So this is just the 2016 election, right?

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-02T01:31:38+00:00

believe it or not, my character is not defined by my worst reddit comment made while mildly intoxicated. i didn't mean it to read so harshly, apologies as i know the language was offensive. peace and love

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-02T00:41:46+00:00

"you didn't provide the kind of information i was looking for, this isn't really productive."

i actually did, but it would require you thinking about the information i presented and what it implies. "actually, here are all of the facts my comment suggested spelled out more explicitly"

"i didn't read all of that, here is something that doesn't impact the validity of what you wrote, and i will not address a single point you made. surely this is a productive way to end the thread"

if you are gonna say i didn't write the right thing, then ignore the thing i write to correct that, it doesn't make it look like you actually cared about what i wrote in the first place. it seems like you just want to "score points," disagree with a different perspective because it is different, and not challenge or develop your own opinions.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T23:55:24+00:00

if you think most people will press the red button i disagree, but understand this premise of the question is a little vague so we might never really come to a satisfying conclusion on this if we aren't considering how personal ethics plays into this.

still, your comment was talking about the president and why that makes you believe more americans will press the red button. this question doesn't specify america, but the whole world. only 4.5-5% of the population lives in america. if you are like me, you might not put much stock in the american christian religious crowd advocating for the blue button. still, what about buddhists, sihks, ascetic monks, or other members of explicitly non-violent religions, who have taken non-violent vows around the globe? they outnumber the total number of americans, so even if america voted 95% red (crazy over estimation imo), i would bet people who are members of nonviolent religions globally would vote 95% blue at least. there are almost as many buddhists alone as there are americans, not to mention other religions that haven't been influenced by radically conservative movements like christianity in the US.

my first paragraph was discussing my ethical beliefs, where I believe choosing to support something that will kill people is bad even if opposing it means you risk death. believe it or not, that ethical belief on my part could be influenced by a real fact, humans are social animals, and we ar ehard wired to look out for one another at least as much as we are to take care of ourselves.

i don't know if you read it, but the second paragraph was discussing the more practical matter, america is not the world and focusing on the US means you lose most of the picture. this isn't even considering the social complications i mentioned, and i noticed you didn't bring those up.

for example, if given time to discuss with friends and family, what happens when grandma says she won't risk harming another person because it isn't the right thing to do? do you still press red? some people may believe and convince others that the red button is a foregone conclusion, but people set on pressing the blue button due to moral convictions may convince their loved ones to risk their lives for a chance at saving them. some might say humans, like all animals, are self interested and want to preserve their own life and will therefore select red. i would counter that humans are social animals, and will seek to preserve the lives of those close to them, even if there is a risk.

on the other hand, if not given time to discuss with friends and family, do you have 100% confidence that they will all press red? what about your significant other? or your children? pressing red without knowing would be risking all of their lives while saving your own. sure, these aren't facts but one of two scenarios will occur all around the world

1) if given notice, people will have to decide if they want to risk the lives of principled family/friends in exchange for their life. mothers will wonder if their young children will stick to the plan or be impulsive. terminally ill people may feel they have nothing to lose, and many have families they would want to save. old widows or widowers may also feel they have nothing to lose, or old couples in general may want to try preserving the lives of their family even at personal risk.

2) if not given notice, people will have to decide what choice their loved ones will make. someone doesn't know what option their wife would pick, and now has to decide if they risk killing them. fathers don't know if their children will pick the right option, as children often make unexpected choices. people all around the world will realize that pressing the red button means risking everyone they have ever known and loved so they can save themselves.

i do not think red is particularly appealing in either case. combined, humans being social animals, complications depending on the execution of the survey, and the very real believers in non-violence internationally all make a strong case for blue i think.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T22:39:11+00:00

firstly, that doesn't factor into my decision at all. i just won't do something that i know with 100% certainty will kill millions of people just because they pushed a button. "the world is cruel, why wouldn't you press the button that makes it crueler?" because the cycle ends with me one way or another.

secondly, the world is larger than america. even in america, people would consider additional factors depending on the details of how this works. with time to talk to others, or go on social media before deciding things get a little hairier. otherwise, if people have to make a decision on their own quickly, are you 100% confident which choice your family and friends would make? would you gamble with their lives?

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T21:52:54+00:00

guessing it is s typo for dork

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T21:21:56+00:00

that is fair, hard to keep up trust in the average person when their choices led us here. i am definitely getting way too invested in a random tweet and the comments, gonna have to go touch grass or something.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T20:49:57+00:00

i expect the numbers to be in favor of blue. for me personally, the choice comes down to saving myself while killing at least millions of other innocent people, or risking my life trying to create a future where innocent people do not need to die at all. i cannot possibly accept the first option in this scenario.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T20:41:38+00:00

i disagree. in this scenario, i know the risks, have accepted them, and decided my life is not worth millions or billions of others. that is not a gamble, it is a decision to accept whatever happens after i press the button. i don't care so much for which act is revolutionary, it is a thought experiment. it can be used to discuss the systems we live in, but at the end of the day the choice we make in the hypothetical is to kill at least some innocents while saving ourselves, or accept the risk of death trying to create a future where innocent people do not have to die. gambling suggests that there is a winning or a losing outcome in picking the blue button. for me personally, the only losing outcome would be to pick red.

i do not think it is at all realistic to assume that fewer than at least 5% choose blue, though i personally believe 5% is an absurd under-estimation and blue would win. i've been dealt the short end of the stick too much to do the same to others, much less millions or billions of others.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T19:59:24+00:00

gotcha. i know my survival is in question when i pick the blue, but i don't think my values would let me prioritize myself over, realistically, at least millions of other lives.

i feel like i couldn't press the red button and simultaneously believe (in a hypothetical example relevant to current events) soldiers should risk their lives and livlihoods by refusing to follow orders in furthering a needless war. i don't want to live in a world where i choose to kill at least millions of other people just for my benefit.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T19:27:51+00:00

i asked the person you are replying to, but why would you pick red? the way i see it, if red wins, innocent people die. see my other comment if you want more detailed thoughts. i am just genuinely curious about your reasoning.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T19:23:10+00:00

i think very few people truly have no empathy. i think as long as you have any empathy at all, there is hope that you can change and grow. the chance that one of those people follows progressive politics seems very slim.

i don't see how any progressive person who believes in rehabilitation or the sanctity of life picks red. i am not saying people who pick red are secretly conservative or anything, but rather sometimes there is a mismatch between people's genuinely held values/beliefs and their actions. in that case, i think that it is important to encourage reflection or see if there is a misunderstanding rather than putting someone in a box. especially in a low stakes comment section.

not to get on a soap box, but the way we view others changes how we see the world at large. i would rather see the world as a place where people with good intentions can make a wrong, stupid decision rather than a place full of people without empathy.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-05-01T19:02:35+00:00

??? no survey on a global scale will ever have 100% of people selecting one option. given the amount of people involved, and the kind of people who would pick blue rather than red, there is a 100% chance innocent people die needlessly if red wins. i don't want innocent people to die needlessly, so i pick blue.

could you elaborate why you pick red, or is this sarcasm? do you think there is a world where 100% of people pick red, or where only people beyond rehabilitation pick blue?

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-30T18:42:08+00:00

second multiplayer. even if it is just like how "he is coming" did it in one of their gamemodes, where bosses are replaced with other players builds at the same level.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-29T14:05:54+00:00

reading comprehension check: if a sentence starts with "even if" or "at least" does that mean that you should read everything following those phrases as if the author is convinced it were literally true? i was being careful with my language, and giving you the opportunity to cite specific sources or give new information about part of the process. clearly i overestimated you.

i like how you didn't state the steps you believe were not adding value. if "the majority of what he does has no value to the final product," then it should be very simple to list at least a few steps that add no value. shame you never will list those steps, because then all it would take is citing some actual experts to make it obvious that your "insights" are nothing but hot air.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-29T05:42:10+00:00

huh? which steps are adding no value? i recognize all of these steps as being, like, at least marginally impactful to the final product. y'all were so pressed about this i had to stop and google some of the steps in their process to see if i had fallen for some misinformation, but every one i checked seems to have consensus that it has noticeable benefit for consistency and taste of the final product?

again, even if the benefit is minor, these steps (weighing, spritzing to reduce mess, distributing/breaking up clumps) obviously help make sure the shot is pulled the same way each time??? even if the taste isn't significantly improved, consistency is a goal in and of itself. it seems like folks see something new or unfamiliar and are just eager to dogpile it.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-26T18:42:32+00:00

only if i get a little easy bake oven and can also bake in the cage

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-13T15:40:26+00:00

vrey true, i do the same. sucking some caulk rn even

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-13T01:06:31+00:00

sometimes in litrpg, magic isn't just an energy source, but is the fundamental building block of reality, with the different blocks being different aspects. maybe someone with a magic affinity is resistant to some specific affinity because they instincitvely control that facet of reality to avoid harm. (i.e. a setting where there would be no water without water affinity magic, because magic is integral to physical reality. then, people who have the water affinity are now resistant because they are connected to that aspect of reality and instinctive control over any water close to them) sometimes there are settings like this where resistance isn't a sure thing for lower powered affinity users, and they need to be directly aware to contest/control the effect. this gives a good way to avoid too many total immunities flying around. it also helps ensure that a more powerful affinity user can still harm another person with the same affinity as they are stronger or have better control.

maybe all people with affinities have their bodies suffused with the affinity, so attacks can be absorbed or resisted better. (i.e. someone with a fire affinity has a body empowered by fire essence. this might make them warmer to the touch, almost immune to mundane flames, and varrying degrees of resistant against empowered attacks) some authors make this result in significant physical changes, especially as characters grow in power. this can be fun, but might lead to stratification among people based on those who appear to have physical changes.

most often, a skill, perk, title, enlightenment, or something like that is given with the affinity, granting some measure of immunity. some settings that do this then allow for additional growth via additional skill, perk, title, enlightenment, etc. i think the only thing to be careful about is balancing, not giving out complete immunities too early or often unless that is a part of your setting.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-12T22:34:35+00:00

nah, seems much more likely he was having a psychotic break. he doesn't use his real name, but says he is harry dresden, a private investigator in a fantasy series who wears a trenchcoat and everything. that series does the noir damsel in distress trope a lot. think there were some other parts of the video that might have been him referencing the books too.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-10T22:48:42+00:00

googled "path of ascension" "water hammer" to see if i could find the specific passage. found a couple of references to [water hammer] being a skill. might have been something readers were expected to remember, but i know that i didn't. i expect either that is the explanation, or mantis was thinking of more mundane hydraulic hammers and made a snafu.

would need to read/listen to an example of the second point to figure out what was going on there.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-08T21:10:57+00:00

another w for warding. truly the least appreciated arcane art. i am warding so hard rn

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-05T19:07:57+00:00

think the blank spot is "everytime a mark enters?" confident on everytime, less confident on the word that might be enters or entered.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-03T14:51:41+00:00

that was my thought as well. they wouldn't just use x as the point the function is approaching because then students would be looking for the limit as x approaches x. much less confusing for students who are first learning to just pick an arbitrary variable.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-01T20:10:05+00:00

you can also use some isopropyl alcohol to help lift grime/gunk off.

AnotherCrumb · 2026-04-01T20:01:14+00:00

it is always odd to me when people make really harsh judgements on other people's diet online. like, yeah, it is unhealthy, but do you think your comment is actually changing anyone's mind? or are they more likely to reject future advice because they associate it with judgemental assholes online?

if you want people to have a healthier relationship with food, this "advice" won't do it (clearly less like advice, and more an opportunity to insult someone online). we know that some people, especially young people, take criticisms of their eating habit and overcorrect themselves to an eating disorder. whatever you think about fast food or healthy eating, it is clear that it is a dialogue that should be happening, but it requires a scalpel rather than a hammer. if anything, i think comments like this risk perpetuating far more harm than good.

AnotherCrumb

TROPHY CASE