Given a height h and some number d > 0, then height h+d is better than height h

apocalypse

apocalypse

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2021
Posts
9,194
Reputation
17,103
Simple axiom that copers here should accept before having any height discussions
 
dihydrogen oxide
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Danish_Retard, N1666 and Clandestine
fuck f yourself y
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 1617, N1666 and Deleted member
"the taller the better"
 
legit point
 
that logic doesn't makes sense if by "better", you mean "more attractive". 7' tall isn't more attractive than, say, 6'3''.

If by "better", you mean "taller". then yea. duh.
:soy:
 
dihydrogen oxide
God I hate it when a faggot says water wet on a point that's actively debated against by most of the forum
1640024596388

1640024621433

1640024625958

1640024631983

1640024638046

1640024643443
 
that logic doesn't makes sense if by "better", you mean "more attractive". 7' tall isn't more attractive than, say, 6'3''.

If by "better", you mean "taller". then yea. duh.
:soy:
autism.gif
 
Taller isn't always better

After a certain point there are diminishing returns
More than 7' is too much
 
  • +1
Reactions: Toth's thot
It's not linear it's more like a piece wise function wherein you are linearly increasing up to 6'4, stagnating till 6'10 and then decreasing logarithmically after on the average. This is the chart for the aggregate imo. Of course niche markers and location will heavily affect what to use as barriers for sections.
 
Lifts theorom
 
  • +1
Reactions: CaptainCalicoe

Similar threads

mathis
Replies
55
Views
1K
currywhowillascends
C
prince_
Replies
23
Views
581
prince_
prince_
asdvek
Replies
1
Views
584
anthony111553
anthony111553
Y
Replies
28
Views
1K
thenext_chad
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top