mt180

[mt180]

your what

puppy tf comic presented as a series of frames from a "dog rescue" tik tok, where two basic girls accost a very confused looking man on the street and treat him like an adorable lost dog as they make sad faces for the camera, overwhelming him with basic girl cloying while he slowly transforms into a pathetic stray. tik tok text to speech voice is like "we found him on the side of the road, he's so cute" while this is happening

[mt180]

ok i will admit i also somehow read this as being performed in your mind and the rest of this thread is how i figured out that's not correct

pretty sure i just imagined words and decided they were there

right now in my twisty puzzle adventure i am gravitating towards big cubes (4x4 and 5x5) and also face turning octahedron, haven't cracked dodecahedrons yet.

[mt180]

werewolf where the wolf form isn't more jacked than the human form

i am starving

[mt180]

what if

i placed LEAFBLOWERS inside

clam cannon

where are your gods now

what if

I invented

TWO clams

where are your gods now

[mt180]

shoutout to the Right side of the blanket. i hate it when i the Wrong side. using the wrong side of the blanket feels Wrong. Wrong side users dni

[mt180]

hi, me from 8 months ago. you can do better. you should also exercise being less of a fucking pedant

i (value of 1)

* (groups two consecutive values (how did i miss this opportunity, smh))

~ (multiplicative inverse)

to demonstrate the functionality of this beautiful 3-symbol-system you so devastatingly missed all that time ago, i will express the same values you did here

1/2 = ~*ii

2/3 = ~**iii

-4/7 = ~******iiiiiii~******iiiiiii~******iiiiiii~******iiiiiiiii*ii

maybe this is a mess, but who cares, it's fun! i have also added even more equivalent representations of every number. this pairing mechanism can be used to represent larger integers in many ways. for example, 4 = ***iiii = **i*iii = **ii*ii = *i**iii = *i*i*ii

i don't think you can go any smaller without leaving numbers out, but maybe i'll come up with something in 8 months and be mad at this version of me who doesn't even know about the ULTIMATUM HYPERFUNCTOR SYMBOL which unambiguously solves the entire problem in one symbol

generalized roman numerals

start by breaking roman numerals into the simplest possible rules:

there is an arbitrary number of symbols

each symbol has a given value, each of which is part of a ring (wiki page: ring). the ring restriction is overkill but it will make sense later

each symbol has a given order

a symbol placed before a symbol of higher order is worth the additive inverse of its value (in numbers, 1 before 5 is worth negative 1)

a sequence of symbols denotes the value acquired by summing the value of each symbol

now we have a pretty versatile system, right? like you can represent just about anything from a group that can add and subtract into itself (like the integers, for example) [edit: untrue! i'm not sure for what exactly this doesn't hold, but we'll start with division-rings, most of those pretty obviously don't work out, since we can't get, for lack of a better term, "finer resolution" values than the finest one defined in our set of symbols. this is the whole reason i implemented a system for the rationals later in this post and i'm pissed i missed on this detail when i proofread this post the first time]

but it gets better, because we can also impose a couple more symbols. a pair of symbols for grouping a sequence of symbols such that it acts as one, and a symbol to take the multiplicative inverse of another symbol. this is why i defined the elements to be part of a ring earlier, it guarantees this part works. we also have to tweak our original system to, instead of defining an order for each symbol, allow to compute the order of symbols as a bijective function of the ring containing all of their values to real numbers so that we can decide whether groups of symbols should be added or subtracted from other symbols

now we can do fun things like represent every rational number in our generalized roman numerals and it's only a little bit miserable

here's a tiny set of symbols you need to do that:

i (a symbol with a numeric value of 1)

[] (opening and closing group symbols)

~ (takes multiplicative inverse of next symbol or grouped symbols)

now we can represent any rational number:

1/2 = ~[ii]

2/3 = ~[iii]i (subtracts 1/3 from 1)

-4/7 = ~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]ii[ii] (subtracts 4 copies of 1/7 and 2 copies of 1 from 2)

you can also write everything a basically infinite number of ways. for instance the following are also true:

1/2 = ~[iiii]~[iiii]i

-4/7 = iii[ii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]

thanks for reading my post about an exceedingly pointless number system. if you would like to expand on my system (possibly by adding some subset of irrational numbers through additional syntax, or even higher dimensional numbers, oh boy) or have some fun with ridiculous quirky things you can do using it, please do not hesitate to @ me. i am also interested in factually incorrect things i have written here

[mt180]

i realized i have strong opinions about punctuation

so instead of bothering a random person in my discord dms with too many messages about it i'm writing one message about it on tumblr.com

punctuation surrounding quotation marks is bullshit. every standard for it is dumb and wrong and makes your text less readable.

DON'T put a comma at the end of a piece of dialogue, it doesn't make sense at all.

DON'T put the punctuation before the quotation mark unless it's actually a part of the thing you're quoting.

DON'T use the quote's final punctuation as the final punctuation of your sentence. i would seriously rather read "...and he said 'snorp glop?'." over trying to figure out whether the question mark is making your text a question or denoting that the original quote was a question. yes this is an actual problem i encounter, i'm autistic

in-text citations are cool but formatting for them is extra bullshit because now the period gets all fucky wucky and goes wherever it fucking wants to depending on how big the quote is and where in the sentence it appears EXCEPT there aren't any good standards AT ALL for if the quote doesn't appear at the end of a sentence because... i guess you're not supposed to put it there? but like, why though

i also think parentheses and other grouping symbols should follow these same rules. this includes the period at the end of a parenthetical citation.

when you are writing a period, ask yourself this: does the period actually end the sentence you're writing? if so, consider ACTUALLY PUTTING THE PERIOD AFTER THE END OF THE DAMN SENTENCE YOU FUCKING ACADEMIC NUMBNUTS

[mt180]

minesweeper is equally as bad as any common addiction for exactly this reason

if i play a puzzle game for too long its mechanics become the default schema that my brain returns to & i start falling into a loop of making up fake puzzles to try solving in my head while i sleep, exhausting myself until i wake up.

[mt180]

"wow this month really flew by!"

"it's just that nothing's happening i guess" NO THAT'S SO WRONG!! you have NO IDEA how wrong that is. there is shit happening all the time. you just have to find things that are happening and pay attention to them. i am so proud of figuring this out

[mt180]

fillin my suppacasiidyt

fillin my suppasiidyt

[mt180]

generalized roman numerals

start by breaking roman numerals into the simplest possible rules:

there is an arbitrary number of symbols

each symbol has a given value, each of which is part of a ring (wiki page: ring). the ring restriction is overkill but it will make sense later

each symbol has a given order

a symbol placed before a symbol of higher order is worth the additive inverse of its value (in numbers, 1 before 5 is worth negative 1)

a sequence of symbols denotes the value acquired by summing the value of each symbol

now we have a pretty versatile system, right? like you can represent just about anything from a group that can add and subtract into itself (like the integers, for example) [edit: untrue! i'm not sure for what exactly this doesn't hold, but we'll start with division-rings, most of those pretty obviously don't work out, since we can't get, for lack of a better term, "finer resolution" values than the finest one defined in our set of symbols. this is the whole reason i implemented a system for the rationals later in this post and i'm pissed i missed on this detail when i proofread this post the first time]

but it gets better, because we can also impose a couple more symbols. a pair of symbols for grouping a sequence of symbols such that it acts as one, and a symbol to take the multiplicative inverse of another symbol. this is why i defined the elements to be part of a ring earlier, it guarantees this part works. we also have to tweak our original system to, instead of defining an order for each symbol, allow to compute the order of symbols as a bijective function of the ring containing all of their values to real numbers so that we can decide whether groups of symbols should be added or subtracted from other symbols

now we can do fun things like represent every rational number in our generalized roman numerals and it's only a little bit miserable

here's a tiny set of symbols you need to do that:

i (a symbol with a numeric value of 1)

[] (opening and closing group symbols)

~ (takes multiplicative inverse of next symbol or grouped symbols)

now we can represent any rational number:

1/2 = ~[ii]

2/3 = ~[iii]i (subtracts 1/3 from 1)

-4/7 = ~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]ii[ii] (subtracts 4 copies of 1/7 and 2 copies of 1 from 2)

you can also write everything a basically infinite number of ways. for instance the following are also true:

1/2 = ~[iiii]~[iiii]i

-4/7 = iii[ii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]~[iiiiiii]

thanks for reading my post about an exceedingly pointless number system. if you would like to expand on my system (possibly by adding some subset of irrational numbers through additional syntax, or even higher dimensional numbers, oh boy) or have some fun with ridiculous quirky things you can do using it, please do not hesitate to @ me. i am also interested in factually incorrect things i have written here

[mt180]

this tas guy is so good

stop talking you are not funny

[mt180]

tone indicators are fundamentally broken and actively hurt my comprehension of things which they're trying to clarify

tone indicators are fucking stupid /iambeingsofuckingseriousrightnow

exhibit A: abbreviations

consider the following from the standpoint of a person who has never used or seen this system: "no that's totally okay /s"

what does /s mean? is it </s>erious or </s>arcastic or </s>omething else entirely?

example 2: "/pos". sure, this might *obvously* mean "i am meant to interpret this message as having a positive meaning" to you, but it could just as easily mean "[the text before '/pos'] and/or piece of shit" or could simply be a shorthand way of implying rage or distaste towards something through the phrase "piece of shit". you're such a nerd/pos. i swear i stole that example from somewhere. it was ingrained in my memory one way or another

exhibit b: contradictions

"that's so fucked /pos" and things that could literally never be a joke being totally like /j bro both ruin my tiny little brain mind. also what in the fuck is a /hj. wait didn't someone already make that video? was it jan misali? i think it was. go watch that video, the points made there are a lot more concise and thought-out than anything i would ever write here, probably. i can't be bothered to check

exhibit 3: trolls broke your shit

i have been part of the problem here before! it's normally not very funny but it seems like it would be something that could be funny before it happens. random letters after slashes that don't mean anything but i wouldn't be able to know because your system is a bunch of random fucking letters anyway /z, out of place tags, and intentionally completely contradictory message-tag combinations are recurring things /j. in my personal experience, these are more common than what i imagine intended uses of this system are. i have been trained by internet scoundrels to ignore your /letter-sequences

addendum (exhibit iv): stop using this shit to cover your ass when you say something obviously pointed

no amount of /pos /gen /this-is-a-nice-message-i-promise should ever protect you from the repercussions of saying something clearly pointed on the internet, not that said repercussions are huge or anything, but you should own up to saying the things you say

i am a person who might be considered the "intended audience" for this system and *i* am complaining about it. wowie

[mt180]

ok but what even actually is modern art and why does anyone care

in my time i have come across plenty of people who claim that whatever "modern art" is doesn't count as art, and somehow it's never occurred to me to ask, why not?

taking the common example of a banana taped to a wall, how can we conclude decisively that

this does not count as art

we can point to a concrete set of axioms which validate this claim

these axioms do not disqualify creations which we deem should count as art

i am not here to provide any such set of axioms. i don't take issue with the banana being considered art, and the problem statement necessarily implies a solution to the problem is based in subjectivity (i will happily eat my words if someone can come up with a version of this problem statement which doesn't include such a thing), therefore nobody's answers will be the same and different things will count as art to different people

this then begs the question: why are some people so eager to publicize their claims and complaints regarding modern art when the only way their claims can be validated is using the opinions of one or more people?

i haven't thought on it long enough to come up with any theories but if i do i'll make sure not to post them here

prager university

[mt180]

things that happen in common english that i think shouldn't happen

before i begin i would like to let you know that my opinions matter more than yours. period

numba 1

capital letter i for singular first person pronoun is FUCKING stupid and we should crucify jesus again over it

no other pronoun is capitalized in this manner, and it only serves to confuse everyone. it's confusing for non-native writers because it's a wacky special case, and it's confusing for native writers because capital i looks like lowercase L in many fonts

number 2

hyphenated sequences of words are disappearing and i am malding about it. i refuse to cope. "soon-to-be" is the only way of writing this phrase that doesn't make my skin liquefy when i read it. maybe they're actually not going away though i can't tell i'm not qualified for this and i am unpaid and they won't let me go

numero tres

days of the week should not be capitalized, neither should months. maybe it makes sense if you're referring to one specific instance of a day of the week or a month in general usage these behave as common nouns and should be treated as such i think

nusmber4

turn off auto-capitalize on your phone please

this is a large block of prescriptivism. do whatever you want. nobody actually cares. except number 1. my blood is increasing in temperature until the water content vaporizes and it forms into a strange solid substance

[mt180]

"i am beginning to think one who speaks in hyperbolics, a transformative fate, possibly" masquerading onto the squared-off pavement ramp, reaching far off into a neighboring region only parallel to a fifth of the remaining side. sorry! i couldn't save the other third for those ones, there just isn't enough compartmentalization beyond the waves for a new kind of reach.

[mt180]

you