u/Pure_Option_1733

I learned in art class when in grade school that red, yellow, and blue are the primary colors of paint. I also understand that the subtractive primary colors are cyan, magenta, and yellow, because cyan just absorbs red and reflects green and blue, magenta just absorbs green and reflects red and blue, and yellow just absorbs blue and reflects red and blue. From what I understand all pigment groups should have the subtractive primary colors, cyan, magenta, and yellow because when mixing pigments, if either component pigment absorbs a certain wavelength the mixture will too, and only when both component pigments reflect a wavelength will the mixture reflect that wavelength. In paint primary colors yellow is the only primary paint color that I understand to be a subtractive primary color, while red and blue are ones I understand to be additive primary colors.

So why are red, yellow, and blue, as opposed to cyan, magenta, and yellow the primary colors of paint?

It seems like one of the main things people use anonymity for on the internet is to get away with being mean. I know people use anonymity for other things, such as asking for advice, or asking questions one would otherwise be too embarrassed about asking, but it seems like being mean is one of the main things that people use anonymity for online. It seems like pretty much always when someone mentions people saying stuff online they wouldn’t say irl it’s pretty much always in the form of being mean as opposed to things like venting, or asking questions.

Intuitively it seems like things like asking questions one might be embarrassed about asking in real life, or maybe confessing about a preference one has that they would be nervous about mentioning in real life, or confessing an embarrassing secret, or venting would be more practical uses of anonymity than being mean. I mean I think confessing preferences could help to hint at what types of things people seem to prefer in real life might just be because of giving preferences people think are more socially acceptable, and confessing things in general could help hint at what might be more normal than it seems in real life. I know people on the internet use anonymity for the things I mentioned, but it seems like using anonymity to be mean is more common on the internet than using it for things like venting, confessing, or asking questions one might be embarrassed about asking.

Why might this be the case?

I know there’s multiple ways for a guy to phrase it when asking someone out. For instance he can say, “Do you want to get coffee sometime?” or “Do you want to get dinner tonight?” or “We should go see a movie together?” or “Would you like to go out on a date?” or “Do you want to go out sometime?” etc. What are some of your favorite ways a guy could phrase asking you if you want to go on a date with him?

It seems like some of the earliest theropods had at least 4 fingers on each hand, while most later theropods had at most 3 fingers, although there were some later theropods to retain 4 fingers. I was wondering if the way it seems like most theropods living in the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods had at most 3 fingers was from the theropods with at most 3 fingers having a common ancestor that had 3 fingers or from different lineages of theropods independently evolving to have at most 3 fingers.

I was just thinking it seems like vehicles have become much more rounded over time. I mean it seems like in general the front, middle, and back parts of vehicles tend to be curved. It seemed like in the past vehicles looked more blocky looking, with more straight edges. It seems like the blocky looking vehicles still exist but they’re less common than they used to be.

I was wondering why that might be. I mean is it just because electric vehicles have become more common, or also because gas vehicles have also become more rounded over time? If the latter then why might even gas vehicles have gotten more rounded over time? Is it because it’s safer to bump into a rounder vehicle or because people like the look or something else?

I remember seeing this movie awhile, I think years ago, but completely forgot the name of the movie. From what I remember one of the first scenes was of the professor splitting on 10s, and someone saying, “He’s splitting on 10s,” like it was really significant and then him winning. I also remember seeing him playing slot machines at multiple points in the movie, including I think at the beginning, and him seeming to be addicted to them. I also remember when back at school a person asked where the money was and then injuring his finger when he didn’t have it and saying he had until some time, and it seemed like that was the catalyst for the professor assembling a team of card counters.

I don’t remember how he chose all the members of his team, but I remember he went to a pizza place and putting in an order that was complicated, I think involving rotating the pizza by specific angles or something, specifically in order to test his server to see if she would be a good fit for his team, and then selecting her to join his team when she repeated his complicated order exactly.

I remember that at the school when talking about card counting the professor mentioning the importance of having a lot of money to avoid losing it all in a losing streak and one of the members of his team saying something like, “We’re not going to lose,” and I think something else before that I forgot, and the professor saying something like, “Of course you’re still going to lose. You’re just going to lose less often.”

I remember the professor coming up with the backgrounds the members of his team were supposed to have, which including some of the guys pretending to be business men and I think it including at least one of the girls pretending to be a prostitute or maybe an escort and her seeming to be offended by that role, and him basically saying that he chose that role because it was the most believable to other people at the casino.

I also remember that for some reason the professor in the movie couldn’t count cards with the team he assembled. I think it might have been because he was banned from counting cards at the casinos but I’m not certain about that.

I think I remember the team counting cards at the casino, and imagine they won a lot, but my memory is fuzzy on exactly what happened. I remember at one time them being at a really sketchy casino, that I think the group found out about from some girl and the place having a short deck and the staff not letting them leave. I remember the short deck ruined their ability to count cards and so instead they martingaled at that place, and I think they won money. I remember a female members of their team commenting on how they could lose it all when one of the male members was martingaling. I also remember at one time another guest at that place saying some stuff in a language I didn’t know and one the members of the main team translating it as something like, “I have multiple men outside, all members of the triad. They have a gun pointed at your head and if you do anything to me your face will be a bloody mess,” and then when the staff let the side character guest go the team member who was supposedly translating said, “And he says to let the kinds go too.”

I remember one of the female members of the team saying that what he did was crazy or something along those lines and the side character saying something that indicated that he wasn’t actually a member of the triad, and him saying that he was asked to say nonsense with conviction.

I remember at one point a female member of the professors team commenting on how they didn’t have enough time to win all the money the professor wanted them to win and that they would have to hope he would accept their answer.

I remember at the end someone from the team presenting the money and apologizing that it wasn’t enough, and either the professor or the shady debt collector happily saying that it was more than enough.

I found that when I tried typing keywords like, “movies about card counting,” or maybe “card counting movies,” non of the movies that popped up matched what I remember from this movie. Also when thinking of possible names of this movie and looking them up I didn’t find the movie.

Does anyone know the name of the movie I’m describing?

I’m wondering if women would tend to prefer a guy asking for her number first in order to get to know him some through texting or calling before he ever asks them out, or if women might prefer for a guy to ask for their number at the same time or before he asks them out mainly just to work out logistics.

I mean it seems like while people might not explicitly say or think of negative emotions they don’t agree with as being vices it seems like people react to expressions, or even sometimes perceived expressions of negative emotions they don’t agree with the way I might expect people to react if someone committed some cardinal sin. I can see why people react that way if someone is complaining about a person or group, or if negative emotions translate to violence, but it seems like a lot of people get really mean if someone so much as makes what they consider the wrong facial expression in a situation. It also seems hard to relate to how people can also claim to be in favor of empathy with such reactions.

I mean I’ve seen my parents spank and scream at my siblings for simply having certain facial expressions when I was younger. I also remember seeing a fellow student get extra time out for making faces when I was in elementary school. I also got spanked as a child and I think that may have also sometimes been for expressing or even just being perceived as expressing the wrong emotions.

It seems like it’s often perceived as wrong to express any sign of negative emotions, including facial expressions, in a situation that’s supposed to be pleasant. I mean sometimes negative emotions or signs of negative emotions may not be related to the situation or signs of negative emotions may not be directed at a person but they still get seen as wrong.

It seems like also sometimes if people can see the slightest possibility of someone being able to avoid a situation that might lead to negative emotions they see even the slightest perception of negative emotions as completely wrong.

It seems like often even something that could be just perceived as complaining is seen as something completely terrible even when it seems like what’s perceived as complaining is just asking a question or stating information that’s objectively true but seems like it might be getting overlooked. I know one argument used against things that could be perceived as complaining is that people shouldn’t complain unless they give suggestions, but I have my doubts as to whether that’s the real reason or a rationalization that comes after, and it’s hard to relate to why complaining without making suggestions is treated as wrong.

It also seems like people often use terms that imply that someone has too strong emotions about something to invalidate the persons position, such as saying that the person is throwing a tantrum or being petty if someone seems to complain or show signs of being somewhat unhappy about something.

It seems like also sometimes people will agree that something is bad but then seem to treat it as wrong for someone to express any negative emotions to it.

To me treating signs of negative emotions or perceived signs of negative emotions as wrong comes off as not only lacking empathy, but as maybe the opposite of empathy, like anti empathetic in the sense that it comes off as not only not trying to relate to other peoples emotions but trying to be insensitive and minimize other people’s emotions.

So I’m wondering why people seem to often get really mean when they are exposed to someone expressing negative emotions they don’t agree with or relate to. I mean I know part of this might be related to being anonymous on the internet, but it seems like I’ve seen people treat negative emotions or even perceived signs of negative emotions really badly in real life and long before I really started looking at how people behave on the internet. I’d suspect maybe part of it could be because when people are exposed to someone expressing negative emotions or coming off as expressing negative emotions, but I think it’s still hard to relate to why people act so mean towards negative emotions or perceived negative emotions. I mean it seems like oftentimes people are mean towards signs of negative emotions as a first resort and only talk about how talking about a certain thing brings them down when having to explain why they were mean, rather than first talking about how exposure to negative emotions brings their own mood down first. I know spanking is also common, or at least it was when I was a child where I live, and I wonder if that could be a factor in terms of conditioning people perceive negative emotions as threats at, least subconsciously.

I notice that when I scratch an itch it seems to cause the area that I scratch to feel similar to if something cool had touched. From what I know about how temperature works it seems extremely unlikely if not impossible for scratching an itch to actually cause my skin to cool down in a way that would explain the sensation as if there’s any change in temperature I might expect the friction between my fingernail and skin would slightly raise the temperature. It seems more likely that for some reason scratching an itch causes a sensation similar to if the temperature of my skin had gone down without my skin actually cooling down.

I think I’ve tended to just assume that everyone experiences a cooling sensation when they scratch an itch, but when I think about it I don’t think I’ve really heard anyone else mention any kind of cooling sensation when scratching an itch. I could imagine that maybe others just haven’t thought to mention the cooling sensation from scratching an itch, but I was wondering if this might really be something that just I experience and if it could indicate a problem in terms of having more difficulty distinguishing certain sensations than most people. If it is common to most people I might imagine there might be some kind of evolutionary explanation for why scratching an itch would cause a cooling sensation.

So why does scratching an itch seem to cause a cooling sensation?

The deity appears to you in a form that is incredibly attractive. If you need the deity to court you or flirt with you first then this deity does that. If you have sex with the deity then you and the deity will have a child that is half human half deity, and no matter what your financial situation the deity will use their magical powers to make sure that having the child doesn’t negatively impact you financially.

How do you respond to the deity?

You learn that you never agreed to be placed in the simulation, but instead you were placed in the simulation because a brain scan revealed that your brain was wired in such a way that you would get bored easily compared to the general population. The people who placed you in the simulation thought that it would help keep you from getting bored by giving you challenges to try to overcome. You learn that if it seemed like you didn’t seem to get bored any more easily than the other people you met in the simulation that’s because you were put in the simulation with people who would get bored about as easily as you so that you wouldn’t feel out of place.

If you inquire about what caused you to be released from the simulation it’s that you died in the simulation. You also learn that no matter what you do you won’t be placed back in the simulation.

Looking at the real world you notice that it seems to not only be more pleasant and comfortable than the simulation that you were in but also more exciting and that there seems to be more to do in the real world than in the simulation you were in. It seems like it would be harder to get bored in the real world than in the simulation you thought was the real world, as opposed to easier. You also learn that the real world is a utopia where physical pain, and suffering, and sickness are things of the path, and no one who wants to live dies.

How do you react to learning that you were kept in a simulation you thought was the real world until now?

I mean did you meet people you went on dates with at work, in your neighborhood or apartment complex, from mutual friends, from your family introducing them, from class, school outside of class, coffee shops, or some other setting? Before you asked them out or they asked you out, did you tend to have a lot of long conversations or did you tend to more just briefly talk to each other when you would run into each other, or was it something in between?

I understand that Autism is defined in terms of social difficulties and repetitive behaviors. Well the way it’s defined is a bit more complex than just having social difficulties and repetitive behaviors, but that’s the general direction of how it’s defined. Autism is also neurological, meaning it’s caused by differences in brain structure.

I think Autism being defined in terms of social difficulties and repetitive behaviors makes sense on its own, and Autism being neurological makes sense on its own, but together it seems like the two could conflict with each other. I mean I know social difficulties and behaviors can be influenced by brain structure but they can also be influenced by the environment one grows up in. From what I understand some environmental conditions are taken into account when it comes to looking for signs of Autism, but it seems like it would be impossible to eliminate all possible all possible ways the environment someone lives in might affect social abilities or reproductive behaviors. I’ve also found as someone with an Autism diagnosis that some things about me that I think are caused by my environment have been described as ways my Autism affects me.

I‘m confused about why if Autism is neurological it wouldn’t be defined in terms of certain structural differences in the brain and an Autism diagnosis wouldn’t involve scanning the brain to detect structural differences in the brain associated with Autism. I mean it seems like a brain scan would be less likely to be confounded by the environment one grows up in than a behavioral evaluation.

In this scenario it’s already been decided that courts will reward people for good deeds in the new country you’re helping found, but the other founders have decided to let you decide the standard of evidence needed for a court to reward someone for doing a good deed. Sentences for good deeds would range from a small gift for small good deeds to immense wealth and fame for something like saving a life.

You get to decide things like whether a person claimed to have done a good deed would just need to say they did, be proven to have done the good deed beyond a reasonable doubt, or something in between. You also get to decide what roles there would be in a court deciding whether someone did a good deed, such as if there might be a jury, or if there would be a side arguing that the person on trial did the good deed and a side arguing that they didn’t.

What kind of standard of evidence do you decide is needed for a court to find that someone did a good deed in this scenario?

You could use the money as you please but it would have the condition that you could never have the tattoo removed. If you got the tattoo removed then you would lose everything. Also the tattoo would be required to be easy to notice for the average person in order to count. This means that covering it up, having it in letters too small to see, or having the color of the tattoo match your skin tone wouldn’t be allowed. You would also need to go to places where people could see your tattoo at some point at least 9/10 of the days in a year.

Do you agree to get the tattoo for $10,000,000?

The case involved multiple robbers committing armed robbery of a bank, while wearing masks, but fortunately without anyone getting hurt. The robbers have been identified and found guilty by a jury, and as the judge you also believe that there is also sufficient evidence to prove the robbers guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Somehow it’s also been proven that free will does exist, but only one individual has free will, and that one individual is you. Other people are still conscious, but they have no more control over their actions than a hurricane has control over where it will go. Other people still have the feeling that they have free will, but that feeling is just an illusion. Most people know that they don’t have free will and that only one person has free will, but only a few people, which includes both the robbers and the people who were at the bank they robbed, know that you are the one person who has free will.

Besides you being the only person with free will there are no other mitigating circumstances in this scenario. The robbers were and still are extremely rich and were motivated mainly by the thrill of robbing the bank and having some more money than they already had. They also are as mentally competent as they could be given that they don’t have free will, and robbed the bank for themselves.

The defense is arguing that you should take the fact that you are the only person who has free will into account when deciding the sentence for the robbers.

Do you take the fact that you’re the only person with free will, and that everyone else has no free will, into account when deciding what to do with the robbers?

Somehow you learn about a study that is meant to test a drug that is meant to safely simulate color blindness. The drug is meant to temporarily disrupt the color vision of a person with normal color vision in a way that simulates color blindness without causing permanent color blindness. That’s how it’s expected to work based on its molecular structure, but this is the first time it’s being tested on humans, or animals in general, as the drug hasn’t been tested on animals either. There’s a fear that it might in the worst case scenario cause permanent color blindness in people who start out with normal color vision, or worse.

There are multiple different forms of the drug meant to simulate different types of color blindness, and the study also has some placebo meant to make some participants think they are taking the drug without taking the drug. It has a compound for simulating protanopia, a compound for simulating deuteranopia, and a compound for simulating tritanopia. Lower doses of one of the compounds would be meant to simulate protanomaly, deuteranomaly, and tritanomaly, and different mixtures of the compounds would be meant to simulate different forms of monochromacy.

If you agree to participate in this study, and qualify to participate, then you get paid $10,000 for your participation in this study.

Do you try to participate in this study?

If the door with the fist is opened then the fist would punch you at an unknown speed. If a door with the $10,000,000 is open then you would get to have the money and do with it as you please. You pick a door, and then the host picks a different door, to reveal $10,000,000. The host then asks if you want to stay with your original choice or if you want to switch to the other unopened door. Technically quitting the game is also an option, but in this scenario you lost any job you had, as well as any support network you may have had, and have no money, and the only way for you to get enough money to have a roof over your head is to play the game, and if you quit then you end up out on the street.

Do you stay with your original choice, switch, or does it make no difference in this scenario?

I was just wondering if the stereotype that autistic people are rigid, regardless of how much truth it has or doesn’t have, might make people less likely to try to understand perspectives from autistic people, to try to accommodate autistic people, or to try to include autistic people.

I think generally just hearing that someone is rigid without any context conjures up the vision of someone unwilling to compromise, or meet others halfway, and I’m saying that as someone who is myself autistic. I‘m wondering if when people, and especially lay people, hear the description of autistic people being rigid, it might give people more of a notion that an autistic person is going to be unwilling to compromise or meet others half way. I can see how if this is the case it might make people less willing to try to understand where someone is coming from, or to accommodate autistic people, if they know the someone is autistic because they might see the person as trying to be unreasonable so that they then try to be unreasonable back to the autistic person.

I’m wondering if the stereotype that autistic people are more rigid, while it has some truth, might be somewhat harmful in terms of giving some people the idea that autistic people will never meet them half way and that they therefor don’t deserve to be accommodated. Would using a word that has the same meaning in terms of emphasizing that autistic people can struggle with change more than other people, but that is less emotionally charged, maybe help with getting people to be more understanding of autistic people?