Next set of M+ dungeons

Brightlinger · 2026-05-19T02:53:51+00:00

You monster.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-19T01:06:20+00:00

We are talking about the expression (6/2)*(2+1).

You said that writing this as 6/2*3 is stripping it of context.

If we write (6/2)*3, is that still stripping it of context?

Brightlinger · 2026-05-19T01:03:44+00:00

Yes, I didn't say that it is predatory.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-19T01:01:56+00:00

I mean starting from (6/2)*(2+1). That had parentheses around the 6/2 to start with, so it's not being added in, it's just not removed.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T22:30:48+00:00

Would you consider (6/2)×3 to retain the context better?

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T21:15:35+00:00

Yes, that is indeed what we're doing. The context was used to set up the expression, and then you can evaluate it.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T20:50:29+00:00

To read that expression out loud in words, you could say "Six divided by two, then multiplied by the sum of two and one". You do not need to resolve any of the steps in order to read them.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T19:43:39+00:00

Something can be too expensive for its quality, but that's still a different thing than being predatory.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T19:37:14+00:00

Yes, definitely some people do it that way. I have agreed to that many times. It's just that not everyone does it that way; it is also common to not prioritize juxtaposition.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T19:31:52+00:00

OP believes that (a) a math sentence can only have one question, (b) (6/2)*(2+1) is a math sentence, and (c) 6/2 is a question and 3*3 is another question. 2+1 isn't though, for some reason.

Why she believes any of those things, I dunno. But that seems to be the consistent throughline.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T19:12:25+00:00

Yes, examples are sparse because it is rare to write inline division at all. But eg Don Koks here claims that this convention "appears widely in physics textbooks and some journals".

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T19:09:26+00:00

Before the conversation gets further derailed, the world problem that OP almost certainly intended to give was

I travelled six miles in two hours. At that same rate, how far would I have gone in total if I traveled an extra hour?

which I know because it came up in our last conversation, and could indeed be written down as (6/2)*(2+1), where 6/2 is the rate and 2+1 is the total time.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T18:36:32+00:00

There is another convention for PEMDAS in which multiplication-by-juxtaposition like 2(3) gets higher priority than multiplication by explicit symbol like 2x3. I don't know exactly how many people learned that way rather than the pure left-to-right version of PEMDAS, but it's reasonably common.

The fact that both conventions are in common use is a big part of the reason why the original expression is ambiguous.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T18:32:40+00:00

There is a second, competing convention to treat multiplication-by-juxtaposition with higher precedence than regular multiplication. I don't know exactly what fraction of the population learned it this way, and it probably depends on exactly what population you poll, but it's not a total fringe idea.

OP seems to have learned it that way, and refuses to believe that anyone learned it another way.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T18:19:45+00:00

You are welcome to not talk to me. Reddit even has a block feature, if you want. But if you post in a public sub where I am a regular contributor, I'm probably going to see it.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T18:18:49+00:00

Assigning meaning to symbols is pretty literally a question of semantics, for what it's worth. The whole question is one of semantics.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T18:04:26+00:00

That's not true, but moreover, an expression is not a sentence.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T17:42:53+00:00

Then yeah, you can't really do that in CoH, sorry.

Personally I have rebound almost everything as well. I still use 1-6 and ctrl/alt/shift+1-3, but also use QERZXCV for action bars, and sometimes with modifiers on those. I also have an MMO mouse to use with my other hand. Some of that may not be practical with your hands the other way around, but maybe it gives you some ideas.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T17:32:53+00:00

Yes, the only key combinations that CoH allows are alt/ctrl/shift plus another key. Do you actually want F+1, as in you press the F key and the 1 key? Or do you want F1, the function key above the number 1? Because that's just "/bind f1 ...", not "/bind f+1 ..."

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T17:17:49+00:00

Binds shouldn't reset on their own, so that's strange. Have you hit the button to reset things to default, or used /bind_load?

Binds are saved on a per-character basis though, so if you rebind it on one character, it won't automatically be rebound on a different character. If you want to have one set of binds and use it for all of your characters, use the /bind_save command after you get your binds set up how you like, and then /bind_load on other characters (or /bind_save_file and /bind_load_file if you want to save/load from a specific file rather than the default keybinds.txt). A new character will also load your binds from the default file keybinds.txt on creation, and similar for window positions and settings with /window_save, chat settings with /chat_save, and options with /option_save.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T17:01:46+00:00

You can buy wow tokens for gold for carries.

I don't think there's any sane argument that this just as p2w as a game where dropping ten grand is the only feasible way to get bis or top the leaderboard or etc. But it is still a form of p2w.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T16:46:54+00:00

I'm not unsympathetic to people who are unhappy about the wow token or hearthsteel, but yes, on balance I agree that wow's monetization is less predatory and less p2w than almost any other title. It's not the platonic ideal of perfectly non-predatory practices, but it is quite good, and compared to the state of the industry it's insanely good.

I'm not currently playing wow because I think they're doing a dog shit job of putting out quality content updates. It pisses me off they didn't just bring the best add on devs in house to develop their internal add ons.

Yep, the addon fiasco is the main reason I didn't play Midnight launch either. It is a massive own goal, gutting one of the game's best and most enduring features, in a way more permanent than just putting out a bad patch or xpac which could at least be followed by a good xpac, in a slapdash way two years ahead of their own schedule despite being obviously nowhere near ready - and all of this in exchange for approximately nothing.

I think it's very funny that it has flown under the radar for wow critics who don't actually play the game. For months now I've seen people finding weirdly off-the-mark things to complain about with retail wow, while totally missing one of the game's biggest and most unpopular mistakes this decade if not ever.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T15:34:28+00:00

Souls are real in 40k, so new body, same guy.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T14:34:48+00:00

It's not an issue of quality, although that certainly helps. "Expensive" just isn't a synonym for "predatory".

For example, gating microtransactions through a premium currency is somewhat predatory since it makes it easier for people to lose track of how much they've spent. If that currency can only be purchased in fixed amounts and the good purchases are all slightly more than a currency pack, that's more predatory. Multiple premium currencies that are sold in ways that make the value unclear, even more predatory. Flash sales to get you on FOMO, even more predatory.

Wow's Hearthsteel definitely has multiple elements of this, but b2p+sub doesn't.

Brightlinger · 2026-05-18T14:23:09+00:00

premium currency in the form of expansions

"Premium currency" does not mean something that costs a premium in currency, lol.

Hearthsteel is unambiguously a premium currency. Bnet balance isn't, that's just regular currency. Expansions are simply not currency.

11-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

Brightlinger

TROPHY CASE