MOBAFire's first Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! š
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@JMastiff
Oh, so we can use non-analogoous examples? Ok then, with that I can prove every thing I want, even if it's false, so here goes:
You are given a task to hammer some nails and you are given a hammer, if you don't hammer all the nails you die. You eliminate the assumption that hammers are used to driving nails. Since you don't know what the hammer is for you can't complete the task. The lack of assumptions killed you.
Happy? If you're not going to use analogous examples I can give you an infinite amount of analogies that will prove me right. Is that how it works? No. If you don't use an analogous example then whatever you say has no impact whatsoever, because it is simply not true.
No, I did not watch the other 3 parts. If the first 20 minutes are a complete waste of time why the hell would I want to see the rest? I know very well what he's going for, but it's still stupid and not worth watching. You don't eliminate assumptions, you question whether that assumption is correct or not. Some assumptions are indeed wrong, but 99% of them are right.
Yes, you can make that comparison, but it's meaningless. No one's saying you can't make it, I'm speaking on a logical level. I'm sorry, I assumed you would understand that I didn't mean "you physically can't" but "you logically can't". Next time I'll make sure everything is spelled out for you and no word omitted so you have no trouble reading.
And this also proves you didn't watch the video either. So don't whine that I didn't watch the other 3 if you didn't watch the first one. He asked us to fill as many circles as we can in 60 seconds. The correct analogy would be "He asked us to make as many windows as we can in X days." The fact that YOU would assume that "many ****ty products > few good products" proves that what the guy was saying is asinine. That's not how economy works. Do you know what happens when you make a ****ty product? You get fired, there's no way around it. The amount of ****ty products you produce will only serve to get you fired faster, because all you're doing is wasting company resources and time. Why the hell would anyone hire a guy who's going to make many ****ty windows instead of a reasonable number of good ones? No one wants ****ty windows, and we can prove this easily by searching for ****ty window manufacturers. Do you know how many there are? None.
Oh, so we can use non-analogoous examples? Ok then, with that I can prove every thing I want, even if it's false, so here goes:
You are given a task to hammer some nails and you are given a hammer, if you don't hammer all the nails you die. You eliminate the assumption that hammers are used to driving nails. Since you don't know what the hammer is for you can't complete the task. The lack of assumptions killed you.
Happy? If you're not going to use analogous examples I can give you an infinite amount of analogies that will prove me right. Is that how it works? No. If you don't use an analogous example then whatever you say has no impact whatsoever, because it is simply not true.
No, I did not watch the other 3 parts. If the first 20 minutes are a complete waste of time why the hell would I want to see the rest? I know very well what he's going for, but it's still stupid and not worth watching. You don't eliminate assumptions, you question whether that assumption is correct or not. Some assumptions are indeed wrong, but 99% of them are right.
Yes, you can make that comparison, but it's meaningless. No one's saying you can't make it, I'm speaking on a logical level. I'm sorry, I assumed you would understand that I didn't mean "you physically can't" but "you logically can't". Next time I'll make sure everything is spelled out for you and no word omitted so you have no trouble reading.
And this also proves you didn't watch the video either. So don't whine that I didn't watch the other 3 if you didn't watch the first one. He asked us to fill as many circles as we can in 60 seconds. The correct analogy would be "He asked us to make as many windows as we can in X days." The fact that YOU would assume that "many ****ty products > few good products" proves that what the guy was saying is asinine. That's not how economy works. Do you know what happens when you make a ****ty product? You get fired, there's no way around it. The amount of ****ty products you produce will only serve to get you fired faster, because all you're doing is wasting company resources and time. Why the hell would anyone hire a guy who's going to make many ****ty windows instead of a reasonable number of good ones? No one wants ****ty windows, and we can prove this easily by searching for ****ty window manufacturers. Do you know how many there are? None.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Man you're missing the poing by a large margin due to not watching the whole thing. The idea he ment is clear - if you let stupid things disconnect you from the goal you're just less effective and if you don't trust the process of learning and juxtapose it with false assumptions gathered only from external sources you won't get better. I don't know why you came up with the whole "quality" rant, it wasn't about that and it doesn't concern competetive gaming.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
So now you're withdrawing your previous statement? Amusing..
What he said was wrong. Assumptions are needed, it's common sense that will prevent you from reaching your true potential, not assumptions. And that is known to everyone with half a brain. A physicist doesn't rely on common sense to explain things, he looks for the scientific reason for common sense to be true or false. The same thing happens with doctors, engineers, economists, mathematicians, etc. If you're professionally investigating the effects of swimming after eating you're not going to say "it's common sense that's bad for you", you're going to find out why and if it's true or not. The same thing happens with games, if you're a professional lol player you're not going to assume that the common sense that the meta-game of 1 top, 1 mid, 1 jungler, AD carry + Support bot is the best strategy. That's why we've seen several other strategies like roaming. It's called the scientific method and any scientific literate person knows what it is.
However, that is not what his first video is about nor what he said and defended. It is also not what you said or defended either. Assumptions are needed for everything you do, whether the assumptions are based on common sense or the scientific method is what matters.
What he said was wrong. Assumptions are needed, it's common sense that will prevent you from reaching your true potential, not assumptions. And that is known to everyone with half a brain. A physicist doesn't rely on common sense to explain things, he looks for the scientific reason for common sense to be true or false. The same thing happens with doctors, engineers, economists, mathematicians, etc. If you're professionally investigating the effects of swimming after eating you're not going to say "it's common sense that's bad for you", you're going to find out why and if it's true or not. The same thing happens with games, if you're a professional lol player you're not going to assume that the common sense that the meta-game of 1 top, 1 mid, 1 jungler, AD carry + Support bot is the best strategy. That's why we've seen several other strategies like roaming. It's called the scientific method and any scientific literate person knows what it is.
However, that is not what his first video is about nor what he said and defended. It is also not what you said or defended either. Assumptions are needed for everything you do, whether the assumptions are based on common sense or the scientific method is what matters.
Canoas, just leave Mastiff alone.
You're wasting both his and your time.
And you should also not be so negative towards Day[9]. He may not explain everything perfectly, but he knows what he's talking about and he has a good point.
You're wasting both his and your time.
And you should also not be so negative towards Day[9]. He may not explain everything perfectly, but he knows what he's talking about and he has a good point.
"every now and again you come across a game that has so little emotional connection to who you are that you end up standing there, gazing at the screen and saying "I'm just pressing buttons and my life has no meaning,"" - Colin Campbell
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Yep I did cause you're quite imagination-resistant or maybe I used bad example, but still you'd rather sink in it and prove your statements than try to question yourself. It looks like you played 30 circle game, got trolled and just focused on that single thing missing the rest and whole point of the video.
video 13:30
You'd save a lot of time if you didn't assume he would be stupid enough to believe all asumptions are wrong. He just said they go in the way when the goal is clear.
video 13:30
Day9 wrote:
That's one of big fundamentals in math - to start with correct assumptions
You'd save a lot of time if you didn't assume he would be stupid enough to believe all asumptions are wrong. He just said they go in the way when the goal is clear.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Searz
Am I pointing a gun at JMastiff and forcing him to answer? Because if I'm not then how exactly am I wasting anyone's time?
Some points are good, some are bad. He chose the worst way to explain why assumptions are bad: by making a bad assumption himself to try and prove that an assumption that is correct is in fact wrong. What he point he decides to make later on isn't really relevant to the fact that he chose a very bad example to illogically prove that something which is very important to human life is bad.
@JMastiff
Sink in it? You say something I don't agree with and I'll refute it. I'm not going to make baseless accusations. If I have something to say I will say it along with proof or logic or whatever I say will be a waste of time. If we're not going to bother with reason then there's no point in speaking at all.
So my assumption that an IE on Ashe is better than double tiamat will get in the way of winning a game?
I never assumed he is stupid, I said that his example is wrong and false, and for proof you can look at what I quoted from your last post. You are saying something wrong, you probably wouldn't had he not given that example.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't think Day[9] is stupid or anything of the sort. I'm saying that his initial argument, that occupied most of the video, is wrong. And no matter how brilliant the rest of the video is, the initial segment is still wrong and pretty much unrelated to the point he's trying to make.
Am I pointing a gun at JMastiff and forcing him to answer? Because if I'm not then how exactly am I wasting anyone's time?
Some points are good, some are bad. He chose the worst way to explain why assumptions are bad: by making a bad assumption himself to try and prove that an assumption that is correct is in fact wrong. What he point he decides to make later on isn't really relevant to the fact that he chose a very bad example to illogically prove that something which is very important to human life is bad.
@JMastiff
Sink in it? You say something I don't agree with and I'll refute it. I'm not going to make baseless accusations. If I have something to say I will say it along with proof or logic or whatever I say will be a waste of time. If we're not going to bother with reason then there's no point in speaking at all.
Quoted:
He just said they go in the way when the goal is clear.
So my assumption that an IE on Ashe is better than double tiamat will get in the way of winning a game?
I never assumed he is stupid, I said that his example is wrong and false, and for proof you can look at what I quoted from your last post. You are saying something wrong, you probably wouldn't had he not given that example.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't think Day[9] is stupid or anything of the sort. I'm saying that his initial argument, that occupied most of the video, is wrong. And no matter how brilliant the rest of the video is, the initial segment is still wrong and pretty much unrelated to the point he's trying to make.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Quoted:
So my assumption that an IE on Ashe is better than double tiamat will get in the way of winning a game?
A lucky guess. Who would've thought? You're changing your position from one post to another and intentionally dodging the point of the whole video. That doesn't seem constructive in any way, even with your distinctive dialectics.
EDIT: You're right. Next time I'll just write you missed the point cause you're overthinking the whole matter.
Welp, I thought it was cool.
Thanks to Koksei, The_Nameless_Bard,JhoiJhoi, LaCorpse, JEFFY40HANDS and myself for the signatures! I am also a certified gangster.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
JMastiff wrote:
A lucky guess. Who would've thought? You're changing your position from one post to another and intentionally dodging the point of the whole video. That doesn't seem constructive in any way, even with your distinctive dialectics.
EDIT: You're right. Next time I'll just write you missed the point cause you're overthinking the whole matter.
It is not a lucky guess at all, it's experience and knowledge of the game that made me formulate that assumption. How am I changing my position? What I said before still stands, it's stupid to say that one assumption is better than the other when you provide no evidence for it.
How am I missing the point? You're the one who proved me right by using what he said to formulate an incorrect assumption.
You need to log in before commenting.
While some of his examples aren't really applicable in real gaming scenarios, I do think he has a point. Some assumptions get in the way, and learning how to get rid of those is very beneficial for you.
He does use gaming examples in the latter parts.