would you rather

I'll post some more: 

1) Would you rather always wear a suit/tuxedo/dress everyday or wear a bathing suit everyday?

2) Would you rather live in a cave or a tree house?

3) Would you rather be able to teleport anywhere whenever you want (with control of where) or be able to read minds (with control of not needing to read minds if you don't want to)?

4) Would you rather be invisible for an entire day, or be able to fly at your walking speed for a day?

5) Would you rather give up all tv/movies for a month, or give up all playing games for a month?

1) I normally wear business attire like dress shirts, so I'd choose the first option, but the bathing suit option is valid for many people in warmer climates or live at the beach.

2) I like "tree house." Some real tree houses are like mansions with electricity and everything; a cave feels to much like an underground bunker or basement I feel like.

3) Reading minds sounds helpful for many things (psychology, business, crushing it at poker etc.) but I think I'd still choose to be able to teleport - speed at its best sounds pretty cool

4) I'm a people person I think, so being invisible doesn't appeal to me. Maybe some would like it for pranking or robberies, but I would definitely prefer flying (perhaps I like the superman-style floating too much). 

5) I'd give up tv/movies because I play games so much - I don't think I could go more than a day or two without playing; don't forget chess is a game too! (although I could go a while without chess, but all games - I'd rather not.) 

I’d agree, except for number 4 and number 5. I’d choose 4. Invisibility, because no one will be able to see me and that will give me a huge advantage at soccer. And I’d choose 5. Give up games, since my parents doesn’t let me play games.

Wait. What do they consider chess then? Don't tell me they consider chess a sport  (or do they not know about chess.com?)

They know, but they don’t consider chess a game.

Huh, "odd" in my opinion, but all right - glad you can play chess.  Shame about not being able to play games, but at least I understand why you chose the "would you rather" responses you did then (invisible for number 4 was kind of a close decision for me too).

Yeah

Would you rather have your rating changed to -8800 or 10000 on chess.com (you can’t have a new account)

10,000 sounds pretty good to me, but not at all realistic.

The number variance is clearly a joke but I still feel the need to illustrate the "real" problem with this. Any negative rating is obviously impossible; actually 100 is the lowest possible rating in elo. As far as 10,000 - that is currently impossible too. Ratings are adjusted based on a statistical formula in relation to your opponent and applied to the standard bell-curve (this easy conversion to see how you compare to others is one reason why elo is so popular). If you are rated further than x apart from your opponent, then the favorite wouldn't gain any rating upon a win (x is close to 500 in this formula I think). 10,000 wouldn't be possible since 3000-ish rated super GMs (or 3500-ish engines) wouldn't give you any points for a win. Essentially, you would be unable to reach 10,000 because no opponent would be a statistical enough of a challenge to increase your rating. 

p.s. Of course, don't let the math get in the way; a joke is a joke and shouldn't be over-analyzed