or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Noodles' Good Natured Advice Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Noodles' Good Natured Advice Thread - Page 759

post #11371 of 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Does Mrs. Noodles know you're not only on StyFo, but on StyFo discussing the jubblies of another woman?

LOL
post #11372 of 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Noodles View Post
 

Being the stereotypical Korean that I am, my parents used to own a dry cleaners.

 

HAHAHAHA classic!

 

My parents were also New World immigrants. My dad started out selling encyclopaedias door-to-door. Twenty years later he had a major importing business with dozens of employees. Be proud.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Noodles View Post

I have cutback a lot in recent weeks...I think. She knows not what I do at the office and in the bathroom.

 

Puh-lease. Keep your bathroom activities to yourself, home boy.

 

 

Regarding the semantic debate over "cyclical", I'd just like to add that "ebb and flow" is simply linear flow in polar coordinates, re-mapped to classical (Newtonian) space. Y'all feelin' me on this?

post #11373 of 15537
I am literally sitting on my toilet as I type away! Oh, it's time for dinner. Gotta go!
post #11374 of 15537
TMI
post #11375 of 15537
I think we need to take everything Noodles says at least a bit tongue in cheek. Except for the picnic attacks; those are real.
post #11376 of 15537

haha that's facepalmy to find in a search bar

 

And yeah that's what I meant in cyclical, for instance I was thinking that there are different aspects of clothes, for instance, to simplify, at some point one might learn the value of simple conservative/trusted color combinations  in a tasteful manner and learn alot by throwing a lot of outfits together like that, and at some point one might feel like they've learned everything they can (for now) from that kind of approach, and might begin to play with bolder patterns, and then learn a lot from that, but maybe because he's playing with stuff that he doesn't have as much experience with, he'll start doing things that don't work as well, and then he might go back to learning about the value of approaching colors and patterns with a solid foundation, but this time with an effort to incorporate some bolder items, but still in a fundamentally tasteful way.

 

Not the best explanation and examples, but hopefully you understand what I mean. At least in other things I've learned I found that there are aspects of the craft that I keep thinking I've "outgrown" or that I know it so much that I am beyond the rules, only to eventually be slightly humbled and realize that there are more things I can learn about it once I look at it on a deeper level. For instance in English/Creative writing (my major) I've heard the "show don't tell" rule and the "be succinct" rule since I was 13, and I am sure most of you have too, but these rules aren't absolute and one must learn when to go beyond them and attempt to find cases where you can with well reasoned and well thought out purpose deviate, and only then when you find where deviation is good do you fully appreciate when and how often it is NOT good, and in a way, by learning how to break the rules, I've always felt that I learn actually a better appreciation of rules in the long run. I've progressed a long time as a writer (you might not believe me because I write poorly on forums =P ) and watched other writers, and time and time again they become so comfortable with their style that they experiment and start to lose sight of some basic guiding principles, and eventually they are reminded of them, and sharpen and refocus their approach/techniques, and it's by this means of ebbing and flowing I suppose, that you become better and better. I feel like that ebbing part, even if it seems like you're "forgetting" your lessons, is natural and part of a strong independent learning curve, as opposed to following rules strictly. Learning via your own wish and making mistakes is a good way of imprinting lessons.

 

The other examples I see is in poker with regards to value of position or balance, which is a bit cylclical in nature. Aspiring pros goes through stages all the time of learning the significance of position, start overly relying on it, and eventually become exploitable and don't realize this until they are punished for it and then they appreciate the important of balance and GTO (game theory optimal) approaches, then once they gain a deeper appreciation of balance, they again find situations where they can deviate and use exploitative strategies where they are safe to, most notable in exploitating position, and in this way people go back and forth between these two slightly contradictory concepts/approaches.

 

That's what I was asking Noodles, what he thinks are the main lessons he often comes back to, if there are any, and relearns quite often.

 

For me so far it is indeed the appreciation of simple somewhat neutral but stark colors, but it mostly applies to casual wear instead of CM. I just can't shake off my love for a nice white shirt in an open collar with a casual blue jacket and brown trousers, and those simple color combination is the kind of aesthetic I keep going back to that informs my other choice. I am told I'll eventually start to appreciate the blue shirt. Maybe that's my next lesson.

post #11377 of 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

Why b/c discontinuous? I've always hated that "not well-behaved" term because it's used as a synonym for "not doing what I want" but isn't well-defined unless you know the speaker's preferences.

*often used.

(Pure) math papers make plenty of reference to well behaved functions/spaces/categories/etc, but even if the criteria for being "well-behaved" is not made explicit in the context for the paper (for example a G-action on a fusion category is well behaved if it gives rise to a (non-degenerate) (braided) G-crossed fusion category. In this case those that are not well behaved are the actions on a category from which we cannot construct an equivariantization.

While this may be a lot of technical terminology, it is precise (given that the terminology is precise) and basically appears in a paper I've been reading recently. Additionally, something can be "well behaved" in the sense that we're working on result A, but to do this we only need a special case of some result B and this special case is easier to prove. We would then continue building A off of the special case that was well behaved. It would still be possible to prove B in general, however it would not then - without a different proof - extend to a proof of A.

The theoretical physics literature also makes use of such statements, though in a less precise way. Usually though, well-behaved/not well-behaved are perfectly fine terms.
post #11378 of 15537
nvm
post #11379 of 15537
^^ this is exactly what I mean. It's not that the meaning of "well-behaved" isn't precise, in context. It's that the same word is used to mean different things according the exigencies of the context in which it is used.
post #11380 of 15537

Hey I know you guys have helped me a lot already, but I'd like to ask one more specific question for my partner:

 

 

 

Does this suit/jacket strike you as especially feminine (they have a feminine body but don't really want a feminine cut), or are we imagining it? If it is, what do you think is causing it? I think the jacket is too short, and the waist suppression is causing too much artificial flaring of the skirt, and it makes the jacket look even shorter, and the gorge too low.

 

As I explained, they don't have very high of a standard, just want a wearable suit that fits their body "okay", since RTW doesn't fit them so we're trying a budget option, so this price range of cheap MTM is good. If you've seen how other suits fit, there's no way you think this is not an improvement, no matter how bad it may seem. FWIW a suit here cost about 260 GBP or so so it literally is RTW price. Anyway I only want comments about the styling.

 

I think while it's reasonable to tell me to save up for better options, and at least it's a conceivable thing for me to do, this is clearly not an option for my partner, broke PhD students don't have the need nor money for fancy suits, so this is about as good as they are going to get, so bearing that in mind, advice in making the best out of this situation would be appreciated.

post #11381 of 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

^^ this is exactly what I mean. It's not that the meaning of "well-behaved" isn't precise, in context. It's that the same word is used to mean different things according the exigencies of the context in which it is used.

 

i don't see the ambiguity of "well-behaved" as a huge problem in certain contexts, but i don't think it is something that should stick around for any length of time. in my field it is often used to describe sufficient conditions for something to do what the speaker/writer wants. this is annoying for reasons you cite, except in the circumstance of cutting-edge research, where it is really being used to say "ThiS is good enough to get what i want, but i'm not sure if ThiS is more generally a useful notion/idea/set of circumstances". i've even had colleagues admit "yes, that is terrible terminology i introduced, but i didn't know what else to call it". when we discover that ThiS isn't useful, it simply disappears. and when we discover it is, "well-behaved" or the like is always replaced by some other more descriptive terminology which generally couldn't have been available at the time "well-behaved" was used, mostly due to lack of knowledge/insight.

post #11382 of 15537

Shoulders look a touch big on that but it looks pretty good. imho.


I wouldn't really call it 'feminine' per se. Perhaps you have that impression because of the significant waist suppression leading to a more hourglass shape as far as the jacket is concerned.

post #11383 of 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isolation View Post

Does this suit/jacket strike you as especially feminine (they have a feminine body but don't really want a feminine cut), or are we imagining it? If it is, what do you think is causing it? I think the jacket is too short, and the waist suppression is causing too much artificial flaring of the skirt, and it makes the jacket look even shorter, and the gorge too low.

Again the angle of the camera makes it more difficult to assess the jacket. You have to avoid tilting the camera. That being said,
In addition to the strong waist suppression and jacket skirt flare, I see a heavily structured and possibly overly wide shoulder (esp noticeable in the second photo) that reminds me of women's suits with big shoulder pads. Although your partner may have slender shoulders and will need some structure if they want a more masculine silhouette, IMO this overshoots the mark a bit.
post #11384 of 15537
We use the term "well behaved" in engineering too, wrt to the obligations of inherited implicit and explicit behavioral contracts, but of course we are less precise than physicists and far less precise than mathematicians (since we are responsible for making everything actually work *swordfight emoticon*)
As for the dismal scientists, well... (*second swordfight emoticon*)
post #11385 of 15537
Also, skip the hacking pockets next time. Horizontal lines are more masculine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Noodles' Good Natured Advice Thread