Posts by Matthew Young35

Why on earth does my PC decide to reboot itself when I’m not even using it?
I'll leave the thing alone for an hour or two, and suddenly it restarts, only to claim it can't find the hard drive.
If I actually put it to work, it runs perfectly for days on end.
Wouldn't it make more sense for a computer to crash under a heavy workload rather than while it's just sitting there idling?

Alex Barnes4 said:Is there any website out there that lists Linux terminal commands alongside their equivalents for the Windows command prompt (Windows 7)?

I stumbled upon http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/uni...dos_users.html , but not all the commands seem to work correctly.

Ideally, I'd like them organized by topic rather than just an alphabetical list.

There aren't really "equivalent" commands.
Think of it this way: Linux is a Formula 1 race car, complete with a dedicated pit crew and mechanics, whereas the Windows command prompt is more like a shopping cart you're pushing through a local grocery store.

Any Linux shell and the Windows command prompt are simply incomparable tools.

Terry Carter2 said:Regarding Matthew Young35's scoring method, it might actually be the most fair approach if we look at it through the lens of what ruggedhawk20 is suggesting. When I calculate the results, I always stick to Matthew Young35's system because it’s officially part of the current regulations, so there's really no issue there.
The current system should be played strictly by the rules as they are defined, not some improvised version of them! What frustrates me most is that this debate is dragging on months late—it’s ridiculous that the participants didn't engage with this when it was actually happening.
That said, under the existing rules, anything can technically be changed mid-season, though I wouldn't recommend messing with the points system while the race is still running.
😁

Of course, changing the scoring system in the middle of a competition is completely off the table.

By the way, that was a clever little hook.

ruggedhawk20 said:Alright then, go ahead—run the numbers through your system and post them here. I'm dying to see how much they differ. In my system, the gaps are absolutely massive.

Heh, if I could actually track down that program, I might actually bother.
Who knows which corner of some old hard drive it vanished into?

stormybadger8 said:Joe, hands down, the best scoring system is Matthew Young35's original method😁 you know, that thing people call "Matthew's rule" or whatever...
The only catch is that the math is a pain, and nobody actually wants to sit there crunching numbers because it takes forever...

Basically, the system works by looking at the gap between where you predicted a driver would finish versus where they actually landed...
So, if you miss by 3 spots, you get 3 points; miss by 10, you get 10 points... and so on for every single driver.
The winner is whoever ends up with the lowest score, and the loser is the one with the most.

Honestly, it’s the perfect system. You won't find anything better or more fair than this.☕
The only issue is that half the players can't handle it, and then they spend the next six months whining about how someone jumped them in the standings.🤣

I put together a little program to calculate points based on my own custom system, and I even ran it through a single race to see how the standings would shake out.
If my memory serves me right, calculating the full standings took me about 15 to 20 minutes.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Do you want me to pull up the quotes?

As for that colleague you're asking about, she actually got banned tonight. She finally hit her limit on points.

Quotes from what?
Fine, go ahead. But make sure you include the context they were responding to. Let the community decide if this is actual trolling or just mindless spamming. I've already admitted to the insults.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:You haven't actually asked yet. That warning was basically a cumulative strike for insults, trolling, and spamming across several posts in that thread, not just one single instance. Which is exactly what the warning description states, anyway.

I don't accept that explanation.
I wasn't spamming or trolling those threads. Does persistent, factual refutation of other users' blatant lies not count as spamming or trolling? Because if it doesn't, I don't know what does.
I didn't even insult Precise.

But fine, whatever. I got banned because I hit the first 100 points. I’m just wondering why the same standards aren't applied to everyone else on this forum.
As far as I know, insulting users usually nets you well over 30 points—at least, that was always my experience.
Why did Lilith only get 30 points for such a blatant insult?

Well, here we go... I’ll just keep talking. This post was from 4:00; it's 6:00 now. Maybe they'll finally wake up by ten.

It doesn't really matter, though. I just wanted to make sure the nonsense from the "other side" gets documented—all that spamming and trolling—since I've already been penalized myself.

Charles Fox10 said:That second thread isn't even relevant to what you asked. It’s more about how the mods handle reading and managing topics.

I can't really address your second point regarding the ban, since you didn't receive that notice from the New York Times.

🤷
Then let the moderator explain themselves.
Penalties and warnings ought to be applied consistently. Why should one insult carry three and a half times the weight of an identical insult directed at another user?

James Patel20 said:Now, if I may offer a little defense for the moderation team... 😬

The reality is, there aren't enough people logged onto the forum 24/7 to jump in the very second a report comes in.

I was thinking about writing a bit more to defend them, but honestly, I think I've said enough for one day... 🙂

I realize the mods have lives outside this forum and aren't online around the clock. However, the reality is that action was only taken after I made a scene. And why did I have to make a scene? Because when I push back, I get banned within ten minutes, whereas for certain individuals, the moderators seem to be nowhere to be found for days at a time.

For starters, what kind of metric are we using here? By what logic is telling someone, "You give off the impression of an exceptionally unintelligent person" worth 100 points, while calling someone a "small, arrogant, and self-important ignoramus" only nets you 30?
Both are insults, certainly, but surely there’s a distinction in the sheer intensity of the blow.
I am genuinely curious to hear the reasoning behind this.

Charles Fox10 said:Why are you so obsessed with whether someone else's policy of being cardboard is intact or not? Besides, that post on Policy is already part of the policy of being cardboard—and it isn't the only one.

They interest me because they put me in a corner. They force my hand until I feel compelled to respond in kind, and then suddenly, I’m the one who gets flagged and banned.
So, tell me—did anyone trigger the moderation after I posted that above?

We allow certain users to troll without restraint, hurling insults and spinning blatant lies over and over again. Then, when I finally snap and give them a taste of their own medicine, I’m the one facing the ban hammer.
And now you're asking why I track who has been targeted by the policy of being cardboard and who hasn't.
😢

Why isn't there any enforcement of the policy of being cardboard when it comes to insults?

lilith forever said:Listen, honey, you're the only one here who's actually arrogant, self-important, and clueless.

So...
I just got slapped with a 100-point penalty because I told a certain female user that her posts give off the impression of someone lacking intelligence.
Fine.
I insulted her.
The official explanation also claims the penalty is for spamming the thread and trolling.
I can't say I agree with that part, but whatever. The moderator seems to be operating on a double standard, and honestly, what's the point in arguing?

Now, here’s the kicker: in a thread about why Lilith is eternal, she posted an entire message in all caps—which violates both our site rules and basic internet etiquette.
I reported that post, yet not a single penalty was issued.
Why is that?

cosmictinker44 said:Someone’s probably gonna report me for calling all Americans idiots and get me banned... or maybe "Taliban" is the only forbidden dogmatic word around here...

If I understood the previous debate correctly, apparently calling someone an idiot is perfectly fine, but using the word "Taliban" is considered an insult to 87% of Americans.
🤷

cosmictinker44 said:And even after this whole Pozaic mess, we still aren't allowed to call him a Taliban... yet he’s out here calling for a new "Storm" against the government. How am I supposed to label him without getting sued? A traitor? An insurrectionist?

An idiot?
I believe that was one of the suggestions.

Drew Jones6 said:If Bozanic had gone on such a fierce rant and someone labeled him a Taliban, it might actually make sense just based on surface-level appearances. But even then, you’d first have to look at whether what Bishop Pozaic is saying holds any water—is his message actually true, or is he speaking the absolute, unvarnished truth?

Look, being intense doesn't mean someone is lying. Does anyone remember how fierce Pope John Paul II used to get when he spoke? I personally remember him giving this sermon in Sicily where he went absolutely ballistic defending the fifth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," while taking aim at the mafia.

But then, the same guy knelt down in Auschwitz and prayed with total humility and burning passion for the victims of the Holocaust.

So, just because someone speaks with intensity like Bishop Pozaic, it doesn't automatically make them a Taliban. Honestly, if people are quick to throw the "Taliban" label at someone as mild-mannered as Bozanic without any real substance, I shudder to think what they’d reflexively scream at Bishop Pozaic just because of his aggressive tone.

You can't judge someone based solely on their temperament or tone—at least not when dealing with serious people. Yet, I've already seen political commentators claiming that Bishop Pozaic’s performance was almost impossible to top.

Maybe we should be asking a different question entirely:

Can someone even call themselves a decent human being if they *don't* react exactly like Bishop Pozaic did when their own children's mental and physical health are under attack?

Morality isn't just a right; it's an obligation. When someone's fundamental rights and freedoms are threatened—especially when those rights involve the well-being of our own kids—nobody has the right to stay silent. You shouldn't even be "mild" in your protest; you need to be sharp and loud.

That is the real truth behind this whole situation that’s been kicking up a massive dust storm in America over the last few weeks. And thank God for Forum.hr.

Interesting.

4GB is really the sweet spot when you consider value versus performance for running Windows 7.
2GB? You're barely scraping by.
And 1GB is just laughably insufficient. Even if all you want to do is browse the web.

I honestly find it baffling that anyone would deny that declaring Bozanica a religious figure is an absolute truth.
How exactly would you describe a man who, out of pure devotion, walks away from the pleasures of the world to embrace a life of modesty and celibacy—someone who travels the earth in simple robes, spreading nothing but messages of love and faith?
Personally, I call such individuals religious fanatics, and I’ll stand by that label even if it means facing a ban on this forum.

Walter Brooks5 said:Maybe you should go out and hunt for some lost book by Aristotle yourself. Just imagine if you actually found it, read it, and realized you’ve had a completely wrong idea about how to be funny this whole time?

Trust me, you’d be pretty shocked.

As for your basic lack of understanding regarding Catholicism, I’ve got two little lessons for you:

1. According to the Council's view, the Church is separate from the State, but it shouldn't be sidelined from society—the Church *is* society, or rather, the specific part of society made up of its members.

2. Anyone who participates in abortion or the promotion of pedophilia and pornography is automatically cast out from the Catholic Church.

Do I even need to remind you of Jesus's words: "It would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead a child into sin!"

So, there you go—that's the extent of your sense of humor and your grasp of Catholicism!

So, what exactly does it mean when we say the Church has been sidelined from society?
They are practically allowed to proselytize their religion right in the middle of public schools. They have regular slots on television, their holidays are official national holidays, and whenever their leader speaks, every single media outlet picks it up and broadcasts it as gospel. Is it even a question anymore?
Why exactly is the Church being cast out of society?

Anyone who participates in the promotion of abortion, pedophilia, or pornography should be considered automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Is there any other way to view it?

And if we are talking about practicing pedophilia, then just transfer him to be a priest in a different parish.