/lit/ - Literature

m2 only took like an afternoon to read but that was a good afternoon

Me too.

inb4 bitching about the punctuation.

It is a great post-911 commentary: the xenophobia, focus on the family unit, the finale that signals a return to christian conservative values. Really the shocking exposé on contemporary american culture that had been waiting to be formed from primordial shell

It's so fucking poetical.

Ending was expected, but still perfect.

Every dialogue in this book :

Are you okay?
Yes I'm okay.
Okay.
They will kill us, won't they?ah
No they won't kill us.
But you're not sure.
Yes I'm sure.
Okay.
You don't believe me.
No, I don't believe you.
They won't kill us. I promise.
Okay.
Okay.
Can we have a natural conversation once?
No, we can't a have a natural conversation.
You're going to answer by repeating everything I say all the time?
Yes, I'm going to answer by repeating everything you say all the time.
It's annoying.
Yes it's annoying.
But it's art.
Yes, it's art.

>>1656000
lol this is true but i still liked the book. read it in the airport in bangkok

>>1656000
its called style.

Trash. McCarthy appeals to pseudo-intellectuals (although Blood Meridian was all right). There's basically nothing original or noteworthy about this book, and the prose is terribly overwritten.

>>1656000
well dude what the fuck are they going to talk about? And if you've ever talked to an eight year old you'd know that most conversations involve having to repeat yourself and them multiple times.

>>1656016
sounds like someone's got a case of the stop-liking-things-i-don't-like

>>1656026

An arrow to the heart, brother. Or maybe I was just announcing my (more valid than yours) opinion.

Was one of the more entertaining pieces of modern literature I have read. Didn't need anything more from it than that.

>It's annoying.
>Yes it's annoying.
>But it's art.
>Yes, it's art.

I lol'd

>>1656016
Someone's going through his McCarthy hating phase.

>>1656066

Someone's going through his McCarthy loving phase.

See how little weight that "argument" has?

Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2001/07/myers.htm

You can ctrl+f to the sections where he talks about McCarthy.

Oh no my taste don't mesh with the mighty /lit/ and it's standard of intelligence. Scientists have yet to create a unit of measurement small enough to detect how little I give a fuck.

>>1656125
>>Myers

I don't know where to begin, other than to say he is both right about prose and wrong about prose in art.

>>1656197
Learn to science, that doesn't even make sense.

>>1656295
I think you'll find, my high school chum, that it totally makes sense.

>>1656301
I'm an undergrad physics student. It does not make sense.

>>1656306
I was unaware you were so far above my original estimations of your knowledge. Which part do you not understand?

>>1656314
Any unit of measurement can measure to any size no matter how large or small, it's only the accuracy of the measuring equipment that is relevant.

I liked it. Blood Meridian is better, but The Road did give me shivers.

>>1656314
>>1656317
No response? Oh well. P.s. You're a fucking idiot.

>>1656317
That's not actually true. In the case of energy, on a small scale the measurements can be discrete (due to quanta). The uncertainty principle also puts a cap on accuracy separate from measuring equipment.

In the other extreme, there are also certain standardized tests that are known to have a certain limit of accuracy (look at many of the hardness tests), which then mean that certain units are associated with a certain accuracy.

Finally, and perhaps most obviously, one can talk about units of measures in terms of millimetres, centimetres, mumetres - that is a unit which includes a certain order of magnitude. These always convey, as every good scientist and/or technician knows, the accuracy of the measurement.

I hope that helps.

>>1656336
Absolutely none of those things represent an inability of a unit of measurement to represent small quantities. Those are properties inherent to the laws of physics which stop from making smaller measurements, the actual unit itself has no bearing on this. For example, say the smallest possible packet of energy was 1 joule (for the sake of handyness), it is not a flaw in the joule that prevents there being a measurement of 0.5 joules, but it is prevented by natural laws.

As to your incredibly stupid last point, 0.3 metres is the same as 30 centimetres. Both scales can go to an infitely low level using Yx10^z m or cm, un terms of practical application, neither scale can go lower.

>>1656351
Mistakes in the last part of the last sentence due to me paying very little attention as I typed.

>in terms of practical application, neither scale can go lower than the other, as both go on infinitely.

fix's, sorry.

>>1656351
>For example, say the smallest possible packet of energy was 1 joule (for the sake of handyness), it is not a flaw in the joule that prevents there being a measurement of 0.5 joules, but it is prevented by natural laws.
If, hypothetically, we lived in a world where real science was about theory and not about experiment, and if, hypothetically, we lived in a world where we didn't get crazy looking readings a fair amount.

>As to your incredibly stupid last point, 0.3 metres is the same as 30 centimetres. Both scales can go to an infitely low level using Yx10^z m or cm, un terms of practical application, neither scale can go lower.
Just because I can convert between units doesn't make them the same unit. And, no, they can't go infinitely low, though prove me wrong with an example.

take it to /sci/ you anal jackasses

>>1656368
for the first thing you quoted, I dont even know what happened, you must have completely misunderstood me, because my point has nothing to do with which science is more about, theory or experiment. What you replied with in no way invalidated my point.

For the second part, 1 mm = 1X10^-3 m, 1X10^-1 mm = 1X10^-4 m, 1X10^-2 mm = 1X10^-5 m.
Due to the infinite amount of possible integers, neither scale can reach a lower value than the other can match.

>>1656375
That's what I'm hoping the other guy will do. I liked that thread about science becoming like religion btw.

>>1656381
>>1656375
we probably should take it to sci, but I want this over as fast as possible, not prolonged. It is a ridiculous arguement, and I'm sorry that I seem incapable of just letting it drop. It's just... so... ridiculous.

>>1656382
You'e confusing arbitrarily with infinitely.

And, like I said, being able to convert between them doesn't make them the same unit (I'm guessing you're confusing units and dimensionality here).

If you want more pedantry, >>>/sci/ or whatever.

of course d&e does not appreciate the HUGE philosophical significance of measurement uncertainty

>>1656412
I took some interest in dimensionality, but found it either too arbitrary or too complicated. Uncertainty is so vague.

>>1656412
butch ugly penis envy

>>>/sci/2773383

Continued here.

>>1656425
okay obviously you can't grasp my greatness

>>1656434
fucking go to hell you're a loser or you wouldnt be on this board. also you're only interested in your shitty degree because you dont party hard like all your peers you're a loser and will suck teaching 1st years since you're so inept

>>1656425
HOW DID YOU MAKE $CHAN LOOK LIKE THAT

>>1656437
shut up

onion could kill you

i bet she's stronger than you you fucking stick bug

>>1656412
dis girl mus be prackitin ritchcraft

>>1656437
>>1656434
Onionring, you totally need to party harder. I'm telling you, all the best philosophers knew that getting down was the key to life.

>>1656437
well, one of the reasons i am even here is to see if you are better. you are disappointing me with each post.

>>1656448
onion ring is a cunt. i hope she gets raped irl. i also hopr it's so traumatic that's she spends a lifetime in therapy and never gets a good night's sleep again.

>>1656440
http://userstyles.org/styles/25609/4chan-momiji
its my favourite one apart from maybe that the text is thin but at least it isnt a neckbeard eye-buring contrast like black/white.

please dont hate me cos i shared it with you and be nice whenever you see me like each time reply like when it seems i want to be replied to kk?

>>1656460
everytime someone posts that girl i know theyre an idiot deep down inside.

>>1656466
you're even more boring.

Hey does anyone have pics of onionring

>>1656466
spoken like a true puppet of the patriarchy

>>1656470

this is her

>>1656470
Onionring, probably.

>>1656478
damn you!!!

>>1656469
Posts like this make me feel genuinely sad inside. Have you ever tried therapy?

okay this is like dealing with 4th graders

>>1656475

This is Brownbear's lit. No fight from me on the subject. You the first in line to suck his dick though. onion ring is the fat chick who hangs out with "the girls" who are all you other faggots. You have such shitty lives!

>>1656493
I want to go to the bathroom, and Jake ate all my paste.

>>1656466
I appreciate this post.

>>1656493

maybe you should leave then, cunthead. go out and find some dude who's desperate enough to stick it you.

>>1656487
but that post wasnt that bad at all?

>>1656493
stop pretending you're all mature, you're here so you're just as much a loser. its funny that you pretend not to be though you probably turned lesbian because boys dont like your shit lol.

>>1656496
brownbear is funny but only in preparation

you have horrible taste in tripfags

also
>brownbear
>not submitting to me

>>1656507
Most tripfags seem to just quietly accept anonymous hates them, but you seem to make an effort to make individuals like you. And since 4chan is mostly bastardous to each other, it just makes me sad. That combined with other things from earlier tonight.

>>1656507
>probably turned lesbian because boys dont like your shit lol.
I'd probably tap dat if girls would tap dat and we could have philosophy pillow talk.

this thread sure went from bad to worse

>>1656521
yeah but you're a neckbeard.

>>1656460
QUESTIONS:

1) weren't you gone?

2) I remember that "good bye" thread all emotive and shit... Was that all for attention-whoring purposes only?

3) (if yes) Is your life really this sad?

>>1656527
oh wow you're not even out at a party and you're still up at this time. no one with sense buys you're 'one of the lads' image.

>>1656529
haha nice post.

>>1656529
i think this place is a good study of various stuffs.

also, i am multitude and everything i have said is consistent.

>>1656528
No, I just have an active sex life. This has pros and cons.

>>1656536
nope you said you were leaving and that your return would be a long time before you came back but it would be epic. then you changed your mind because you were just having a hissy fit.

>>1656539
you're a brute.

>>1656541
>you're a brute.
No, just a lover.

>>1656536
>and not a single question was answered that day
evading much?
(Eh, don't feel embarrassed, you don't need to answer if you don't... We'll suppose the worst).

>>1656547
>*if you don't want to

>>1656547
get a load of this desperate loser

>>1656536
>i think this place is a good study of various stuffs.
I hope no one ever takes you seriously.

>>1656573
yeah her and d&e's thesis things will just be like alternate take on _ philosopher and not much of a contribution at all.

>>1656573
>yfw attributive personalities will be the hottest thing since rawls

>>1656555
Haha nice trips did do that on purpos