Youtube comments of iorekby (@iorekby).
-
1900
-
1200
-
825
-
529
-
377
-
202
-
153
-
151
-
147
-
109
-
87
-
80
-
67
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
54
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
46
-
43
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
The reality is though that in certain domains C/C++ isn't optional, it's mandatory e.g. Cryptography, embedded systems/systems drivers, malware analysis, Operating systems, certain desktop apps (e.g web browsers), image processing, writing other languages (e.g. one of the major versions of Python is written in C), fintech (all those financial transactions need to be optimized across the board, not just at the hardware level).... and a bunch more.
Sure, you can work as an entry-level web dev and never do any of that stuff. But if you just know JS and PHP, you won't be able to get into any of that cool stuff above which personally I would find an awful shame.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
@dant828
A guy in my old class who'd just gotten his blue belt got dropped at a party by some "random guy" he got in to a row with. Guy just caught him first. Did BJJ help my team mate? No, it didn't. So, yeah, I can say it isn't useful. Not all the time anyway. Go on to the BJJ sub on Reddit, you'll find stories both ways of people using it and people finding it to be of little to no help in a fight. Or Youtube. There are videos of people using it to fight people, and there are videos of people getting destroyed trying to use BJJ in a fight.
And even at that, it's ridiculous rationalisation to do BJJ: I would be much less likely to be in that already unlikely situation by practising my awareness, avoidance, deescalation and flight skills which should be anyone's go to to avoid trouble. Not trying to clock choke some "random guy", who by the way could have a knife or anything else. See? I can make spurious things up to to try and justify a point, but I'd rather not as it's an incredibly weak way to try and prove an argument. Creating a false dichotomy to support an argument is deeply, deeply flawed.
It's not always "useful", it's more fine grained than that.
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
It's the same story with boys. Studies have shown in countries like the US and countries in Europe that boys pre-puberty, are just about as expressive with their feelings as girls. Once they hit the teenage years, they are expected to do painful things like participate in full contact sports or start helping with "men's work", which is invariably dangerous and scary. If you try to express any fear or sadness or pain emotionally, what do we usually get told? "Man up" or " Grow a pair " or "it's a man's game, don't be a p***y". And it's not just men saying this to boys, it's often women and girls too.
So, what happens? Boys start to shut down their feelings and being expressive. They start to become, as the OP says "dead inside". They stop caring about feelings and start dealing with their pain in other ways (e.g. drinking, drugs, getting lost in video games etc...).
And then they grow up unable to expressive themselves, and those very people who used to tell them to "man up" ring their hands and wonder "Why can't men express themselves?"
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
A lot of people miss a point Aaron glosses over here: Back in the day, you had to be really fucking smart to be a computer or software engineer. It was really hard and forget about getting a job without a) being a bonfide computer genius and /or b) having a top notch CS degree. Programmers back in the 80s and 90s used to be like medical doctors: very smart, highly educated and only a small number of people were actually able to do it.
Post C, and with so many front end jobs, the entry level did indeed become lower to become a developer. It was a race to the bottom. Consequently, we now have a huge amount of people working professionally as "software developers" who are quite frankly appalling at coding. Just look at GitHub sometime, see how many projects actually have meaningful numbers of forks. It's not a lot. It's less than 10% of all the projects on there.
That can mean many things, but one thing it might likely mean is that 90% of code on GitHub isn't particularly good or useful.
There's a lot of dogsh!t code and dogsh!t coders out there today. It creates a vicious cycle: companies need to hire more developers because so many of their developers are subpar, meaning they need more people at keyboards hacking out bad code to make something work.
The tech industry also condones bad code. The well worn mantra still holds true: Badly written software that is delivered on time is better than good software that is late. In other words, tech companies are often ambivalent about bad coding.
Tl;DR Most code and coders are dogsh!t today as entry barriers in to tech are so low, and because tech companies don't care about selling badly coded software as they can and do make money doing this. While for now it's good because it means any Joe 6-pack can become a developer, we're eventually going to go back to the days when computer/software engineers were fairly elite. Many of the Joe 6 pack coders will be put out of a job, and only the people maintaining things like 5th gen languages, Deep Learning systems or NoCode solutions will have jobs.
7
-
@mouthpiece200
1) Don't ask this guy, because he doesn't know. Now, does he tell you what you want to hear? Sure. You don't get views by being realistic and knowing what you are talking about necessarily.
2) No, not in a year you won't have a "great paying" job. You';ll have an entry level job, at best. Now, it might pay you more or less than you have now, but no one gets in to a great paying job with 6 months of self teaching unless they are a 1 in 500 genius with maybe an engineering or hard science or math degree. Thats unrealistic.
The only companies who will give you a chance will likely pay you less than market rate because you don't have experience or a CS degree. It's not impossible, but being a self taught dev and landing a job is not easy, and getting a great paying job in 1 or even 2 years is highly unrealistic for most people.
I'd honestly recommend if people have the means to try a bootcamp for 6 months because some can land you a job at least. But channels like this paint really unrealistic pictures about frankly everything in tech. This guy has not worked in big tech, or worked recently in dev with modern tech, has never studied CS at a university, and came along at a time when literally anyone who was interested in making a website was being paid stupid money. That was 20+ years ago and tech moves quickly so it may as well have been 100 years ago.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
You have to look who is attacking Math: It comes from Sociologists, many of whom claim to be "scientists" yet won't, and many times can't, use scientific/mathematical empirical methods to support their claims, and simply resort to ideological claims with zero supportive evidence.
When you exclude the sub-domain of Crim. Justice, Sociology is crumbling as an academic domain. In the past 40 years Sociology majors has severely decreased in the USA. It's increasingly being driven by "post-truth" and ideology in an attempt to desperately allow sociologists to keep their cushy academic jobs.
If you look at where the attacks are coming from against Science, Math and Professional degrees, it's from Sociology and it's sub-domains. They know they are losing the fight, and the decline of sociology in the academic space has not coincided with any tangible break down in society. In other words, what good is sociology actually doing for the world. It's absence and waning has no great impact on society, which simply begs the question: Why does it exist at all in 2021?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The problem is genre too. If you look at something like the Joker, it would work without being a comic book movie. It doesn't need the genre, it just happens to fall in to the genre. Same with the very early GOT seasons; it didn't need the fantasy genre, it still worked as a piece of story telling.
With genre movies these days, it's often ALL about the genre: The space invaders, the super powers, the laser beams, the explosions, the jump scares.... if you take that out of a movie, does it still work? Would it still be a compelling story with a strong plot and interesting, deep characters? If it's not, chances are it's not going to be that interesting because there's only so many ways we can see CGI dragons and light sabers and super heroes shooting lasers from their hands/eyes... It can become very repetitive very quickly.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Props to Wilder but let's fact check a few things here:
1) Wilder had been boxing 3 years when he went to the Olympics, not 1.5 years. You can see on multiple sources Wilder started boxing shortly after turning 20, which was in 2005. He fought in the Beijing Games in 2008.
2) He barely qualified for the Olympics. First, he was in the Pan Am qualifiers. At that time, the best 91kg fighters were European, none were in the Pan Ams. The Cubans didn't' have anyone decent in that division since Solis defected in 2006. Secondly, he only beat his Ecuadorian opponent on a *double count-back*. Under the old amateur system, that meant the bout was technically a draw, they had to count individual punches. They were still equal. It was basically a ref's decision at that time, which was little more than a coin flip.
3) He had an INSANELY kind draw in the Olympics. He beat just 2 boxers to win a bronze medal. The guys he was up against were not rated in the top 15 by the AIBA at the time. He fought a guy from Tunisia and a guy from Morocco, who once again, he drew with and it had to go to countback.
4) Russo was probably the only genuine world class amateur Wilder fought in his brief amateur career, and despite Russo only being 5'11.5 inches, he schooled Wilder.
Wilder deserves huge respect for his accomplishments in such a short time as an amateur, but Joe is over-egging the pudding by claiming he beat this amazing amateurs in 1.5 years. That's not correct. It was 3 years, and by and large Wilder fought some experienced but very ordinary fighters to win his bronze medal. He also struggled to beat 2 of the opponents on the path to that medal, and if the coin flipped the other way he could've easily have not gotten a medal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David-_-_- I understand what shoot boxing is (I disagree with your definition slightly but anyways), but where I am disagreeing with you is that this style of shoot boxing would be sufficient against anyone beyond, respectfully, journeyman MMA fighters. Even if Tonon "builds on his striking" this is unlikely to bode well when he steps up. He's operating at a pretty low level in MMA at the moment, and in somewhere like ONE you can get away with that and even win a title.
Look at Roger Gracie, he tried the exact same approach and trained with Renzo and Rillion for a time and those guys were all about "shoot boxing". It still didn't help Roger. When he stepped up against someone who was at a certain level of strikung his lack of striking skills were badly exposed.
Shootboxing, even with Danaher, isn't going to get an elite BJJ fighter too far beyond low-level MMA. Top-level MMA guys today are good across the board. Being simply great at one thing and mediocre at everything else is not a recipe for top drawer MMA success. Like I said earlier if the plan is to keep the likes of Tonon and Ryan at low-level MMA, sure, they can get away with it. I do understand what you are saying, I am simply disagreeing with your faith that Shootboxing in 2021 is going to get those guys far. I'm not even talking about them developing elite striking skills either. I'm simply talking about a minimum viable amount of striking skills to fend off top drawer MMA fighters.
I appreciate you disagree though, but if Tonon ever steps up to the likes of UFC then he'll be found out. This is exactly why he's fighting halfway around the world in ONE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troymcclure681 Fact 1: Nonsense, as has been clearly shown:
https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Joe_Frazier_(3rd_meeting)
You see boxer's getting paid purses of $4million+ and $2million+ for fights. The entire budget, which included Lee's salary for Way of the Dragon was only $130k. So, that's not a "fact" from you, it's delusional nonsense.
Fact 2: One more time, unreliable narrator. LeBell only rose to prominence after working with Lee. And even at that, this is the same LeBell who claimed he easily put Lee in a Fireman's carry Lee was unable to escape from. So, what is it: We accept LeBell is an unreliable narrator OR we accept contradictory evidence from him i.e. "Bruce Lee was a martial arts fighter" but also "I beat him easily with a rudimentary wrestling hold". He cannot be both a good fighter and easily beaten.
Fact 3: Again, unreliable narrator. Chuck Norris only had a movie career thanks to Lee. And at that, Chuck competed in semi-contact fights, not full contact fights.
The final 2 paragraphs are laughable. They didn't have cameras... on a movie set 🙄 Do you have any idea how utterly moronic that sounds? And they didn\t have cameras to record fights back then?? And yet Gene LeBell, in 1968, had an MMA no holds barred match and they were able to record that (to say nothing of hundreds of martial arts fights and combat sports matches that were recorded in this era)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mER2BmNRA
And I don't hate Bruce Lee, I really like his movies. He was a smart guy, and did a lot of Asian culture and cinema. He's a genuine movie icon. There's just no real proof he was a fighter. All that nonsense you've tried to present as "fact" is at best unreliable and highly contestable, and at worst just inane fan fiction. You can believe it if you want to, but once more: It simply shows the irrational, cultish church-like devotion to a god-like figure. I don't dislike Bruce Lee. I do, however, dislike delusional Bruce Lee fans who make the man out to be more than he was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zether-sl5vl That is the dumbest argument. It's not an either-or lmao!! You make it sound like the choices are do BJJ or do nothing lol.
There are a million ways to exercise compared to BJJ, and frankly, a lot of them are a lot better comparatively. Less injurious, burn more calories etc...
BJJ is designed to make you more efficient over time, to require less strength and energy. And guess what, that means you burn fewer calories. BJJ gets to be a poorer workout the longer you do it, especially if you are doing "light of medium" intensity training. Becoming worse as an exercise system over time is a feature of BJJ, not a bug.
Anecdotally, I burn more calories doing Kettlebells or swimming for an hour than I do doing BJJ. Realistically most of us have other things in our lives, we only have so much time for exercise classes. If someone is only interested in BJJ compared to all other exercises, sure, it is better than nothing. But otherwise, it is not close to the best exercise choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1