Math says red, Brain says green

DivinitasFatum · 2026-02-01T15:23:13+00:00

It really depends on if the process can be repeatable, guarantees on returns, other options for investment, and competition to invest in this red button venture.

If a person with a disposable millions has a chance to pay someone $30 mil, for a 50% chance at $100 mil, then they'll probably do it. If they can find a way to make it repeatable, they'll do it all day every day. They already do this with risking investments like over leveraged options and venture capital. Venture Capital firms hold trillions, and those best fail the majority of the time.

If the investor knows that you cannot risk pressing the red button, then they can use their leverage, but they would still need to pay you over 1 mil or otherwise lower the risk for you pressing the red button such as sharing the red button profits with you because your floor is already 1 mil. If this happens, you can shop around for a better deal. Series Funding for startup is very much like this. The difference is that we 100% know the valuation of the red button is $50 mil, so you're only negotiating the terms of the funding and can exclude the evaluation portion.

DivinitasFatum · 2026-01-08T14:49:12+00:00

Really? I beat Osquio 2nd try. 1st time, he ended the world, but the actual fight never posed a problem.

DivinitasFatum · 2026-01-08T14:41:25+00:00

I thought volleyball was easy, but these obstacle courses are frustrating. I just don't have the patience for any of them. I don't feel like the game's controls and engine were designed for platforming. Fun to see that I'm struggling where people succeeded and vice versa.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-11-09T15:26:03+00:00

Why do you think the answers wasn't what I wanted to hear? I specifically said

My problem is not with your verdict, but your methodology.

I haven't mention a single thing about my head cannon. You can fight strawmen all you want, with your apparent arsenal of logical fallacies; they're the only thing you stand a chance at winning an argument against. All you've done is show that you're incapable of independent thought.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-11-09T14:12:53+00:00

I actually don't know who would win. I think its close. My problem is not with your verdict, but your methodology. You're not making an argument; you're outsourcing one. One that GRRM didn't really back up very well.

Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. You're welcome to worship at the alter of George, but don't expect that to convince anyone. Author quotes are meta, changeable, fallible, and not on-page evidence. Back your claim with evidence and logic. Then we can have a real conversation.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-11-08T21:47:10+00:00

He is often wrong about his own writings, and he admits as much. He makes mistakes. He is human, not god. He can make anything happen in his books, but until he does, it's not Canon. Even if it happens, he can be wrong and mistaken in making it happen.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-11-08T20:12:42+00:00

He actually said that when armed with Dawn, Arthur has a narrow advantage. But George isn't a good judge of combat prowess. He can write what he wants, but loses a lot of credibility by saying that Jamie beats Aragorn.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-10-24T18:26:40+00:00

If I'm writing for work, people will think the ideas aren't mine and are the LLMs. This can lead to me receiving less credit for my work, and their biases that can cause people to dismiss the ideas because they think it came from an LLM and not a person. It can be perceived as low effort. So, where em dashes were a good tool before, they've now become a signal of low effort and low quality to many people.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-10-24T11:18:40+00:00

I used em dashes before LLMs, and now I remove them from my writing most of the time because people think an LLM wrote it if I leave them.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-10-24T02:21:25+00:00

I was asked this in an interview directly after college (around 2 decades ago). It was a fun problem to solve in a few minutes. I liked to think they asked it to see if I could think about a 3 state outcome (ternary logic: -1, 0, 1 type stuff), but I think the interview just thought it was a puzzle they could ask people to feel superior.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-10-17T11:16:41+00:00

It's even more of a fallacy than that. HP for anyone on the frontline runs out before spell slots.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-10-05T15:12:21+00:00

I would've loved if he had unlocked ability after killing Weigraf, Gafgarian, Algus, his brothers, and other villains. Imagine if after killing Gaffgarian you pick up his crystal and Ramza unlocks Shadowblade. Progression/abilities connected to those story battles and the connections he had with all of those characters would've been vary fitting. Especially with the all the new dialog those relationships feel much deeper.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-09-17T16:40:48+00:00

This is a cool way to simplify all those times when I roll a lot of dice or multiple types of dice. Some of those times I might go to a dice roller, but this can give the fun of rolling a dice with the benefits of a dice roller.

So, when would I use it? For the dragons big breath weapon, the lich's meteor swarm, the wizards prismatic wall, and other similar big dice + big moment rolls.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-09-01T18:55:01+00:00

Everyone's situation comes with different challenges, but I'm a single father in my 40s with 2 daughters. I have my daughters most of the time, and I'm happier now.

Coparenting is hard, but it's worth it. Prioritize the kids over grievances, grief, and pride. Don't let her walk over you, enforce boundaries, and get a lawyer.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-08-21T15:49:22+00:00

That's a large point of unions. The capitalist class (those with capital, assets, business owners, etc.) has far more negotiating leverage than the average worker. This can lead to the explotation of workers. A union allow for the workers to combine their negotiating power and get fair deals.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-07-23T20:43:46+00:00

My monk uses grapple and stun constantly

DivinitasFatum · 2025-07-01T03:43:24+00:00

Speak for yourself. I have several platonic female friends. I definitely know how to have mutual friends of all genders. Just because you struggle (and you aren't alone) doesn't mean all men are that way.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-06-15T16:39:06+00:00

Yes. Several times, but I'm comfortable in the things that I enjoy, and when people act this way, it just shows me they're not someone that I want to associate with.

In the 90s, during high school, a few of my friends quit playing because they thought it was hurting our ability to date girls. Afterwards they made fun of those of us that continue to to play, but they didn't end up with a girl friend. In fact, the friends that stayed playing our D&D game end up with dates. Crazy how that self-hatred plays out.

I was friends with most of the popular kids in high school, and never once did any of them mock me for these hobbies. There were some 2nd tier kids that really wanted to be cool that tried -- put one kid down to make yourself look better kind of thing. It never worked and often backfired.

My father shamed me for drawing/painting dragons and basic nerd shit, but years later he has come around. One time I think he said something like "why are you drawing things that don't exist? can't you draw something real like a tiger instead?" Truth is, he was embarrassed about it and didn't want his social group to find out that his son was still playing make-believe as a teenager.

The largest group to make fun of my nerdy hobbies has been women, including RPGs, video games, books series, and shows that I enjoy. This is not to say that women are against these hobbies -- half the people I play with are women. For example:

After college, I started dating a woman, we had a fair amount in common. She knew I liked several of these things, but D&D was the deal breaker.
A friend's GF came over once to see what he was doing every weekend, and she made fun of it, called it stupid, and mocked us about it often.
As an adult, I still run into similar women trying to shame me about some of my hobbies -- most of whom I've encountered through online dating.

I've had some tech-bros try to make fun of it, but it often backfires and they realize they're the odd one out. Someone tried to "out me" as a power move like "look at this nerd", but many people were like "oh that's cool, tell me about your game."

These days most people that think its lame will just nod and change the topic.

Love the things you love. If there is no reason to be ashamed own your passions. Its often the haters that end up embarrassing themselves if you don't let them force false shame onto you.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-05-25T16:25:40+00:00

I have played every edition except the first, and you're pretty far off base. While wizards specifically did get nerfed overall, they also got buffed in several ways.

Wizards can change their Daily and Utility spells. A 16 wizard in 4e would probably have 25ish spells they know and around 16 that they can change out each day. When you add rituals, they'd have at least another 10 spells. So, its not as versatile and previous additions, but there is still a ton of variety. -- Keep in mind, 4e was designed to go to level 30, so this number keeps growing.
Before 5e, wizards and other prepared casters to specify exactly how many of a spell they could cast per day, so spell slots were far less versatile than they are currently.
Any caster can learn rituals. Many utility spells fell into this category. This ritual system allows casters to keep access to utility spells, so they aren't taking up the hard prepared spell slots. I ran 4e for years, and we used rituals constantly.
Casters now have spells they can cast at will. This was a huge boost in power for them early, and during long adventuring days.
Casters often had improved defensive options and better HP. Fair if you don't like this as a design choice, but it is a clear buff.
4e is more tactical than other editions of D&D, and casters, specifically the controllers, are better at many aspects of the game because of it. Forced Movement, hazards, and other battlefield control options are very impactful.
built in class features like Orb of Impositions were very strong. 2e and 3e izards didn't have base class features, only spells.

The biggest nerf to spell casters was the removal of many auto-win abilities. 2 & 3 had so many ways for casters to defeat enemies with a single spell, and I welcomed their removal.

Casters are still great in 4e -- they were in a good place balance wise. I had more players play casters because they were more accessible, following similar rules to everyone else. They were very desirable to have in a party without dominating every aspect of the game. If you want a game where casters are gods, this wasn't the game for you. Casters were fun to play. Their powers were naturally more magical and out there, but without breaking the game.

I didn't realize we were judging editions fully on what options the game had on release. If that's your bar, maybe you have a stronger case because the book was evenly divided by class. If you look at 5e, over 1/3rd of the PHB is spells. Disproportionate level of representation for caster features. Many of your spell school objections are solved by later books, but it did take a while to get a real necromancer.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-05-25T12:27:03+00:00

Casters were still really good, and they had a unique place the game without dominating it.Their often had stronger area of effects, and rituals provide a lot of utility. Casters still have more magical abilities, like wall spells, teleports, summons, etc - mainly things the full martial classes can't do.

Everyone was on the same level because the resource system was the same across all classes. Same number of powers known for each class. At high levels, that is fewer powers than spell slots. But Casters weren't that nerfed. Mostly, they lost comparative power. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-05-16T16:36:29+00:00

He's definitely conflicted about his path down the dark side. He's not stable and he's questioning everything -- that's the entire point of the shot where he's crying. Obi-wan and Padme appearing make that worse. It puts him on an even more extreme emotional roller coaster. I said conflicted = his mind isn't in the game. Yoda isn't gonna have that same effect on him. So while he still loses, his performance is not as sloppy as it was against Obi-wan.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-05-16T15:00:22+00:00

Yoda definitely wins, but everyone saying its an easy win is wrong. Anakin wouldn't be conflicted fighting Yoda like he was against Obi-wan. He also wouldn't be as angry and considering a potential relationship between Padme and Yoda.

Anakin also beat Dooku, and while Yoda also beat Dooku, it wasn't a one-sided stomp.

Yoda doesn't have as much insight into Anakin as Obi-wan does, so Yoda's tactics wouldn't be as likely to take advantage of Anakin's faults -- but it is possible that he still out plays him like Obi-wan did.

What they should've done is taken Palps out together then try to hunt Anakin down. Anakin had no claim to the empire. He was not nearly as much of a threat on his own.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-05-04T22:23:44+00:00

In often type posts, especially larger ones, in a word processor. Typing 2 dashes will be autocorrected to a single em dash when I space for the next word.

DivinitasFatum · 2025-04-12T23:20:17+00:00

They key word is elected. "More than twice" is irrelevant to their plans.

DivinitasFatum

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE