commentary on Radical Islam? WHEN I SAY RADICAL ISLAM, JUST MEAN WHEN ISLAM IS USED TO JUSTIFY CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. MOST MUSLIMS ARE AGAINST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Spoiler Warning: This blog contains spoilers for the TV show, "Kamen Rider Gaim."  Scroll down for the rest of the blog.


























Disclaimer, the following statements do not reflect my views on Islam, just Radical Islam.  WHEN I SAY RADICAL ISLAM, JUST MEAN WHEN ISLAM IS USED TO JUSTIFY CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.  MOST MUSLIMS ARE AGAINST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.  For example, if I were talking about —a picture of a box— that was drawn by someone else, and I said, 'the box is the world.'  It wouldn't necessarily mean that I think that the box represents or is the world, it would mean that I think that according to —the artist who drew the picture,— the box possibly represents the world.

In short, I'm only saying what I think the artist might think.

So here's my theory in short, I think that the invasive fruit is a metaphor for Radical Islam because it turns you into a monster (side note: the monsters are called Inves,) the Inves are a metaphor for Radical Muslims because they (the Inves) are violent, —the dimension that the fruit comes from— is a metaphor for the Middle East because (at least according to —the creator of Kamen Rider Gaim—,) Radical Islam ruined the Middle East by turning it into —a wasteland, that used to be a prosperous civilization.—

Also some people think that Radical Islamic ideologies are slowly creeping their way into being accepted by Western civilizations, and —the plants moving their way from Helheim (the alternate dimension where the aforementioned fruit comes from)— could be a metaphor for the aformentioned spread of Radical Islamic ideologies in Western civilizations.

Also this might be a stretch, but the Inves can be controlled to do anything even attack people and each other using the lock seeds, and the lock seeds are made by modifying the fruit, and since the fruit is Islam and the Inves are Radical Muslims, it could stand to reason that —the lock seeds' production— is a metaphor for —the arbitrary interpretations of Radical Islam by so called Islamic scholars,— —the idea of controlling the Inves— could be a metaphor for Islam being hijacked and turned into —the hate group, Radical Islam— by —the aforementioned Radical Islamic scholars.—   Again, I'm not saying whether or not I think this is happening, I'm just theorizing on whether or not Kamen Raider Gaim's creator thinks this is happening.

Again, NONE OF THIS IS NECESSARILY WHAT I THINK KAMEN RIDER GAIM'S CREATOR THINKS; IT IS A THEORY FOR THE READER TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE IT.

Bulletstorm: A Belated Review WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

WARNING: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

Skip to the fourth paragraph if you want to get right to the segment that describes the game.

I recently picked up Bulletstorm: Full Clip Edition but to be honest, it was an impulse buy and it would've been wiser to look for a demo on the PSN before buying it.  I think I remember downloading a demo, but not playing it because I thought it would be bland to me by having a counter strike vibe.  Boy was I wrong; I never thought it would actually end up so close to being perfect for me.  I don't know if the gameplay is different from the initial release, but the version I have is fantastic.

Now to get to the gameplay, I'll talk about the combat soon enough, but let me first disspell some concerns that might arise from my description in sort of an anti-disclaimer for those who are pessimistic.

There's a game mechanic where you can melee enemies into floating slo-mo mode while they glow the most beautiful of cobalt blue and let's you juggle them around.  There's an invisible wall that prevents you from accidentally impaling yourself on —spike walls and cacti (cacti is the plural of cactus,)— and many (but not all) of the exposed electrical wires and hazards.  Also, the health automatically regenerates while avoiding bulletfire so no need to worry about health pickups.  —The list of stunts that you have performed— carries over from campaign mode to new game+ mode and subsequent playthroughs so if it was inevitable for you to perform —at least one new stunt,— on every playthrough and you keep playing though it on new game+ over and over again, then you're 100% likely to unlock all of the stunts.  —The reward for unlocking all of the stunts is infinite ammo for that weapon,— but you can disable that feature if you've unlocked all the stunts and don't want infinite ammo.

So let's talk about the game, as I mentioned before, there's a visually stunning melee attack that puts your enemies (besides bosses and minibosses) into floating slo-mo mode, which gives you enough time to either figure out whether you want to impale your enemies on spikes, knock them into exposed electrical wires (or throw them into one of the many, many things that will 1-hit instakill them) or just shoot them as they float helplessly like ragdolls in The Matrix.

The crown jewel of this amazing gameplay mechanic is an OP lasso that pulls enemies towards you even from behind cover and through the cover, itself, which I genuinely thought was a glitch when I saw it.  There are certain enemies that have to be kicked blinded with toxic fruit before it can be used on them and it doesn't work on bosses or minibosses, but there's a super powered charged shot that can kill —any miniboss that has a gun— in 1-3 shots (that would be the charged shotgun shell) and there's only one boss in the entire game and it's really easy.

—The stand on which the games crown jewel rests— is a a system where you get rewarded points for killing enemies using —methods other than the standard 'shoot it until it's dead' strategy,— and you use those points to buy weapon upgrades and enhanced bullets that have an extra effect such as the aforementioned charged shotgun blast that sends out —a shockwave that turns everything it passes through into scorched bones.—

So the final word is that if you like fast-paced action games that don't put you in constant fear of dying in two seconds from being spotted by one enemy, I'd say buy it.  If you don't feel the need to play as Duke Nukem (since playing as him literally has no effect on the gameplay, just the dialogue,) I'd say buy it pre-owned for the PS3.

What is and isn't racist

I DON'T LIKE RACISM.  With that said, if you identify yourself as, "a black person" it's different than identifying yourself as "a person who happens to be black."  Here's the difference: if you identify yourself as, "a black person," it means that you think that all black people should think alike and be the same.  If you identify as "a person who happens to be black," then you think that your skin color has nothing to do with your personality.

With that said, regardless of if your a "black person" or "a person who happens to be black," your skin color has nothing to do with your personality.  Now if you're a person who identifies him/herself as "a black person," it means your skin color still doesn't define who you are; you're just lying to yourself and saying that it does and following a toxic Hollywood-promoted ideology.

That ideology states, that because you're african american, you have to be violent, think every white person is racist, and you have to beat up every person who says the N word ending in er, and every white person who says the N word that ends in A.  It also states that not only should you get away with beating someone up, if you get put in jail for it then —everyone who thinks that you should go to jail— should be called racist.  THIS IDEOLOGY IS FALSE.

If you want to take —the lyrics in gangsta rap— seriously, then you're ignorant, and if you act upon what they say on the lyrics, you deserve for everyone to be prejudice against you SOLELY for having that mentality and NO ONE SHOULD BE GUILTY FOR DESPISING YOU FOR DOING SO.  Also, if you act upon that mentality, you deserve for everyone to say you're dumb, lazy, violent and interested in criminal behavior.  You also deserve to be called the N word ending in er.  I'll leave the watermelon and chicken out of it because it's just food. 

And guess what?  Unfortunately, if most black people and in fact if ANY MINORITIES decide to mostly identify themselves with —the negative stereotypes based upon them,— it makes the —entire community of people in that minority— look bad.  And if you identify yourself as "a person who happens to be black," you can fix the problem by openly stating that you hate people who identify themselves as, "black people."

You should say, these people are nothing like be, these people a lowlives, these people are causing more racism by making every black person look like they're racist against whites and that they want everyone to embrace the idea that —every white person who thinks it's wrong for black people to be racist or even called racist,— should be shamed.  All of this for common sense, and that makes more white people racist against black people.  It's just like what happened to the image of muslims because of the news/  Thanks gangsta rap.  Prove we shouldn't judge black people by their skin color by stating that they're all alike.

Also in this article I used black people as an example, but this applies to all races.

Pencil Sharpeners

Many of you remember pencil sharpeners that look like this from your childhood:

Look at that, nice and metal, no flimsy plastic parts, durable and long lasting. In fact, as long as it doesn't get wet, it will outlast you. Now everyone's buying cheap pieces of crap like this worthless piece of shit:
 

And this is made by the same company Xacto, no relation. Now while it may look cool, and while it might be convenient because it's electric, it's not practical for more than one user and it's not practical for —jobs where you have to sharpen several pencils in one session;— it overheats when you do that and there's no cooling fan. And even if you're not using for that, if it's used by everyone in a single office, it will break within 10 days and no one will replace it or even notice it's broken for like a year.

I think they do this stuff on purpose so they can make more money by selling more pencil sharpeners.

Don't Think With Your Skin

Now we're going to talk about race relations because call me an egomaniac, but I think I'm one of the few people who have a good idea of how they should work.  Now first let's go over how most people see race relations, most people see it as, "try your hardest not to be racist because racism is bad."  That idea is a on the right track, but it doesn't exactly hit its mark.  To truly not be racist, you have to embrace —the good ideology of not identifying yourself or others by the color of their skin— instead of the bad and different ideology of thinking that: —everyone with a different skin color from yours— is a good person because if you think otherwise then it makes you racist.

Let me explain, I'm white, but I don't identify as a white person.  This is ONLY because I DON'T THINK THAT MY SKIN COLOR AFFECTS MY PERSONALITY AT ALL.  I am not the best of people and at times I can be a jackass, but when I am a jackass, I'm not a jackass because I'm white; I'm a jackass because of Asperger's Syndrome or because of the situation I'm in or —another reason that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT I'M WHITE.—  Same thing if I was black, if I was black, I'D BE JUST AS MUCH AS A JACKASS AND IT WOULD STILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLOR OF MY SKIN.

Now let's say for the sake of argument (this is only a hypothetical scenario and not necessarily an accurate representation of any population statistics) that 90% of the population consisted of white PEOPLE and that 10% consisted of black PEOPLE.  If 10% of PEOPLE are black and 90% of PEOPLE are white, —100% of those PEOPLE— are PEOPLE.

Now let's say for the sake of argument (this is only a hypothetical scenario and not necessarily an accurate representation of any population statistics) that __% of the population are PEOPLE are black and the rest are white PEOPLE.  That's not a typo, I've left that number out because: what matters is that in this scenario, everyone is either a white PERSON or a black PERSON, and all of them are PEOPLE.  So no matter what the population statistics are, IT CONSISTS OF 100% PEOPLE.

So why did I go into a big speech about this simple logic?  To remind everyone that your race doesn't define you, you should choose what you want to be like based on your desires on what you want to be like.  If you're a white musician, you don't have to sing country, but you should if you want; if you're a black musician you don't have to sing hip hop, but you should if you want.  And if that last sentence sounds racist, that's because it's supposed to expose the problems behind —the idea of having the moral obligation to sacrifice your identity to avoid feeling like you're enforcing a racial stereotype.—  That's not the right way to think of it; you should do what you want and not try to enforce or try to avoid enforcing racial stereotypes.  Also, don't assume —whether or not people are enforcing or trying to avoid enforcing racial stereotypes— by their actions.  A lot of people happen to coincidentally like doing things that coincide with stereotypes of their race and there's nothing wrong with that.

In closing, I want to say that people should do what they like to do and not define themselves or be defined by the color of their skin.  Remember, you're the same person no matter what color your skin is.  So don't let others use your skin color to define how you should be, only let morals and hopefully good morals define who you are.

More about the fucking autism puzzle piece

I hate that fucking puzzle piece, and not for the same reason that most people do, most people think that the puzzle piece is bed because it conveys that people are incomplete, that is NOT the message that I get from the puzzle piece.  When I see that blue puzzle piece I get the message, "hey everyone, be aware of people who are big babies because of this disorder, be accepting of them not because they're people too, but because they're big babies!"  That's a great message, that Autism makes people pathetic, it doesn't make all people pathetic, it makes some people agitated and annoyed at the fucking world like it does to me.

You know how —the Autism that I have— feels like?  It's like being possessed by a demon that influences your desires so you don't have the willpower to do —the things that contribute to the quality of your lifestyle— and makes you feel like it's your fault.  So let's all symbolize it with a namby-pamby fucking baby blue puzzle piece.

What a wonderful fucking symbol, surely it reminds you of people like me.  Boy I come across like a harmless baby blue puzzle piece don't I?  Just not intimidating at all, just a fucking thing that was so cute when Curious George fucking swallowed it.  And if you fucking tattooed it on your body and you have Autism, you're a fucking dumbass and not because you have Autism, but because you have no self-respect you spineless hole in the shield used in the battle for —the dignity of the people who you've chosen to represent with that tattoo.—  That's a lot, asshole, you're better off as a martyr.

Oh and to those parents who dress their adult autistic children in those fucking shirts saying that Autism acronym that says, "Always Unique Totally Intelligent Sometimes Mysterious," go fuck yourself!  It should say, "I'm sorry, but god burdened me with Autism because I was a fucking asshole in my past life and my parents were in this life."

Ok and another thing, a lot of people with Autism are suffering like me; they're not happy like the blissful blue puzzle piece.  Again, like me, some people are living at 30+ with their parents and hating it and hating the fact that they have to.  Oh and to all those people who made —the Autism that I have— —a worse burden to be than it had to be (except for the ones who were just doing what they were told; I'm just talking about the people who made the bad decisions) (you know who you are,—) why don't you go make up for what you did and send me some fucking money.  Just click the following link to send it via paypal https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=83KB46HVACNW4  I'll probably spend it on some useless crap, but I love money and I don't want any from that one guy who I forgave.

Another Rant About The Autism Puzzle Piece

Ok, let's talk more about the autism puzzle piece because everyone has their dumb analysis, like “oh, it symbolizes that we need to fit together the piece of this illness so it's a big mystery like a puzzle.” I call bullcrap on that, if we're trying to say that autism deserves awareness, then why is the puzzle baby blue like a puzzle for children. Why not just put some baby blocks with alphabet letters while you're at it, we can say it looks like we're building a cure one “block” at a time even though it looks like we're saying, “Awww, it's so cute, little Timmy will never grow up because of his illness, it'll cause extra work for him to not end up living at his parents' basement at 30 like Xaxton!”

Thanks to Autism, my life is messed up but let's make it look cute. While we're at it, why not put some baby blocks around 9/11 footage when memorialize it, won't that make 9/11 look like it's too be taken seriously? It's ok if we say that the block means we're building a foundation to a safer future!

So now you realize the problem with assigning —arbitrary meanings to —symbols that otherwise can look like they mean something else.—  You don't want your kid to have Autism and you don't want to have Autism; Autism is a disorder; we don't want disorders and if we want neurodiversity, then you should use the neurodiversity symbol because it has a rainbow and who doesn't like rainbows?

Look, if we want to use the puzzle piece than we have to make it look serious and to make it look serious, we have to get rid of that wimpy little baby blue color. Make it white with a black outline. Not baby blue. That's like using a pink flower to symbolize feminism, everyone loves flowers cause they're delicate, I'm sure a lot of feminists would love to be called that, especially ones that have just broken the cycle of domestic abuse by a male partner.

The Monty Hall Problem

Ok, this is an explanation of The Monty Hall Problem, so I won't go into what it is just look it up, but here's the express explanation on why you have BETTER probability to win if you switch doors.


So let's go through all of the possibilities, now I know that there are two doors that Monty can choose from to open if on your first pick (when there are three doors,) your door has a car behind it.  So I'm going to split the possibilities of which door he can open into 18 possible outcomes.  In all of these outcomes, I will tell you what happens if you switch.  Remember, in a scenario where switching leads to victory, not switching leads to losing.

In our first set of outcomes, Monty can only open the goat door closest to the left, and still HE CAN'T OPEN YOUR DOOR, and HE CAN'T OPEN THE DOOR WITH THE CAR BEHIND IT.  So this example is how our outcomes are gonna work:  In this example I will highlight all the 1s in red, all the 2s in yellow and all the 3s in green

• Outcome set 1

1. If the car is behind door 1 and you pick door 1, he opens door 2 and lets you switch to door 3
2. If the car is behind door 2 and you pick door 2, he opens door 1 and lets you switch to door 3
3. If the car is behind door 3 and you pick door 3, he opens door 1 and lets you switch to door 2

In our second set of outcomes, Monty will always open the goat door closest to the right if the door that you've chosen has the car behind it.

• Outcome set 2:

1. If the car is behind door 1 and you pick door 1, he opens door 3 and lets you switch to door 2
2. If the car is behind door 2 and you pick door 2, he opens door 3 and lets you switch to door 1
3. If the car is behind door 3 and you pick door 3, he opens door 2 and lets you switch to door 1

So before I finally get into out set of outcomes, I'd like to point out that even in our example of scenarios in which you lose if you switch, we have a pattern that doesn't lead to a 50% chance of getting either goat.  Let's assume that you want the goat that's closest to the left, in outcome set 1, you have a 2/3 chance of getting that goat and a 1/3 chance of getting the other.  You have the opposite odds in outcome set 2.  This is important because it means that if we want each goat to have an equal chance of being the goat that we take home, each of the goats has to have a 1/3 chance of being the goat that we go home with if we switch and lose.

So finally here's our set of outcomes:

1. The car is behind door 1:
1. You pick door 1; and Monty opens door 2 and lets you switch ONLY to door 3, YOU SWITCH AND LOSE
2. You pick door 2, and IN THIS SCENARIO, MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 3 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 1, YOU SWITCH AND WIN
3. You pick door 3, and IN THIS SCENARIO, MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 2 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 1, YOU SWITCH AND WIN
2. The car is behind door 2:
1. You pick door 1; and IN THIS SCENARIO, MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 3 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 2, YOU SWITCH AND WIN
2. You pick door 2; and Monty opens door 1 and let's you switch ONLY to door 3, YOU SWITCH AND LOSE
3. You pick door 3; and IN THIS SCENARIO, MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 2 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 2, YOU SWITCH AND WIN
3. The car is behind door 3:
1. You pick door 1; and IN THIS SCENARIO, MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 2 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 3; YOU SWITCH AND WIN
2. You pick door 2; and IN THIS SCENARIO, MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 1 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 3; YOU SWITCH AND WIN
3. You pick door 3; and Monty opens door 1 and let's you switch ONLY to door 2; YOU SWITCH AND LOSE
4. Now before we go on, I'd like to remind everyone that in —each scenario in which switching causes you to lose,— there's a 50% chance of him opening the left most goat door and a 50% chance of him opening the right most goat door.  We have to repeat these results because —each of the scenarios in which the car is not behind your door— is actually two; —one scenario in which if there was a car behind your door, Monty would reveal the left most goat and let you switch to the right most goat,— and —a scenario in which if there was a car behind your door, Monty would reveal the right-most goat and let you twitch to the left-most goat.—  So in the next examples, Monty will now open the right-most goat door if the car is behind —the door that you pick out of 3.—   So now if: The car is behind door 1:
1. You pick door 1; and Monty opens door 3 and lets you switch ONLY to door 2; YOU SWITCH AND LOSE, I want to point out here that this is the first in a set of scenarios is which Monty the left most door to let you switch to and YOU STILL LOSE if you switch.
2. You pick door 2; and IN THIS SCENARIO MONTY HAS A 100% OF OPENING DOOR 3 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 1; YOU SWITCH AND WIN, now some of you are saying that I'm making the odds uneven by listing the winning scenarios twice, but IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH GOAT MONTY LETS ME SWITCH TO, NEITHER GOAT IS A CAR, so if I have to list —the scenarios in which I switch to a goat— twice, I have to listed —the scenarios in which I switch to a car— twice.
3. You pick door 3; and IN THIS SCENARIO, MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 2 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 1; YOU SWITCH AND WIN
5. So let's just recap what we've learned so far, for —the scenario in which the car is behind door 1:— we've already established 6 possibilities; in our first set, Monty will reveal the left goat and let you switch to the right goat if you pick door 1.  In our second set, Monty will reveal the right goat and let you switch to the left goat if you pick door 1.  So it's a 2/6 chance that switching will cause you to lose, and because we have to double the other possibilities as well, it's 4/6 that switching will cause you to win.  2/6 equals 1/3 and 4/6 equals 2/3, the odds of winning if you switch, and that trend will continue when we go to what happens if: The car is behind door 2:
1. You pick door 1; and IN THIS SCENARIO MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 3 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 2; YOU SWITCH AND WIN
2. You pick door 2; and Monty opens door 3 and lets you switch ONLY to door 1; YOU SWITCH AND LOSE
3. You pick door 3; and IN THIS SCENARIO MONTY HAS A 100& CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 1 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 2; YOU SWITCH AND WIN
6. The car is behind door 3:
1. You pick door 1; and IN THIS SCENARIO MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 2 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 3; YOU SWITCH AND WIN
2. You pick door 2; and IN THIS SCENARIO MONTY HAS A 100% CHANCE OF OPENING DOOR 1 AND LETTING YOU SWITCH TO DOOR 3; YOU SWITCH AND WIN
3. You pick door 3: and Monty opens door 2 and lets you switch to door 2; YOU SWITCH AND LOSE

If you hit control+F on this page and type the words, "YOU SWITCH AND WIN," you will see 13 matches including this example, that's 12/18 possibilities, 12/18=2/3  In all 18 possibilities, —whether Monty wants to reveal the left goat when he has a choice or when he wants to reveal the right goat when he has a choice— doesn't matter because when Monty has a choice of which goat to reveal, you lose.  But there's only a 1/3 chance the Monty will have a choice of which goat to reveal and no matter which goat he reveals, if Monty had a choice of which goat to reveal and you switch, you lose.  There's a 2/3 chance that Monty can ONLY reveal 1 goat, and that's more likely and that probably happened without out knowing it so it doesn't matter that there are two doors after one is eliminated because there's a 2/3 chance that you've forced Monty to tell you which door the car is behind, and when you've forced Monty to reveal which door the car is behind, it's behind the door that you end up switching to if you decided to switch.  If you decide to switch, you're NOT choosing out of the two remaining doors that you didn't pick when there were 3, when you choose to switch, you're choosing to win the car if there's a goat behind the door you picked when all 3 doors were closed, and there's a 2/3 chance of picking —a door with a goat behind it— when all 3 doors are closed.  When you switch, you're turning a 2/3 chance of losing into a 2/3 chance of winning.

TheLegend27

Oh boy do I love TheLegend27, boy isn't it a great commercial?  I'm so glad that my youtube videos got interrupted so I could watch a bunch of boring cunts talk about some other boring cunt!  Boy is it sooooooooooo great that anyone had to sit through that shit.  It's so great in fact, that it deserves for everyone to repeat it for free and give the company free advertising by turning it into a meme.

Aren't you mainstream sheep cunts great?  You should be so proud of yourselves!  You turned something annoying and spreaded it like a cancer on the internet and embraced it.  I bet if I followed one of you assholes around for at least a month yelling, "go to Xaxton Revolution's youtube channel several times," none of you would!

So that's right go ahead, be dumb little sheeple, keep repeating the marketing slogan, help a company get rich while you get nothing in return.  You should feel great for what you've done, the internet is sooooooo much better because of you.

Oil in the Middle East

So a lot of people think that the middle east is a cultural wasteland.  While it is true that most of the US oil does NOT come from there, it still sustains itself from oil that it gives to other countries and those countries include —countries that the US does business with.—  So when you do business with —a country that buys oil from the middle east,— you're indirectly buying from the middle east.

The problem with this is that oil is an industry that not everyone can harvest, it can only be harvested by —people who are lucky enough to live on land that it's coming out of.—  The oil industry does NOT reward people for their effort, but for their luck, and just by luck —the people with the most influence are the people with the must luck and not necessarily the best morality.—

Oil should NOT be the main export of the middle east because that means that everyone can constantly be at war with each other instead of —suffering financial consequences as a result of civil unrest on a national scale.—  In short, the middle east needs to be rich not from oil, but from —a business venture that requires unity amongst itself.—