← Home ← Back to /r9k/

Thread 82113643

18 posts 12 images /r9k/
Anonymous No.82113643 [Report] >>82113681 >>82113972 >>82114416 >>82114654 >>82115573 >>82115579 >>82115619 >>82115707 >>82116339 >>82116657
when did "trolling" become "ragebait"
Anonymous No.82113681 [Report] >>82113839 >>82113896 >>82113943 >>82115578 >>82115662
>>82113643 (OP)
why wouldn't this work?
Anonymous No.82113839 [Report] >>82113943
>>82113681
The balls would fill up with water.
Anonymous No.82113896 [Report] >>82113943
Every generation feels so inclined to substitute the previous generation's slang with similar terms of their own. It just so happens that Gen Z opts for especially niggerlicious substitutions.
>>82113681
I'm no physfag, but I assume the reason they don't work either has to do something with friction or some thermodynamic bullshit.
Anonymous No.82113943 [Report] >>82115661 >>82115662
>>82113681
>>82113839
>>82113896
The reason it doesn't work is because the balls have to enter the water from the bottom which doesn't introduce any potential energy.

Think of it this way, since the balls have to enter from the underside they push up water when they do and that costs energy, as it stands, exactly the same amount of energy if we remove all friction that is gained from their floating up again due to the weight of the water pushing up.

Essentially, a ball lighter than water is pushed up in water because the weight of the water above it is pushing down, when the ball finally emerges above the surface, the surface level of the water is dropped a tiny bit and this is what provides the energy for the lift.

This is the exact same drop of surface level that is increased by pushing in the ball from the bottom which by a small amount raises the surface level of the water pushing all the water upwards, thus taking energy to do so.

In an ideal world without any friction or any water loss through the seal, this would thus take the exact same amount of energy, so nothing would move at all. In practice friction and water loss is of course introduced so it's negative.
Anonymous No.82113972 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
is all science just troll physics?
Anonymous No.82114416 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
Trolling is done for fun. Ragebait is done for profit.
Anonymous No.82114654 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
There was a shift in the mid 2000s when trolling became associated with pranking or deception rather than it's original meaning (taken from a fishing term where a fisherman drags multiple baits behind his boat in hopes of catching fish as he passes by them) of posting something insincerely that is going to stir up controversy and get replies.

So baiting and rage baiting replaced trolling but kept the original meaning (and the fishing terminology).
Anonymous No.82115573 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
zoomers are no longer ashamed of admitting that getting digitally pwned online gets them mad
"i just got rekt online by some griefer and i threatened him so he rekt me harder which made me so mad!!!"
is no longer an embarrassing statement that would get you laughed off of and be given negative reactions by the forum you're using
Anonymous No.82115578 [Report]
>>82113681
the jews would shut it down and confiscate it
Anonymous No.82115579 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
ragebaiting is to make people angry, not to be funny
Anonymous No.82115619 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
when it became monetized
social media has monetized trolling and turned it soulless, like everything else
Anonymous No.82115661 [Report]
>>82113943
When you read posts like this it is Satan filling your mind with rational materialism so you can never unlock your troll physics jutsu in the astral realms with all the imagination blocks he has seeded
Anonymous No.82115662 [Report] >>82116491
>>82113681
Like guy said >>82113943
Ball entering water tank need to force itself against water pressure. The higher is the tank the higher is that pressure and ball needs to expend more energy entering tank.
Anonymous !!8Da+G5X3HOA No.82115707 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
>when did "trolling" become "ragebait"
when alphas entered the Internet
Anonymous No.82116339 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
>trolling
Some sort of in-joke that the party on the receiving end doesn't register as an outsider
light hearted fun, generally.
>ragebait
term that was at first used exclusively to point out marketing polys that had the intention to stir controversies in hopes of attracting attention.
It then got co-opted by normoids and, as with everything that nomoids touch, the word lost all it's meaning and useful functionality. Now it just means
>the joke is that im annoying and retarded

trolling needs to have a humorous component
ragebating is just attention seeking and the humour is optional
Anonymous No.82116491 [Report]
>>82115662
I like how you just explained in one sentence what took me 10 or something.
But I like my explanation better.
Anonymous No.82116657 [Report]
>>82113643 (OP)
trolling is supposed to be funny
ragebaiting is trolling without the fun