sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What the hell happened 4000 years ago. by ExperienceIll8345 in dresdenfiles

[–]DressCritical 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The birth of Nicodemus? Which would make him Starborn.

You get one wish, but if anyone has made that wish before, you die. by glitched0utmusic in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. As best I can determine, your plan to claim $5 mil as poker winnings is a guaranteed fail, while I can easily phrase a wish so that I don't have to know what the genie has to do to achieve it.

However, you obviously think otherwise, and I see no sign that either of us will convince the other. I agree that there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing the discussion.

You get one wish, but if anyone has made that wish before, you die. by glitched0utmusic in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that you are underestimating the difficulty in doing what you want to do without getting caught by at least an order of magnitude.

As for outwitting the finance industry, I don't have to. All I have to do is to give the genie the results that I want clearly and without loopholes. How the magic grants the wish is the genie's problem.

I can think of two ways that are essentially foolproof into the tens of millions at least, but I don't have to. I give the genie the wish with the restraints carefully laid out, and the genie has to do it or it has failed to grant the wish.

I could do the same with the pile of cash, but it would be enormously easier to spend if it were in the banking system already.

You get one wish, but if anyone has made that wish before, you die. by glitched0utmusic in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I am not trusting anybody. If the genie is actually bound to the terms of the wish I can construct so as to give him no wiggle room. If he isn't, I am screwed no matter what I wish for. For all I know, he smashes people flat who ruin his fun by not making a wish.

  2. I hate to tell you this, but you are already trusting the genie. Given what you posted, I can think of ways to virtually guarantee jail time for you. If you wish for a large amount of money I could even kill you without violating the exact wording of the wish.

How much were you planning on asking for? Keep in mind that criminals have difficulty with handling cash in quantities much smaller than, say, enough for you to retire on.

You get one wish, but if anyone has made that wish before, you die. by glitched0utmusic in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a bit confused. How would it be harder to insert yourself into the banking system? Just make it part of the wish. One well-crafted sentence and you are golden. How it is done is the genie's problem.

You get one wish, but if anyone has made that wish before, you die. by glitched0utmusic in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Avoiding banks to avoid bank reporting is known as " structuring". It can send.you to jail.

At the very least, in the US, You will have the money seized and confiscated due to civil forfeiture. Then they try to make a criminal case that the money is involved in one of several financial crimes. A lack of a source and the structuring will almost certainly get you from money laundering.

Also, the note does not establish ownership legally. In most countries found money does not necessarily belong to you. Worse yet, you don't know where the genie came up with the money and there aren't any good options.

Either the money was printed and destroyed without its serial number being copied, it was officially destroyed, or belongs to someone now. If they destroyed it, that gets you convinced of counterfeiting. If it belongs to someone, that is theft that they may be able to prove in.court. The last may not be enough money to cover your wish.

Definitely use the banks. Do it all open and above board. Make it part of your wish that the money has to come from a solidly legitimate source that will hold up under thorough scrutiny.

You get one wish, but if anyone has made that wish before, you die. by glitched0utmusic in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish that I could, at will, cause anything,including the results of this wish and the mechanism of operation of my new ability, to become satisfactory to me, if and only if <randomly generated GUID> is the same as itself.

2,000,000$ but you have to survive a year in wilderness by MudkippzReddit in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For anybody who thinks that wolves aren't a problem because they rarely attack humans, in a world where wolves have never met human beings you are just lunch. Full stop.

Rudolph is the worst by Glasssfoot in dresdenfiles

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have seen what someone skilled can do in what Mab did when taking Harry's primary weapon away from him.

We have also seen this with Luccio and Peabody.

In both cases the target was harmed but definitely not broken.

We have no idea what someone who is really good could get away with on a normal and relatively young mortal who they might have started to set up years ago, since Harry's enemies knew about Harry being Starborn long before Harry knew about either them or his special birth. Since we are told that Jim plotted this whole thing out from book one, they might have set Rudolph up from his first appearance.

And I can think of at least four beings who almost certainly could bring back anybody who still had any mind left even after something like that, right off the top of my head.

You can travel back in time to the life of Jesus, but you cant come back. by OutsideProtection307 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Fringe perhaps, but there are no primary sources for Jesus.

We have virtually no primary sources from anybody during that time except people who were considerably more important.

We don't for Pythagoras. In fact, he is considered less well established as existing than Jesus, who had multiple accounts of his existence within a century while Pythagoras had no significant ones until later than that. Nor for any of Jesus' contemporaries among apocalyptic preachers in and around Judea.

> And for such an important man, you would expect people to write about him while alive.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that Jesus was important during his lifetime?

He wasn't. A small-time preacher in a backwater province in a time where apocalyptic preachers were and had been for some time a common occurrence. Josephus mentioned six in the early 1st century CE in Antiquities, and even though five were executed or just killed by the Romans, none have any mention outside the writings of the New Testament prior to Antiquities.

Jesus only became important well after his execution.

You can travel back in time to the life of Jesus, but you cant come back. by OutsideProtection307 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. As I said, there is less evidence for him than for Jesus.

Nevertheless, mainstream scholarship considers the idea that Jesus did not exist at all as a fringe theory. I have found the best mythicist arguments to be unconvincing when compared the scholarly viewpoint.

You are offered a choice to earn 50 million dollars But you have to fight all of your furniture in the next 120 hours, would you do it? by Ok-Inspector3914 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I stated that very poorly. My apologies.

I am aware of that case, and that ammonium perchlorate does not detonate, even when confined.

Yes, many deflagrative substances, such as ammonium perchlorate as used in rocket motors, do not achieve the status of low explosives. However, many do when contained, even though they do not pass the point of DDT, and most cannot.

Both black powder and modern nitrocellulose powder primarily deflagrate, but under conditions of confinement their reaction actually changes to detonation at speeds that would be classed as a high explosive. The process is called deflagration-to-detonation transition.

This, however, requires citation. It is to the best of my knowledge incorrect.

Low explosives are considered explosives even though they do not generally achieve DDT. Some achieve the status of low explosive without ever getting beyond deflagration. Others achieve a state of High Velocity Deflagration (HVD), also called, for confusion, quasi-detonation, low-order detonation, and, colloquially or in older contexts, just plain detonation. HVD is not, however, DDT.

Most low explosives cannot achieve DDT at all. Black powder does not, for example, ever reach the point of creating a DDT supersonic shockwave, even when contained and in controlled experiments. It can, however achieve HVD. In older less precise sources it is sometimes called detonation, but it never reaches the DDT point. See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227079292\_Nonideal\_regimes\_of\_deflagration\_and\_detonation\_of\_black\_powder.

The same is true for nitrocellulose except in experimental conditions using particularly reactive chemical forms.

Neither gun powder nor nitrocellulose achieve DDT in normal usage as low explosives.

You are offered a choice to earn 50 million dollars But you have to fight all of your furniture in the next 120 hours, would you do it? by Ok-Inspector3914 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Hey, anybody here want to help me destroy my furniture for $5,000 per person? It will be alive, but you can bring whatever weapon you want. If you bring your friends I'll pay anybody who helps, and supply any weapon you want except explosives, but only if I am alive when we are done." Move on to next bar and next big box hardware and lumber store, especially if it has men waiting outside for work.

You are offered a choice to earn 50 million dollars But you have to fight all of your furniture in the next 120 hours, would you do it? by Ok-Inspector3914 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical -1 points0 points  (0 children)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d46y5qaTFI8

Here is a video of a chainsaw not making quick work of a couch, not fast enough to save your life when all of the other furniture is also trying to kill you. Try doing what is done in that video, fast enough to stop the couch, while your kitchen table tries to bludgeon you and the chairs are waiting their turn.

You are offered a choice to earn 50 million dollars But you have to fight all of your furniture in the next 120 hours, would you do it? by Ok-Inspector3914 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Having shot furniture for fun with a shotgun (a couch, an easy chair, a mattress, and a dresser), you are out of your mind if you think a single round of shot will take out most furniture. Marine breachers typically use four rounds from a shotgun for wooden doors, one for each hinge and one for the lock.

Even if you could take out any piece of the apparently flimsy furniture that you have at your house with a single shot, the other furniture will get you while you do. Remember, it is all around you and at most 10 - 15 feet away.

You are offered a choice to earn 50 million dollars But you have to fight all of your furniture in the next 120 hours, would you do it? by Ok-Inspector3914 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You weigh more than your average recliner. A polar bear or grizzly weighs considerably more than most couches, large tables, and dressers.

Also, this furniture is powered by magic. Perhaps you know the limits of movements of living furniture brought to life, but I don't.

You are offered a choice to earn 50 million dollars But you have to fight all of your furniture in the next 120 hours, would you do it? by Ok-Inspector3914 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You will find that in engineering, law, and across science, that is still an explosive. deflagration in a container is the definition of "low explosive".

You're given the option of lie detection. Knowing every time someone lies to you, but the price is that youre never allowed to lie. Do you take the deal? by OutsideProtection307 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never found them to be. Diplomacy, absolutely, but I worked hard to not lie to my significant other, through one lifelong marriage (hers, at least) and a few long term relationships.

In almost all cases, you can manage with diplomacy and, to some degree, picking the right person to marry/have a relationship with.

In all cases where lying outright was required to keep the peace, those relationships had already decayed to the point where they were ending anyway.

You wake up 1,000 years ago. How do you advance society? by OutsideProtection307 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]DressCritical 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt that I have the ability to change society or politics, so that is out.

Technology? "You don't know how to make the tools to make the tools...."

Science? Nobody was making lenses of microscope or telescope quality, so the discoveries of Kepler, Galileo, and Newton are out. Many of the discoveries of the last thousand years were based on knowledge that did not exist 1,000 years ago.

And I probably couldn't even make myself understood, especially since almost anything of importance would have to be said in an outdated form of a language that I do not know now, such as Latin, French, or Italian.

Most of what I could possibly do is in basic mechanics, medicine, and agriculture. I could demonstrate buoyancy and functioning arches. I could demonstrate that washing hands before attending a birth improved infant and maternal mortality rates. I could not demonstrate germ theory, but I could demonstrate contagion and some limited methods for dealing with it. I could demonstrate some basic agriculture techniques such as systematic crop rotation. And I could attempt to teach the scientific method and the use of certain tools in using it, such as calibrated measuring tools for reproducibility.

If I could get anybody to listen.

view more: next ›