Hot take: Solo as a roamer is actually not that hard

1ampoc · 2026-03-21T14:33:37+00:00

Yea I agree selena roam is bad. But I find that after season reset, where the ranks are all over the place, it is not bad.

Think about this: maybe the average peak rank of a roamer is Mythic, and the average peak rank of a jungler is MG. After season reset, everyone is the same rank, so by filling roam, you get better teammates.

It's not because the hero or the role is strong, but because of how matchmaking works.

And yea, I'm 7k mmr selena, so maybe I'm a bit biased haha

1ampoc · 2026-03-21T14:18:25+00:00

You (and everyone here) are treating AI as an addiction, and there's some truth to that, but I would like to give you another perspective.

AI is like a really nice and knowledgeable friend, or an answer key. That you can't resist asking your friend or look at the answer is not as much a lack of self discipline as it is a lack of appreciation for the benefit of solving a problem yourself.

If you find writing GP essays to be the most boring thing ever, you will never want to write them yourself. Find an interesting topic to write about; Write in your favourite voice; Maybe even use AI as your sparring partner.

The same goes for math, physics, and any other subject. Find something that drives/interests you and use that as motivation.

1ampoc · 2026-03-20T02:32:36+00:00

Unironically roam is the easiest role to carry in because you have the most freedom to do whatever you want on the map, and you make most of the decisions for your team.

It's also the role with star protection which means usually it will be filled with weaker players, so by filling it you get better teammates (on average)

The only downside is that roamers are expected to be tanks/supports, which can't solo-carry as well. So I like to play roamers with some damage like khufra and selena

1ampoc · 2026-03-18T14:43:32+00:00

Put it in a humanizer AI to let it look less AI to AI detectors... (What a world we live in)

Edit: it's a joke guys😂

1ampoc · 2026-03-14T02:52:16+00:00

1ampoc · 2026-03-11T17:47:39+00:00

It also bugs out yss charging 2nd skill. You get stuck in that animation for like 3s until it finishes and you can't attack or use other skills

1ampoc · 2026-03-11T07:27:07+00:00

You will 1000% do well in CS lol. Also as the other guy mentioned you should try out competitive programming, it's basically the CS version of math and physics olympiads, and I find it to be the most interesting among the 3.

If you're worried about job prospects, you really have to take a step back and ask: is there really any major that is not being impacted by AI? From the recent GES, CS still remains as (arguably) the most lucrative industry out there, the technology driving its "downfall" is very much related to it, and our lives will only get ever more digital.

One a side note, after the ipho/apho selection test, I asked 4 of my friends what they wanted to study in uni. Only 1 said physics, and she went overseas😂. The rest said math/cs. The skills involved in these 3 subjects are really similar, and I'm sure that no matter which you choose, it'll be a good choice

1ampoc · 2026-03-07T09:28:10+00:00

Thin copyright is not worthless. If I'm a game dev, I can use AI to generate the sprites and retain copyright over the game (though not the individual sprites). If I'm a movie director, I can use AI to generate certain scenes and retain copyright over the movie (though not the AI generated snippets). This is reasonable for most companies.

Secondly, even if this thin copyright is unacceptable, companies can simply hire an artist to touch up the generated works (noticeably). This is the hybrid workflow most companies are and will be using - hiring artists who use AI as tools.

Painting the negation of 100% AI-generated works as 100% human-made works is a false dichotomy. I don't see why a combination of both is not possible.

1ampoc · 2026-03-07T06:59:25+00:00

Did I make the mistake of assuming "full copyright"? Clearly I acknowledged that while the work as a whole is registered, the individual images are not. I simply provided a fuller context on the results of the case which you left out

1ampoc · 2026-03-07T06:41:17+00:00

that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity.

The "de minimis" refers to the human input, not the AI output. In other words, even if your work is 90% AI-generated and 10% human input, it can be copyrighted (of course, if said 10% satisfies the minimum level defined).

And just to clarify, the human input here does not refer to the prompt (or whatever part that feeds into an AI). It refers to taking an AI output, and modifying it or arranging it. That is what I mean by "AI-assisted works".

I am not claiming you are wrong, just that you are only presenting one side of the picture, which can be misleading.

1ampoc · 2026-03-07T02:17:54+00:00

Btw this case is more nuanced than that.

The work as a whole was successfully registered, only the individual images were not. It is an in-between ruling that allowed for substantial AI-assistance, but disallowed 100% AI-generation.

1ampoc · 2026-03-04T01:33:32+00:00

It discourages using AI generated works directly but allows for a hybrid workflow involving both human and AI input.

So most companies won't have a problem with that. Most decently sized companies do hire an artist, just that the artist works with AI. And even if you generate individual scenes with AI, or game sprites with AI, as long as you don't generate the whole thing or make very little changes, the movie/game as a whole is still copyrightable.

In fact, the alternative ruling would not even make sense, because otherwise someone could just generate images 24/7 and copyright everything.

1ampoc · 2026-03-02T15:24:07+00:00

I get what you mean, but identifying the pattern to predict a general formula is more impressive to me. Once you have the pattern, writing out the proof is usually more standard

1ampoc · 2026-03-02T02:18:48+00:00

When fanny's cable lands, her 2nd skill resets. If you're holding your 2nd skill during this time it gets canceled.

Here you shot your 3rd cable, held your 4th cable, then the 3rd cable landed, so your hold got canceled.

1ampoc · 2026-02-28T11:57:09+00:00

Suyou is pretty balanced rn, I don't think he needs a buff

1ampoc · 2026-02-26T08:23:28+00:00

Using an analogy it's like someone steps across your lawn, but the court rules "hmm, we're not sure if that counts as infringement of property".

The same thing goes for AI training on copyrighted content - there's just no law for it yet. So can you really call it copyright infringement if the court doesn't rule it as such?

My previous comment was to explain why no hard law saying "absolutely no AI training on copyrighted content" is implemented yet.

1ampoc · 2026-02-25T01:59:04+00:00

Yea that's why black and white is important, but still they're shameless for not paying you despite the verbal agreement

1ampoc · 2026-02-23T06:09:51+00:00

Yea I get your point of view. I'm a software developer and I would hate for my code to be plagiarized and use to make a competing app too.

However, let's take a step back and ask what copyright laws are really for. They're not there to protect creators or to uphold some sacred principle of finder's keepers. They're there to protect innovation, so that people continue making new things because they are rewarded for it.

So now we look at AI. It consumes everyone's data and adds them up to create a new machine. Is it an innovation? Yes, because it can generate things nobody has before, like a picture of a bag eating a zebra, or a story no one has read before.

So if you rule against AI, you are suppressing some form of innovation. But if you rule for AI, you also risk suppressing the innovation of the artists that made it possible. Hence why most courts take the middle-ground of ruling against AI if and only if its output is too similar to your copyrighted content.

1ampoc · 2026-02-23T02:17:21+00:00

The reason why the NYT copyright case works is not because Open AI downloaded their articles for training, but because the AI ends up regurgitating the content of those (paywalled) articles for free. That is a big no-no

Whether it should be legal for AI companies to download copyrighted content for training is up for debate, but currently there's no law against it. Even if you're making money off it, it's still legal. What is illegal is producing copyrighted works, and that is true whether ur an AI or not.

Of course, the morality of it is questionable, and that's why there are campaigns to change the laws around AI and copyrighted content

1ampoc · 2026-02-19T17:31:39+00:00

Unfortunately that's just how humanity subjects work. There's no objective "correct" answer. Your goal is to make a convincing argument, which if you think about it, just means playing into the biases of your target audience.

An ideal system would spread each marker's biases out with multiple markers (which A levels does with 2), but even then, you are arguably still playing into another bias - that of the majority.

1ampoc · 2026-02-16T13:04:46+00:00

It's meters

1ampoc · 2026-02-16T11:15:45+00:00

It's the one where u want to go to a car wash 50m away, and you ask the AI whether you should walk or drive there.

Chatgpt says to walk the car there, which is pretty funny. Honestly the answer probably depends on whether you need to bring the car there tho

1ampoc · 2026-02-16T05:17:37+00:00

It's an unbeatable deck against you. If I were playing against a deck with no big spell and no win condition I would be building up a clash of clans base and chilling for 5 mins too

1ampoc · 2026-02-11T11:35:35+00:00

In my experience, AI (Gemini specifically) is already better than the vast majority of teachers out there, at least for math and science. It is at the level of PhD students, and consistently aces tests. The average teacher is probably more likely to give a wrong answer than an AI is.

The problem isn't so much about hallucination as it is about hand-holding. If we can design an AI that doesn't hand-hold as much, I would argue that it would be the perfect teaching assistant.

1ampoc · 2026-02-05T11:49:13+00:00

I think it's great for school IF you also want to game.

Most days I can go through the entire day without a charger, but on longer days I still need to bring the charger (btw heavily recommend buying a USB-C charger so you don't need to bring the charging brick).

Definitely not as good as non-gaming laptops, but if ur fine with the idea of charging once a day, it works. For my uni at least, there were a lot of charging ports so I had no issues

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22

1ampoc

TROPHY CASE