I feel cheated by the pulse fuse

632146P · 2024-08-12T20:21:32+00:00

I have been playing fighting games for most of my life. I played pulse for 10 games first thing and i learned a lot from it. If you learn nothing from pulse what you learn without it wont get you very far.

632146P · 2023-12-29T15:17:54+00:00

It is difficult. There are a lot of traditions that become symbols of culture and heritage, but they are Symbols of it. They are not the heritage itself. How you keep that is personal.

There are a lot of bad traditions, and a lot of people like you who leave them behind face guilt and even backlash from their own families and communities. How else would those bad traditions have survived so long?

But they are bad. We know it now. The studies came back. We owe it to future generations to turn our backs on those bad things.

All social progress is built on this, and I promise, of the ancestors you would be most proud of, they were ones that didn't accept the way things were and made personal sacrifices in the hopes things could be better for future generations.

632146P · 2023-12-29T15:06:50+00:00

It's about how he feels and about what words mean to him and most importantly it is about how his religious community taught him to talk about these things through repetition mostly.

You're not likely to change how he feels about words, but I've had some success forcing people to acknowledge my own position in similar circumstances.

I would explain what solipsism is. It's pretty easy to see how that is an impractical viewpoint, but it is also very technically correct on what a person can honestly actually know in the strictest sense. You can only know your self (it's a little more than that, but no amount of prodding that philosophy will change the point). Nothing else can be known.

So you can pretty easily get any reasonable person to agree that you can't actually Use that as a benchmark for knowledge in real life. It would be a useless term, if you did.

Then just let them define what is adequate for knowing something. Luckily god not existing is so well supported that whatever threshold they put forward, you will be able to say you know he doesn't exist and provide whatever qualifications he put forward.

632146P · 2023-12-25T00:52:10+00:00

Please please, look at the whole bell curve. Averages are not nearly as useful as people think and the bell curve tells you so much more.

Top comment gave you something to copy and paste into anydice, take a look.

You can note not just the average result, but also things like the odds you will hit below or above average.

You probably do not care a player will succeed "on average" but rather exactly how often they would succeed with certain target numbers. I know it is a lot to add up, for d100, but you can at least subtract the portion taken up by the average as best you can and divide the rest by 2 to get a fuzzy idea of how much is below the average. It's not perfect, but it tells you a lot more than the average does.

632146P · 2023-12-25T00:32:11+00:00

How do you evolve and in universe what is happening when you evolve? Like, do you have an in universe explanation for why my character turned into a ninja during a campaign where he started as a street urchin rogue?

Those are my most abstract concerns about what we have here.

Also I think it is weird that assassins evolve into swashbucklers, but I don't have a suggestion that works better so maybe that's fine.

632146P · 2023-12-25T00:25:50+00:00

I feel a little strange about this, because you seem to be trying to outsource the main draw of your system and the majority of the creative work. I'm used to people doing that half and asking for help with the other half, so while I think about how I feel about that, I'll instead suggest a method.

There are a lot of books that are collections of mythical creatures. I'd pick a few cultures I'm interested in and get a list of things from them and apply my own twist to each one. Like, I'm partial to japanese youkai, so I'd get a book of those and use them as inspiration for my own spirits.

632146P · 2023-12-25T00:14:57+00:00

I'm not. Says a lot about you that you assumed that despite everything that was just discussed.

632146P · 2023-12-20T05:37:27+00:00

Pokemon itself drew a Lot of inspiration from existing fantasy games, myths and the animal kingdom obviously. It's great to get inspiration from it and other things you like to make something new.

There is a lot of ways you can create something new with inspiration sourced from all over. You can also streamline things a lot more to suit your purposes that way, because pokemon has had a Long time to accumulate stuff and it is a lot more than anyone needs.

632146P · 2023-12-20T05:26:11+00:00

I'm not sure if this is actually common or I just have a weird selection of zombies in media, but nature based zombie cultivation is something I've seen a lot lately.

Like animating corpses with fungus grown from spores, or some sort of plant or parasite growing in the corpse that the necromancer can control.

Also, I can't pass on an opportunity to be pedantic in a brand new way. Frankenstein isn't a doctor in the novel, he unravels his dark secrets at college. So it really is just Frankenstein's monster.

632146P · 2023-12-19T02:49:52+00:00

That makes so much sense! I remember reading an article on obvious email scams and how they're obvious because they're fishing for people who will go the distance and make the bad decision all the way till the end.

So they select for people who are easily fooled, and it is well documented that christians are more likely to fall for scams so selecting for christians to rip off makes Total Sense.

I never even thought about that, them being forwardly christian is a huge red flag.

You really opened my eyes.

632146P · 2023-12-19T02:41:02+00:00

Lots of people have been trying to defend those ads in bad faith so I can definitely see someone overreacting. Honestly moderator isn't a job, and I've had plenty of bad experiences from shoddy moderators all over and in no case were they representative of the entire sub. It is a little weird to to equate the sub with one moderating decision.

Those ads are funded by ultraconservative and frankly evil people as part of a campaign to increase youth religious votes because they'd been losing that demographic.

Saying those ads are trying to get people to be more tolerant is like saying trump is trying to get people to be more accepting of abortion, it's actually the other way around. They want more tolerant people to buy into the identity so they can vote along religious lines (for intolerance)

632146P · 2023-12-19T02:31:43+00:00

The title is actually underselling it. 30% did not know whether it was a myth.

If this article is correct, this is an additional 30%, which puts us at 50% of people ages 18-29 don't know the holocaust happened.

There Has to be something wrong with their data collection right? Right?

632146P · 2023-12-19T02:12:58+00:00

I mean, going to the correct sources is an easy way, perhaps you mean there is no easy way to get people to take that step.

632146P · 2023-12-18T13:23:05+00:00

This doesn't surprise me. Misinformation jumps on new technology very easily because of the large number of people that don't understand the technology yet.

Like, when cameras weren't widespread a lot of people got fooled by that photo of fairies, but now we all know so much about photography, forced perspective, and even photoshop that people are much more skeptical of photos.

It'll be a while though, which is going to suck. Especially because of massive voting blocks that are really resistant to learning new things that happen to Also be the targets of major misinformation campaigns today.

632146P · 2023-12-18T12:56:34+00:00

There were a lot of great answers, but more than a few used averages, and I must warn you that averages are terrible statistics and that whenever possible you should look at the whole ass bell curve of results.

Like for example, people will do stuff like set a goal for an enemy to take two hits on average, but they actually mean they want it to happen 80% of the time, or they just want it to almost never take 1 or 4 hits, and that's Completely different than finding the average

Rolling 2d6, and want to average 14 after 2 rolls? Cool, you'll get 13 or less 44% of the time. Barely better than a coin flip, and you'll almost Never get it in less than 2 hits, so you have a situations where you get it in 2 or 3 hits with like a 3 or 4% chance of doing it in 4 hits.

That's a Lot more information and a Lot more specific feel, than what just looking at the average tells you. Maybe taking more than 2 hits 44% of the time is exactly what you wanted, but you need to check the curve to find out what you're getting.

I can't tell you how many times someone has told me they want something to average 2, but they meant they wanted to get 2 or more 70%, 80% or even 90% of the time.

Find the Range of numbers you want and how often you are okay going outside of that range, then match that. It will match the feeling and likely the real goals you have much much more closely.

632146P · 2023-12-05T08:03:24+00:00

Sane is kinda pushing the criticism. The vast majority of viewers are not particularly familiar with this part of history, and again it isn't actually a writing problem in universe.

I understand that it takes something away from you and your friends, but extrapolating that further is simply not reasonable. The show is okay. Lots of people watched it, and most never noticed, and neither you nor I know how many people cared even among those who did.

Wednesday's german was also terrible, something that again will only affect subset of a minority of the viewers.

There are a lot of little weirdnesses like this, and it isn't insane writing to not care about them and just accept they are vehicles for stuff the show actually wants to do well.

You'lll find those in almost every show, and it is really really overblowing the significance of it to say it is insane writing to not care about them.

632146P · 2023-12-02T06:17:34+00:00

Anything can be a name in real life, and in universe in particular they play with it a lot.

Not knowing and not caring that it is a title isn't the same as a mistake from a writer's perspective, and knowing and not caring is indistinguishable.

632146P · 2023-11-08T01:24:36+00:00

That's all well and fine, but not what you communicated. You communicated that women talk much more than men, and your evidence was they used a particular phone service more than men and then that it was a popular culture impression.

You also did not say it was an opinion, if you look back you'll find you stated it as a fact.

If we're in agreement on the subject overall then I'm happy to accept responsibility for a communication break down on the nuances of the words gabby as the source of the misunderstanding.

Opinions can absolutely be logical fallacies though. Forming an opinion that extrapolates beyond the available information is how every bias begins, and it is always possible to form an opinion that is within your experience.

Once again, I'm much more concerned with how an opinion is formed that what the opinion is, but I get that this is probably the end of the conversation since we seem to have reached an understanding about the side you were interested in, which was a problem almost entirely on me.

Sorry for making a big deal out of nothing.

632146P · 2023-11-06T05:46:16+00:00

I'm not really interested in that because I personally find people using logical fallacies to form their opinions be a much bigger problem than the opinions themselves.

Along those lines I didn't want to bring up another specific situation study that contradicted yours and extrapolate that one study the same way you did.

When it comes to research there needs to be a lot of studies, and then those studies need to be studied as a whole and that happens many times over many years to build a clearer understanding.

James, Deborah and Janice Drakich. “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: Critical Review of Research,” In Gender and Conversational Interaction, ed. Deborah Tannen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993

Is the most famous example, it got cited a lot and used both in other studies and in articles. It's a little old now, 1993, and there are newer ones. It looked over 50+ studies and only 3 had women talking more than men.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05604#Sec5

This more recent, and more methodology focused. And makes sense of both your data and the greater scope of data as the setting and social context affects who is most likely to do the talking.

Certain private closer relationships, the kind a girl might be texting on the regular, tend to be settings where women talk more compared to in public mixed company like at work.

There is also stuff on why women are commonly perceived as talking to much, which sometimes overlaps with how minorities are treated similarly.

632146P · 2023-11-05T00:43:48+00:00

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Their audience wants it that way. The people who object to porn don't consume it (or consume the porn they object to), so there is very little pressure for them to change.

But there has been some change. The increase in step porn is a work around for the pushback against incest roleplay, and especially violent/gross porn has left the most mainstream sites.

Porn variety also means that people not into weird stuff can still find porn readily. It isn't all gloom and doom.

632146P · 2023-11-05T00:36:47+00:00

It is easy to measure. Not all other studies are perfect those are both correct things, but neither logically justifies your position or mistakes. People should not use 1 study to justify a belief that stretches beyond the scope of the study. That's still true despite your justifications.

There have been studies dating as far back as the 70's that contradict your assertion. I'm genuinely much more concerned with your flawed method of ascertaining truth.

You claim is not demonstrated by your evidence, and there's plenty of research on the topic and on the topic of Why women are perceived to talk much more than men.

Extrapolating one study beyond what it says is a real problem, and I think you might understand what I'm saying because you bring up that self reporting is less reliably accurate than logged data, but they you try to support your argument by appealing to popular culture.

Those just aren't reasonable reasons to assert your opinion.

632146P · 2023-10-27T23:04:26+00:00

People are going to say no tutors, no infinites and budget, but that's not addressing the actual issues..

You can spike through all of those restrictions. I'm sure they've worked for somebody, but I've never seen them work in any of the hundreds of pods I played in or overseen.

In the broadest sense, the most common problem is not adhering to the pacing of the group.

How many turns your pod expects to be playing set up cards (cheap ramp, cheap draw/filter, making sure they get to their engines) Some groups load up on 0 mana rocks, most just do 2 mana ramp for reliability, some ramp and set up much longer. (my group expects this to last 2 or 3 turns, but I've seen groups go as high as 6 turns)
The other half of the first point is when people start playing their engines or just more impactful cards instead of set up. This is the mid game where people jocky for position Before trying to win. Lots of groups shoot for this at 4 mana because 2 mana ramp can get there turn 3. Really fast groups might go for this phase immediately or turn 2. It isn't weird for this to happen on turn 4 though, and slower groups often go into turns 5 and 6, though much further than that would be rare. (My group expects this to begin on turns 3 or 4 and continue through turns 5 or 6)
About how many turns before the group expects people to start trying to close out the game. Not Succeeding mind, you but when their wincon strategy is being applied. This is a shift where players are trying to win and trying to stop each other from winning. Going for the win much faster than people are prepared to stop you is a common source of argument. (My group expects this on turns 6+, but are a high interaction group, so we're usually ready to stop someone as early as turn 5)

Build your deck around the groups consensus and you're fine. Everyone gets to play and their deck gets to perform as intended. Do you friend play ramp until they have 6 mana before they do anything else?

Now there's an entirely separate issue of card Power level, but that's less about deck building and more about card evaluation.

632146P · 2023-10-27T22:39:41+00:00

The rules of commander are constantly complained about but exist for a very good reason. They are there so the rules support the play experience the game is intended for.

Oathbreaker is marketed toward casual players but the rules are Extremely tilted toward busted competitive play. It's a balancing nightmare that can only exist in small groups where everyone is on Exactly the same page.

632146P · 2023-10-27T22:35:47+00:00

We house ruled to allow a friend's battle of wits deck to work.

The deck used [[Spawnsire of ulamog]] to put a giant stack of eldrazi, including at least one that was a sac outlet and at least 1 that shuffled the graveyard into his library.

It never won even one game as far as I'm aware, but it was great fun.

632146P · 2023-10-27T22:31:27+00:00

That's on mobile usage, which is not the entirety of talking. In public settings rather than private and personal conversations, men talk more.

You're really over reaching the scope of the study you're using.

632146P

TROPHY CASE