[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Don't know much about chess. How is the disadvantage of black countered by the scheduling of matches? Does the player with the black pieces get to start earlier?

I'm still hoping that when chess is solved it will be the perfect zugzwang and black wins

What would the purpose of doing controlled demolition of all WTC buildings, given the planes happened for sure?

American response and everything that happened wasn't predicated on the collapse right? A ton of people had died anyway from the impact itself and fires and so on.

We probably would have needed to demolish the buildings anyway (perhaps not all the side ones?) because of structural damage

Good luck.

The shredder was broken and they needed to get rid of some documents.

I can't wait for Deuces to explain why black is at a disadvantage "because of how the board is structured" and how this is compensated for by the scheduling of the matches. I do enjoy when Deuces teaches me about things, every day's a school day!

Btw, Luckbox, is this the sort of thing for which I should be grateful when Deuces patiently explains it to me, perchance?

Not a huge chess guy....but really wondering how the structure of the board which looks completely symmetric with respect to sides and inverting piece color is disadvantageous to black.

Scheduling of matches violates T symmetry ldo. Weren't you listening in high school quantum mechanics class?

I know you like to poke people but deuces was probably referring to the fact that given white advantage, if a match is (say) 12 games you randomize who gets white on game 1, but on game 7 you play game 6 colors.

IE you manipulate starting color to minimize the benefit winning the coin toss provides (in terms of chances of getting a point and playing from "above" in score)

On this I obviously can only speculate. I don't know who these people are, let alone what they were thinking. There is no formula relating the nature of a terrorist spectacle to the scale of response. Maybe they wanted to be sure to get what they wanted. Maybe they had a backup plan to demolish the buildings in case the part of the plan with the planes failed. Maybe they had to be sure the evidence of altered avionics in the planes was never discovered.

We're talking in terms of trillions and a major reorganization of laws and rights, in terms of government itself an unprecedented empowering of the executive branch. I don't know if a few planes into buildings gets that done. But they rolled out these asks in no time, didn't they?

I was trolling you. Ironically, the one time I was trolling you is the one time you have a civil, reasonable response. What's that say about you?

That would be a rather odd definition of "scheduling".

I think that in order for a conspiracy theory to justify being proposed motive is really important. Especially if you aren't sure who the actors planning the event were you need very specific motives imho, especially because as you say it's about very unusual events so covering up stuff/making them up requires skill, dedication and so on so I can only see it happening if there is a lot to gain by perpetrators.

Keep in mind I talk from a place where we think government is terrible at doing anything and that includes scamming the whole population to gain power. They just aren't good at anything in my model.

But yes I understand there can be "people.behind government" who pursue their self interest yes.

I understand it's all hypothetical I truly do. But I need some version of "I think this was staged because this and that happened which peculiarly advantage group y so much it could actually make sense for them to have organized this"

I understand the aftermath of 9 11 was so significant it's actually reasonable to assume it's possible some groups had a part having it happen. But that's not enough in the general for me tbh

I was being sarcastic, you nincompoop.

It's scheduled not to swap colors at mid-session

Lol.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is a language barrier thing.

And I never claimed that the issue was that you were wrong about Russia invading Ukraine. It was how you arrived at the wrong answer and how confident you were in it

[quote=Deuces McKracken]
People here think Russia is going to invade the Ukraine? No, they are not. And Trump isn't going to be arrested, nor is he going to be somehow legally prevented from running for president again.

It's Russiagate. They got you guys on that and now they just know they can string you along with anything. You're like a bunch of kittens, those who believe a word out of Adam Schiff's mouth.[/quote]

If you simply said "Despite the troop movements and reasonable people thinking Russia is likely going to invade, I think it's unlikely because blah blah blah" nobody would care. But you can't argue like that. Since you lack sophistication your opponents must be morons and kittens just blindly following Adam Schiff just high school physics must contradict 9/11 narratives.

You're never able to do what was done with the actually wrong high school physics claim about free fall being the fastest something can fall. Which is understand it, understand why a person not well versed in high school level physics could think it then explain how while it's certainly true for point masses or in 1 dimension, it's not true in general.

I think the black side of the board has fewer squares for their pieces than the white side of the board. It is for this reason that they don't do the expected color swap on move 20 anymore (in order to preserve the uphill disadvantage which is already accounted for in the scheduling).

Might be this time. Doesn't "scheduling" basically mean organizing stuff? I put something on schedule meaning I have to do x at hour y or something

Yes. Organising stuff in time (or in order), when used as in "scheduling of matches," which is how Deuces used it.

Ah ok so yes this time is language barrier.

I thought the latter sentence was perfectly reasonable.

Scheduling is temporal in nature; you could say something like "I'm scheduled to play game 7 with white at 9 o'clock" where "with white" is incidental and the focus is on the game being scheduled at 9 o'clock. Simply saying "I'm scheduled to play game 7 with white" is grammatically correct, but it's not the way that word is typically used.

So scheduling is specifically a timing issue not more generally an organizing issue in the future?

Well, you could say "x has been scheduled" without specifying a time, but the implication would be that it has been scheduled for a specific, if unstated time (or after some other triggering event completes). You wouldn't say "x has been scheduled" if it's just going to happen in future at some unknown time.

That's my take on it anyway - others might disagree. In any case, if you use the phrase "scheduling of matches", you are specifically referring to the order of matches, or the time at which they are played, or some other temporal aspect. You can't use that phrase to refer to, say, who moves first in each match.

Although "schedule" has another meaning, as in "contract schedule", where it usually refers to the specific terms of a contract which has otherwise boilerplate text - e.g. for a rental agreement, the schedule would contain details such as the address of the property, the amount of the rent, etc.

So say my dad invites me to a bridge tournament in two days.

I would be scheduled to play in the tournament, but I can't use that verb if say there is a dress code, that i am scheduled to wear a suit?

(I am trying to learn)