"If you obey all the rules you miss all the fun." - Katharine Hepburn
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Question #92769 posted on 12/11/2019 5:24 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Who is the very best like no one ever was (https://www.typingtest.com/)? You don't want any of this.

Tipperary--76 Words Per Minute Baby
(I'm definitely gonna lose though)


Dear Tipp Tipps,

I took your 3 minute (way too long for my liking) sentence test and I got 96-98 wpm. This is why I was a BYU Professors assistant for 3 years, he liked how fast I typed up his emails. -thumbs up-

Then I took Guesthouse's test and I got 106.52 WPM with 95% accuracy. Which I blame the random 'u's in 'neighbour' and other words I don't usually spell with a fricken 'u'. IT THREW OFF MY GROOVE. Second time I got 110.86 with 98% accuracy.

But honestly I can make myself type faster when I do typing tests than I do on the regular...

Oh, and I found out that I don't use my pinkies when I type, but I do use my ring fingers (which I don't think I did at one point in my life.) So if I was to 'properly' type with my pinkies, I'd be a lot slower.

-Goldie Rose 


Dear Tupperware, 

Using your test, I hit 83 wpm just today. During the summertime, I work typing transcriptions all day every day, so I get a lot of typing practice in. On days I feel particularly fast, I like to test my speed, and using that test I've gotten around 88 wpm before. 

I've also found that some tests lend themselves to higher scores than others. So like, the one you linked intentionally includes words that are harder to type, odd punctuation and sentence structure, etc., as a way to more broadly test your skills. 

But let's be honest, how often do I go around typing formal reports about Aesop's fables or the scientific name of tigers? Pretty much never. Most of the time, my typing consists of basic conversational stuff, answering emails or Board questions, responding to texts, talking to people on the Coldplay Discord chat, or writing basic analysis papers for sociology classes. So if my writing doesn't normally consist of the more complicated stuff they're testing for, what is my real speed like most of the time? 

That's why I like to use this test instead.

It randomly samples some easier passages from lots of different places. Song lyrics, TV show or movie scripts, poems, posts, speeches, you name it. But almost all of them are more basic and conversational, so they reflect the kind of stuff that we're typing most of the time. 

Using that test, my average today (12 November) was 94 with 96% accuracy, and my high was 118 wpm with 100% accuracy.

Don't believe me? 

Annotation 2019-11-12 145432.jpg 


That's a number I like better, and just based on the kind of stuff I'm normally doing, it feels more accurate. I FEEL sluggish when I use the other test. 



Guesthouse ☾☀


Dear Tipperary,

81 WPM. I will readily admit that I'm not the fastest or most accurate writer on The Board.

-Sunday Night Banter


Dear Tipperary,

I just took your test and got 77 WPM with 99% accuracy. 

With Guesthouse's test, I ranged from 76 to 88 WPM with accuracy ranging from 95 to 99%.

I have now spent a solid ten minutes procrastinating homework by taking typing tests (whoops). Thanks for the break!




Dear Tipperary,

On your test I got 86 WPM with 96% accuracy. On Guesthouse's test I got 88.79 WPM with 98.40% on the first try, and on the second try I got 95.94 WPM and 97.85% accuracy. My perfectionist self wants to keep at it until I can get over 100 WPM, but considering I'm doing this at work I should probably be content with my results.

-guppy of doom


Dear Tipperary,

I got 68 WPM with 98% accuracy on Tipperary's test and 65 WPM with 93% accuracy on Guesthouse's test. 

Okay, but LISTEN. I just learned how to type correctly this summer. Before I would type using only my pointer and middle fingers and I could still type fairly quickly, 70-80 WPM, but I realized that at work I looked like an absolute CHILD typing. So I started playing a lot of typing games meant for 8-year-olds and have slowly been getting faster so I'm happy with 65/68 WPM.

-Fozzie a.k.a keyboard monkey


Dear Tipperary,


Tipperary's test (3 min): 48 WPM with 95% accuracy.

Guesthouse's test: an average of 54.29 WPM and 96.26% accuracy. 

Yeah, I really don't type very fast. I'm not quite sure why, but I've pretty much been in the 40-50 range ever since I started typing. I figure it's fast enough for my needs and I've just never worried about it enough to try to get faster. 

-Quixotic Kid


Dear Tipperary,

I used your test, and in the 1 minute version I got 96 words per minute, with 96% accuracy. In the 3 minute version I got 90 words per minute with 98% accuracy. This was on a new keyboard that I'm still getting used to, and I feel like I used to type faster on my old one, but there's no way to verify that.



Dear person,

Screen Shot 2019-11-14 at 10.04.29 AM.png

I used Guesthouse's test. Apparently I'm faster than I think I am because I expected it to be around 80.

I'm definitely not the very best because Guesthouse beats me fair and square. Furthermore, my technique isn't great. For example, I use my left index finger to hit the "y" button.




Your first test yielded  a score of 74 wpm, which was adjusted down to 67 because of 7 errors, which I think is lame. Now, I have 66 wpm, adjusted to 62. 65, then?

Guesthouse's test, over 8 attempts, gives me an average of 73 wpm with 94% accuracy, admittedly slower than I thought I would type. I'd seek to become the Very Best, but since I'd have to speed up my rate of typing 62% to surpass Sheebs or Guesthouse, I hereby abdicate my attempt at clerical glory and summarily return to my internet time-wasting.


--Ardilla Feroz

0 Corrections
Posted on 12/11/2019 10:03 a.m. New Correction on: #92782 When a mole is removed for cancer-prevention purposes, some of the skin around the mole is ...
Posted on 12/11/2019 8:58 a.m. New Correction on: #92782 When a mole is removed for cancer-prevention purposes, some of the skin around the mole is ...
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Question #92782 posted on 12/10/2019 1 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

When a mole is removed for cancer-prevention purposes, some of the skin around the mole is taken too and a small depression is left in the skin. What happens if I just want a raised mole to be flat instead of having cancer concerns? Can I go into the doctor's office, explain that the raised moles get nicked when shaving or are just something I don't like, ask them to simply make it flat, and have a procedure that results in just a flat mole and not the normal scaring and depression in the skin? If so, what is this procedure called?




Dear Bandaid,

I googled a variety of different phrases that had to do with 'mole flattening' and all I got were: 

  • natural ways to remove moles
  • how moles can change and flatten themselves
  • the same question that you asked and an online doctor did not answer the question (but said that moles can be removed by lasers)
  • if the scar of a mole removal will flatten
  • how to know if your mole is cancerous
Soooo pray that your mole will flatten by itself?
But I actually got a skin growth removed on the back of my calf about two years ago at the BYU Health Center. You can hardly see the scar if that's what you're worried about. The doctor didn't think that it was cancerous, but he said that I could have it removed if I wanted to. The same goes with any type of mole. You can get moles removed for cosmetic purposes as well. My sister got her small mole removed on her cheek and they weren't worried about cancer, she just didn't like it. She doesn't have a scar either.
-Goldie Rose

2 Corrections
Question #92772 posted on 12/10/2019 12:54 p.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Who is your favorite presidential candidate in the 2020 race and why?

Rep. Larry McDonald


Dear Rep,

Ace Watkins 2020 Gamer for president https://twitter.com/gamerpres2020?lang=en. Don't let his video game puns fool you, he actually comments on real issues and has very solid opinions on minimum wage, immigration, health care etc.

Stay Woke,



Dear Larry,

I'm still working on my research, so I'm not entirely positive yet. I'm sure you could have figured out that I'm definitely not going to be voting Republican at this point. You can argue if you want, but I don't love voting for independent candidates who barely make a blip on the map. It doesn't prove anything to anyone, and to me it doesn't get stuff done. I'm not expecting candidates to perfectly represent me, I'm expecting them to have good principles. So, right now I'm working through the Dems. Here's what I've come to thus far: 

I like the way Kamala Harris thinks, but I don't think she'll ever be ahead enough in the polls for it to make sense. I hope when she doesn't win, she still gets some high position because she does a good job of taking radical ideas and coming up with ways to make them work realistically.  (For example, the housing tax break for people spending over 1/3 of their income on rent.) 

I also like Pete, but sometimes he reminds me so much of an awkward RM that I can't help but cringe. Is it a superficial reason not to like him? Yes. But the whole "oooh look at me I can speak Spanish I am so cool I'm such a good boi" energy throws me off and I just... don't like that? He weirds me out.

I honestly really do like Warren. She's smart, she thinks things through, she's kind and charismatic, she can be a little bit frazzled sometimes (she's excited about her big plans! That don't involve separating families or starting an era of American Isolationism!), but I think I would prefer her to be the head of the country than Biden or (obviously) Trump. She's also better about being a little more middle ground than Sanders, and at this point I think he should think about his health. I know most of her ideas are not perfectly realistic, and I know that she doesn't have the power to put all of them into action. I am expecting that. What I care about is the way she talks about issues, her specific care for the concerns of individuals, and the time and research she puts into her ideas. 

Anyway. When I think about the future I would like to see for America, I think Warren can do the better job in helping us get there. She thinks things through. And, what people often forget is that as much debating on policies that presidents do, they ultimately don't have a ton of power to make huge changes. There's enough opposition that the more controversial or lofty goals will probably not go super far - but they will push a discussion. 

I also won't have to check the news every day to see which of Warren's compatriots in the White House are getting arrested that day or are being questioned for corruption, or are molesting little kids, or are saying racist garbage. We won't be talking about impeaching her for (insert [unbecoming conduct] [emoluments infringements] [bribery] [other criminal activity] here) before she's spent a month in office. 

Why is that something people even have to consider? I don't know. I feel like that should be the minimum requirement for someone to be a qualified candidate. In any case, I like her. 


Guesthouse ☾☀


Dear Larry,

Marianne Williamson because she would be the first President signed in on a deck of tarot cards and I want that in my life.*

I’m trying to be open-minded about all of the candidates but my current favorite is Elizabeth Warren. I agree with most of her views and I especially like her focus on structural change. I also like that her focus is on the problems of real people and utilizing governmental powers to fix those problems.

I don't like that sometimes, especially when she's talking about tax reforms, she doesn't acknowledge all of the barriers that would make her plan unlikely with a President's limited power. But to be fair, a lot of politicians talk idealistically like this with their ambitious goals.

Overall though, I think she is intelligent, passionate, articulate, persistent, and I think she would make a great President.


*To clarify: I don’t want that.


Dear pigpants,

I'm favoring the veteran candidate Vermin Supreme, whose policy is "zombie preparedness and the pony economy."

You really should check out his platform for yourself, but his platform is thus:

The mission of this campaign is to spread a loud and unapologetic message of free thought, clean smiles, and ponies. Through satire and humor, I present real issues with fantastical context, in-depth analysis, and a dose of much-needed humor in the political sphere. With thought provoking activism, I stand against the tyrannical duopoly, the violent police state, and all forms of overreaching government.
I seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. I believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, I will always defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world I seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams, in their own ways, without interference from the government or any other authoritarian power. With honesty, empathy, courage, and free ponies for everyone, I will lead past, present, and future America to the pinnacle of freedom under the rule of the one and only Tyrant You Can Trust.

He's figured out a simple solution to polluting energy: zombie power.

It is vitally important to Vermin Supreme that we all ensure a beautiful and healthy world for our ponies into the future. To do so, President Supreme will do away with widely used sources of energy that are detrimental to pony habitats. These sources will be replaced with infinite and renewable zombie power.

Pony up, America.

--Ardilla Feroz

0 Corrections