AzureWolf

I just popped on here because my life finally decided to give me a little breathing space instead of kicking my ass. I popped on here to see if I could reach out to a few people who were important to me as individuals. There's a few who seemed to have never returned here, and I have no way of contacting them. :-( Besides that, life's been an unpredictable rollercoaster. Still avid in video games and anime, though. I doubt that'll change anytime soon. Although, I might be getting a dog soon, so there's that. Anyways, it's good to see some old faces. Kind of weird to see James apologize for being a dick (as in I never thought he was ever a dick). Curious what transpired there haha.

I am sorry to bump this thread. Des and I barely interacted, but his posts were always non-combative yet full of passion for the stuff this forum was for: video games and anime. Even when two people were going at it (e.g., I think his name was PoisonTongue? lol), his post would have a complete lack of judgement on either side, just focusing on getting things back to the topic at hand. Doing what he does - going through life enjoying his passions without getting in the way of anyone else's - is something I've only just started to appreciate, but still fail at doing. I'm at a place in my life where I have to hear a lot of life stories, and cancer is always such a jarring end to a narrative. The strange thing is, the most frustrating part of this to me is that Des did not get to enjoy Breath of Wild... I did not know Des personally, so I will refrain from saying he had a life well lived. However, I can say adamantly I want to go through life the way he did.

Max Brenner, as in Chocolate by the Bald Man in NYC?   I think the form of conversation is changing, but it's not dying.  My friend and I have debates and arguments about things all the time.   In addition, like James, visiting family or friends used to be about watching stuff together.  Nowadays, it's when we do the opposite:  maybe talk about shows, or catch up with each other's lives.   I think it's better to look as conversation and lifestyles changing rather than dying.

I'm still around! Just never post because I have nothing useful to say! But Boo! :-)

I am by no means an expert, but I really like Fort Minor: We Major album featuring Green Lantern. And I give a thumbs up to Jedi Mind Tricks that has already been mentioned.

OB is too set in its ways. Change is required, and like old, postwar hippies who complain about hard times but never went to war, things will not change until there's a rude awakening. This is just my opinion of course, but until the administration admits finally, "OMG, OB v7 truly has sucked for all these years and we didn't bother to change it for so long. What have we done?!" there just won't be enough of a push to restore OB to its 04-02-2005 (most users ever online) glory. I mean, is the site still 800 x 600 optimized?!

I always keep an army knife on me. Call apocalyptically-paranoid, but you never know when technology might fail you. Dunno if that counts as old fashioned, but I am not relying solely on battery-powered devices when my life is in peril!

Wow, speaking of eggs, I used to think that if you kept a store-bought by-the-dozed egg warm, it would hatch. Oh, my mom used to wonder why we ran out so fast...

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]If it happens to others, it happens to others. I don't think it is any kind of threat to myself if either cynics trample the idea of love at first sight or idealists laud the concept. I don't really find much drive to associate with either option. I fell into curious interest at first sight...[/color][/QUOTE]That is a nice story! Congratulations! But couldn't one argue that this is only semantics? Curious interest / curiosity being another way of saying "falling in love at first sight?" (btw, did you see the short film "Struck?" It didn't win, but I really liked it...) Personally, I think this is like arguing about God: one side complains there's no proof or a human invention or psychology, the other side says it's harder to disprove it and just because you haven't experienced anything related to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think, if you just suspend your own biases and beliefs, and step on the other side for a little bit, there's a good amount of reasoning and even research for love at first sight. I've had no luck with such a thing, but if other people have had luck and if there are certain features and gestures that associate with personalities you are attracted to, who is to say that isn't the seed of love?

Haha, this is a very random story, which makes it all the more interesting to see where it goes next. Keep up the funny and unpredictable work!

@Fasteriskhead Dude, I would just not bother with Allamorph. He spends more time with polite ad hominems than with the actual topic. I did not follow your back-and-forth, but I bet the unfluffed gist of it was along the lines of "you seem capable and make valid points, but I'm just better than you because I don't do the following faults or have the following flaws you do." That's my guess and recommendation. Maybe he might be worth responding to... I could be wrong that he isn't pulling some holier than thou BS, because like I said, tl;dr. lawlz

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms] My sister texted me the news, and I guess my initial reaction was: I don't care. I know I sound evil, but honestly I didn't. Not because I don't care about gay rights, but because I think in my mind I have assumed that it was going to happen sooner or later, so I wasn't really going to fuss over it. Also, we were discussing the death tolls and situation in China/Myanmar in class when I got the text, and I guess it just seemed sort of insignificant at the time. [/font][/QUOTE]Ditto. It is the equivalent of someone eating a 12-pound steak in a minute, and then watching a bigger guy eat 12-pound steak in a minute. Newsworthy first time around, "meh" and predictable second time around. SiChuan, right? Some of those photos are really hard to swallow...

I saw this coming almost a mile away. Not because I expected failure from you, but because I saw the same symptoms I had when I applied to college. I figured you would have the same outcome, but I wished you didn't. Now what I say next will probably seem insulting, even mocking, but it is what you will learn (most likely the hard way), and it will get you out of your slump. You will probably not listen to an ounce of this advice, but I urge you to read it to the last sentence. Maybe you will not have to go through what I did. If you really don't feel like having facts and direct comments thrown at you, I can understand if you stopped reading right now, but remember, this is also what I learned about myself, so I'm talking more about me than you. But if it rings true for you, maybe you should heed my advice. You have an inferiority complex. You thought if you *just* got into that one special place, it would validate you and prove to not only everyone else, but to yourself, that you are something special. You always knew you were special, but without the validation, you have doubts. Now, that acceptance you always thought you were definitely going to get because you were special - even those times when you were nervous - is not there. It somehow slipped passed you. I'm not saying you're arrogant. Everyone is special, and this was your special thing. So now you're trying to make sense of it, trying to find a way to find a way to still validate yourself. And after thinking about it, you will suffer through and persevere amidst everything for four years, and get into your dream school for graduate education. I'm telling you that you didn't learn the right lesson. You want to go to your school, the right school, via graduate school. Graduate school is the easiest thing to get into, much easier than undergrad. You don't need good grades or any of that nonsense. You just need money (or a source that isn't the school itself, unless you work for it), and they will accept you. The only thing the graduate admissions committees check is your pulse. So let's put that aside for a moment. I guarantee you will go to your dream school, but if you learn anything in four years, you'd probably not care one bit. You should talk to post-college people you know or will meet. Ask them, if they had to choose between a no-debt, lower-end salary as a start in life vs 10k more in pay and 100k in debt, would they put themselves in debt all over again? Retrospectively, the answer is so obvious, but they were caught in the passion like I was, and like you are now. Personally, I went the expensive route. I could have gone to Rutgers or NYU and started life with no debt, but I didn't want High School Part 2. I wanted to get my mind off not going to my dream school. I didn't care if they were happy going to those schools, they weren't for me. Debt is an awful thing. It's such a burden to have. Once you pay it off, you will swear never to go into it again, and wondered why you did in the first place when you had the choice not to (some people can't help it, but when you have a choice, you're stupid if you put yourself in that position). Your employer didn't care that you went to this lame school, and you would have had more money by now. [B]No one but family and snobby friends care where you went to school.[/B] Sure, maybe some people like raising their noses and saying, "Oh yes, that Zuckerberg chap, we used to play pool in the Harvard yard, uh-huh uh-huh" but really, it doesn't get you in a better position later in life. I have two Harvard friends. They are not super heroes. One is very successful, and one is dumb as nails. I don't know if I said this before, but I should have: college is college. 2+2=4, whether you learn that from a Harvard professor or a Howard professor is irrelevant. [B]College is what you make of it.[/B] If you keep yourself open-minded, enter college with a happy mindset, you will find a lot to love. In fact, the school itself will be insignificant to your experience. It will be the people there. The school can treat you like trash and overall, could suck, but if you have other cool friends and good times, it really doesn't matter. I know the assault from family can be brutal, but in college, you will make some of the best friends you'll ever have, and they are more than enough to offset the unproductive and useless feedback of those who supposedly know best. Sure, they knew best [B]back in their day[/B], when they were your age, arguing with their parents, but now you know best, and they are the parents. My school had many good and bad people in high positions. It sucked. Every time I registered for classes, administration would take me out, saying I have an F or some other made-up grade in the prerequisite. After I went to them, and they cleared up the "confusion" that made magical changes to my GPA, the seat was already taken. The third and last time this happened, I checked and found out the President's niece just enrolled. It didn't bother me, I just shared it with friends and we took sweet revenge in our own way. =D [B]Probably the best advice I can give you[/B] is to work/volunteer at admissions when you go to college. It will open your eyes to the ludicrous system you were subject to. For a while, you will disassociate it from what happened to you, but sooner or later, you will come to that realization, that this is the f###ed up system that ruined your chances. When you actually take one of the seats on the admissions committee (many schools reserve two for current students), do not be shocked and surprised. Learn and accept it. [i]"Oh, look! We've got two Hispanics with 4.0 GPAs! Let's accept them both! It'll look good and they won't ruin our rankings!" "No, Mary, HOLY $H!T no! RED F###iING FLAG! This one wants to become a rocket scientist. He's gonna take hard classes and screw us. The other one just wants to be a sweeper with a degree. He will take easy classes. We've got enough safeties - ambitious white people - that we don't need to take risks accepting an ambitious Hispanic one."[/i] Of course, common stuff like this will be said in a more polite, politically correct, and formal way, but the meaning will be the same. [B]The main thing I'm trying to say is to ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS and chase your dreams - your real ones - and don't worry about the little details.[/B] College is a big deal, of course, but which college is a little detail. My friend took a summer course in Harvard, and people were so impressed, but it was no big deal to him and he really didn't care that it was Harvard. He was in Boston at the time and it was what he wanted (something about biostatistics if you are wondering). If your dream is to go to a particular college, you gotta get better dreams. Cure cancer, become pro boxer, volunteer abroad, those are fun dreams, and are more fulfilling than anything Harvard or Yale can offer. Make the most of your debt-free rollercoaster. It's going to be fun. Don't hole yourself in depression, because there are guys who will take advantage of that (and I mean that with all connotations). You're gonna love it if you let yourself, and when you come out of it, the job or grad school you go to will not matter because you have no debt to pay off and can continue to enjoy yourself. The hard part is always transitioning out of college. I hope this made sense. I didn't proofread it. Just wrote my thoughts as they came.

In a nutshell, anywhere you get some form of service other than what you paid for, you are expected to tip. You tip the dude who parks your car; you tip the waiter; etc. If you go there and pick it up, you don't need to tip because you were not serviced in any way: not one waited on you, no one delivered something on your behalf, etc. In the US, 15% is for "expected/close-to acceptable service," 10% is for "very very very very bad service," and 20% is for "good or great service." Tipping in a bar varies, based on how knowledgeable you are or pretend you are. Based on the drinks you order, if you know it's a pain-in-the-arse to make, you tip generously. If it's something that comes out of the tap, you tip if you feel like it. Basically, if the guy has to work to get you your drink, you tip. Of course, if it's obvious you don't know any better about how every drink is made, they can and do overlook your poor tipping skills. The bartender will hate you and spit in your drink next time if you order - say - a Mojito and don't even give him a penny. Hell, he might punch you. He doesn't enjoy his job as much as you think he does. Every place is different, you just have to find out what the custom is. In China, a tip can take you a long way. In Europe, a tip is what you give so the waiter doesn't throw a glass plate at you on your way out.

There is no such thing as controversial anime. It is like asking "what is the hottest ice cream you ever ate?" It just is too tame to be considered controversial, just like how ice cream is too cold to be considered hot. And if it melts, it's not ice cream anymore. I'm so happy the warm weather is here!

I know this thread has been dead for a few days, but some of the earliest OB members of Vox started a PostSecret Thursday over two years ago. I do not know if anyone is still doing it, but [U][url=http://azurewolf.vox.com/library/post/two-worlds-two-people.html]here[/url][/U] is an example of what everyone usually had to make. I think it died because no one had time. I think it would be cool if OB did some community event where users submitted to one person and then the best ones were displayed or something...

[quote name='Adam']We'll get to RSS eventually...The thing with RSS is that our audience generally doesn't use readers. We had an RSS feed on theO for years and the subscriber numbers were negligible (like 200 people out of our 700,000 visitors a month)...implementing RSS on WORLDS or member updates takes a lot of work because we'd want to make it scalable to potentially millions of feeds, so the cost/benefit ratio makes it less a high priority area...[/QUOTE]I see... Well, that makes perfect sense. It is a bummer, but hey, Worlds is awesome, so this minor nuisance is nothing. Thanks for responding so quickly.

I really like Worlds, but I am curious why, in 2008, such a big and powerful site does not support RSS. Every blog site I've been to has RSS, so I do not know why it is so elusive. I figure it is an easier way to [strike]stalk[/strike] follow friends than having to log into the site and check, only to see no updates. It may sound like no big deal, but those "just check" times, and for multiple sites, add up - not to mention are a waste of time. Personally, compared to Worlds, myO is clunky. I never liked the heavy modifications many members made that broke the consistency of the site.

It is one of my favorite sites! I think you get attached when you find a secret you can relate to, or even one that shakes you to the core. I have sent five in, two of which actually showed up on the site (which was awesome). I managed to find my other secrets in the books, though. So that was kind of cool too.

I have huffed and puffed Google to find a way to transfer txt messages. Does anyone know if there is a simple way to get them on to a PC from a phone, preserving the extra stuff like time sent, to whom, etc? I have a ton of memorable texts, and I would rather just store them all than sift through them. They are not that big anyway.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Boy, quit your shouting. You ain't doin' naught but makin' yourself look like a first-class jerk.[/QUOTE]I hope you realize the irony of this statement. If not, I'll tell you politely before I remove one of your gold stars: don't call me "boy."[QUOTE]No, it goes back to the "follow the poster's connections" problem, which I've encountered with you before.[/QUOTE]I'm betting there's only one thread you can think of (I [B]DARE[/B] you to find more than one, otherwise you aren't really being scientific about it, using one instance out of hundreds as your proof that I'm to blame), and even that thread was convoluted before I joined in. But I'm not surprised that you're holding a grudge from one small instance.[QUOTE][CENTER][SIZE="1"][previous material stricken for inaccuracy; relevant thoughts to follow][/SIZE][/CENTER] The main issue is that his definition of science seems to differ from your own, as evidenced by your rather violent reaction to the concept of science as guesswork. Instead of bashing him, then, perhaps you would be better served to attempt to probe his reasoning and [I]then[/I], if necessary, set him straight.[/QUOTE]Incorrect completely. If you can put down your grudge and look at the exchange, you'll see that Morpheus thought I was talking about guessing when I was talking about science. Now if you are implying that Morpheus thinks guessing is the same thing as science, then that makes you sound like a first-class jerk. Morpheus is not an idiot.[QUOTE][SIZE="1"][CENTER][resume original content][/CENTER][/SIZE] Moving to everyone in general, I have a thought which [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf [/COLOR]set up for me. See, there's two types of science. Operational science is what is taught in primary and secondary classrooms; it is the hands-on science that can directly test and prove or disprove relationships, identities, and theories. There is no faith involved with operational science, so [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf[/COLOR]'s claim there is wrong.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, this is absolutely irrelevant to anything I've said. I don't recall talking about what people are TAUGHT in schools, only what they BELIEVE. So in this case, you are completely wrong that I set you up, or that this has anything to do with - well, anything.[QUOTE]To illustrate...I will take the classic example of a chair... I can us operational science... However, I cannot use operational science to prove/disprove my theories on origins... For that, I must rely on [I]historical[/I] science... Still, with the poor supply of data extending far back enough into the Earth's history, any theory on origins cannot be conclusively proven. Therefore, I submit that [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf[/COLOR]'s statement about science itself requiring faith, while not completely right, is not entirely wrong either. I wonder who'll be the first to ask "how was the chair relevant". :p[/FONT][/QUOTE]I'll be the first to ask, and also add you are completely wrong. If you (I know, I nag about this, but it's important) read the thread, you'd have realized that I have no qualms with using science - or what science is. I have qualms with people believing science blindly. And thank you for showing me you know kindergarten science terms, and the pros and cons of them too! Although I'm not sure how "what is science" (or what science people are taught for that matter) addresses the problem of people blindly believing it. *sigh* Again, anything following "studies show" is taken as immutable truth by too many people, which is absurd and pathetic. But if you can't set your burning rage for me aside, read my previous posts to understand this, and respond properly, there's little point to discussing anything with you. Look, I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist, or that you can't figure things out using science (another DARE I give you to find in this thread), but I am saying that people use science just as people use the church in the past: just something to believe in without question. Wow, I think that's the fourth time I've said the same thing. Amazing... As a side note, add me to your ignore list if I've annoyed you SO MANY unbearable times. ;-)

[quote name='Morpheus']Most does not change it from being a horrendously inaccurate statement. Scientology is a cult, scientists are groups of people that test possible explanations for what happens in the world around us. Scientology sometimes directly contradicts science.[/QUOTE]I never said Scientology and Scientists are the same. I again urge you to read this thread before posting again. I only wrote Scientology twice: once as an analogy for The13thMan, and another time where it is clearly crossed out, meaning its an error (an understandable one) and no longer part of the sentence. Don't go about pointing out what is "horrendously inaccurate" if you don't read, because then what you write is "horrendously inaccurate." [QUOTE]What is Utopian about guess? Scientists try to find the truth, and what they believe evolves as the years go on.[/QUOTE] This goes back to the whole "Oh Dear God, why don't people read a thread before posting" problem. Utopian [B]science[/B], [B]NOT[/B] guess, utopian [B]science[/B]. My point was that people make a leap of faith when they believe in science. If you want further elaboration on that statement, I IMPLORE you to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read what I've said in this thread before.

[quote name='Morpheus']No, it's not. Because scientific beliefs are tested, while religious beliefs, by their very nature, are untestable. Religious beliefs require a leap of faith to believe, while science is basically saying "This is our best guess, and we've tested it as much as we can at this point in time."[/QUOTE]In the future, please read the thread before responding to it. The utopian science you speak of does not exist in this world, so you are taking a leap of faith. Aside from that primer, I'm not going to waste my breath repeating the same thing I've said twice before in this thread.[QUOTE]Quoted for sheer absurdity. That's like calling all muslims terrorists or all christians Westboro Baptists.[/QUOTE]Quoted for terrible interpretation. "Most" is not the same as "all." Please notice that there is a difference.

Haha, if you have been on a plane before, things have not changed THAT much. They will ask you if you have anything that might be a problem or might set off the alarms. If your piercings are metal, then they will be detected and it would be best to remove them before going to the airport. They will let you use your computer during the flight, they have no problem with them. Although there have been no reported difficulties, they ask you to not use cellphones or computers for the first half hour during takeoff and the last half hour during landing (or was it an hour each?). They do not care about DVDs at all, and they do not set off the detectors (to my knowledge). Liquids they do care about, so do keep those to a minimum, or none at all. i think you can have liquids in your luggage but none as a carry-on item. I think as long as you are not Middle Eastern, the experience is the same, just with a few more restrictions on what you can bring. You could have a shirt that says "I'm an Islamic extremist and I'm only on this flight to hijack it" and they won't suspect you in the least - provided you are something other than Middle Eastern.

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]People think they hold more weight because they have the scientific method to back their claims. Like I said, their claims and findings are generally more rigorous and intensive and comprehensive than untested conjecture and arbitrary philosophy.[/QUOTE]That's actually just a matter of opinion. I would say religious claims and findings are just as rigorous, but harder to prove. [QUOTE]Science by its nature is critical and so to accept its findings without further review, for the majority of the population, is the only viable option. Honestly no one has time to read over all the experimental data and draw their own conclusions. This is missing the point. My point is that you aren't scientifically omniscient and thus there are gaps in your intensive knowledge. This means that you [i]must[/i] on some level trust science. Perhaps you don't know astrophysics. Perhaps you don't know chemistry.[/QUOTE]This is missing my point. I was demonstrating that before I bow down and preach to the choir, I make it a point to know and understand what the hell I'm supporting. I don't blindly believe stuff like most [strike]scientologists[/strike] believers of science do. And the previous paragraph was my point: if you don't know what the hell you're talking about or believing, how does that make you any different from most religious people? The truth of the matter is, IT DOESN'T. You just believe your belief is more firm because it is "more rigorous" or whatever. EVERYBODY believes their belief is better than the next person. Don't think your belief in science is better than someone's belief in religion. It's the same thing, even if what you believe in is different. And that's the point I can't emphasize enough: I'm not bashing science, I am bashing people's [B]belief[/B] in science. They believe it blindly, for whatever reason. I know you don't have time to read everything - neither do I - but if you're going to believe it or preach it, LEARN it. Why can't a person be skeptical of science like they are of religion until they do sit down and learn it? Believe it, fine, but don't think it's flawless until you understand it. Yeah yeah, your belief is better and more well-founded because your [strike]religion[/strike] science does this and this better than others (or in truth, you just think it does), but ultimately if it said you were made out of a jigawatt capacitor, you'd believe it just like a religious person would believe the world was made in seven days. You'd need just as much evidence and rigor as a religious person to believe that "fact" too. Why do you think they have the term "double think?" And the infamous "liver and its five lobes." ([B]I use "you" generally, not referring directly to you, but to people in general[/B]) People are blind, and science has really poor vision.[QUOTE]I mean certainly, I'm speaking of acceptance that both acknowledges science's fallibility but also its strengths in explaining the universe. I'm not trying to argue that science is never wrong, only that its view of the universe is relatively intensive.[/font][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=32200802007[/url][quote name='Attimus][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh man, that is insane! Blindly following religion is worse than following science? Do you even know what science is? Science is all about carrying out experiments on your own to prove or disprove another's own theory. The entire process is called peer review and every scientist takes part in it constantly. Science is sort of like a process to get to the truth of things. Religion on the other hand is about faith. You can't test the existence of God. You can't even compare the two, they're in such different leagues. It's like comparing apples to oranges[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]See, I want to believe you, and maybe give you some credit, but I can't for the same reason I can't believe Tom Cruise about Scientology: you just shoot all your credibility down the tube in a matter of minutes. The following paragraphs are just... wrong. [QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh wow... you obviously don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Let me break it down for you. It's all about entropy and the principle that states that in an isolated system not at equilibrium entropy will increase. Entropy is kind of like saying how complex a system is. If an isolated system (like the universe) is not at equilibrium then the "complexity" of the system will continue to increase (or possibly remain the same, but never ever decrease). The classical example is this: consider a box full of some sort of gas, think of each individual atom bouncing off the walls and off each other in a seemingly random order. Now a small hole in the box opens up into another box of equal volume. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics states that the gas will move from one side of the box and into the other (not all of it, about half) until equilibrium is reached. Because of entropy we know that there will never be a case where all the random movements of the gas will cause the elements to bounce around and back into the first box. You say "things advancing over time" is contradictory to entropy when in fact it isn't in any way. "Things advancing" does not mean they are in any way effecting entropy, if anything they become more complex which supports entropy. ...This too is wrong. When evolution talks about mutations that change the evolutionary line of a species it's talking about small mutations that makes an animal better fit for its environment. It's not talking about physical deformations and retardations. Ever heard of Darwin's natural selection?[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]This begs me to ask you your own question: Do YOU know what science is? Entropy is NOT complexity! It is randomness! You may think it's semantics, but if complexity didn't mean thinks like computers, AI, and other things that call for energy, you might have a point. And holy hell, that's NOT at all what the second law says about the gas and boxes. It says it will be in ALL possible situations, but closer to 70% of the time will be within equilibrium, 29% of the time it will be close to equilibrium, and the other percent is shared (not equally) by different gradients and extremes (including being only in one box, or even in a corner). Those percentages may be off, but the point is it fluctuates into all possible states, but the amount of time spent is different. Hence, that's what the second law says: randomness. And advancement DOES defy entropy. Living organisms actually contradict entropy: their existence reduces entropy. The only saving grace is that more advanced (less entropic) beings have a tendency to generate more heat, waste, and entropy, so their net output is more entropy. Please don't preach science to others if you don't know what it is yourself. I'm not even going to bother with your evolution one... Good lord... Like I told Retribution, it's not exactly science I'm concerned about, it's people's blind faith in it (or I guess wrong understanding of it too).