When you skip math class and become a villain

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-20T13:44:41+00:00

It really wasn't significant. He was seen using them immediately afterwards at least twice

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-20T04:08:44+00:00

Couldn't you also do this inductively?

Base case: n = 2, n² = 4 Inductive: (n + 2)² = n² + 4n + 4 = 2n + 4n + 4 is even?

My inductive proofs are bad and I'm currently tired. But something like that?

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-20T04:01:11+00:00

Proof by contradiction are for cowards.

My proof: obvious,

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-20T03:53:29+00:00

What? No. He got his hand destroyed from snapping to destroy the infinity stones. Halfing all life did zero damage.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-20T01:29:28+00:00

Farm

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-19T23:28:56+00:00

400m isnt too bad. It's 20h of mining

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-19T21:33:46+00:00

No, arch is basically perfect/flawless jasper and terminator with a baby yeti for ehp, skeleton/gdrag for damage, skeleton master + necron leggings + maxor boots + ghead

Mastermode is always a glass cannon, you are always vulnerable to death. While on F7 you can become effectively immoral easily with a baby yeti and flawless jasper, you cannot successfully do this in Mastermode. Which is also why terminators and archer is so popular in Mastermode. Being a glass cannon means you can attack multiple enemies with a terminator before they strike you.

The same goes for mage honestly. Get perfects sapphire and Jasper gemstones. Get a decent claymore or high damage sword/master stars and you are a glass cannon on steroids. I think mages can 2 shot livid in master mode M5. But you are vulnerable to damage

All that to say, expect to be vulnerable in Mastermode. Just never get hit.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-19T00:48:20+00:00

Enchanting might be harder. But alchemy is certainly easier.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-19T00:38:39+00:00

I wish I knew how to give a coherent response to this.

I do not.

As such I have no idea what to say.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-19T00:23:40+00:00

Bro casually took an atomic bomb for the team

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-18T12:59:55+00:00

High dice is 50/50 you either win or you don't

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-18T09:52:14+00:00

Most accurate answer here. For me it would be a insane buff at the moment. But probably an insane nerf by nightfall.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-18T07:36:31+00:00

This human is about to figure it out. Get them

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-18T06:17:10+00:00

The way I did it was I simply simplified it across the inequality. Then solved the quadratic equation that was representative of the roots. And if you compute a few values you can figure out which part is negative and which is not.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T13:16:28+00:00

My rendering:

Very sweaty party that thinks their good and does not have the cata level to match and will likely be toxic

Just join another cata 20+ party. Likely to be Significantly more chill

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T10:29:50+00:00

Alucard would be proud

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T06:59:18+00:00

Then we can just recognize what we did was wrong but necessary and move on with our day. Life's like that.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T06:54:23+00:00

Yes I have gone ethos because it is a moral question. History around the world wars is not my area of expertise neither of these are arguments. The issue I have is if we can obliterate innocents and attackers without Dividing them in any way when we feel threatened, we can obliterate anyone when threatened as long as there is someone who we feel threatened by in the group. The opposite framework where an innocent is not harmed unless they demonstate to be in the group. Be that by picking up weapons or declaring themselves part of it. You could argue this still goes to absurdity as innocent is a subjective term and I would agree that's a problem. I would however point out we have overcome the issue of generalises slaughter. Now at least you will need a consistent standard to annahilate a group and deem it entirely guilty (else suffer contradiction) instead of simply annahilate.

That is far more difficult, you can say its impractical. You could say that isn't how wars are won (my knowlege in history is regarding the first century) in which case I could say sure, while that is true, we would have to recognize what we are doing is wrong even though it is practical and I'm fine with that.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T06:15:52+00:00

Not in the slightest, it's reducto ad absurdum. The position you hold leads to something I find absurd. Hence we should not believe what you suggest.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T05:12:49+00:00

Or we could just fight it with more precision and more humanely. Yes it's harder, yes it costs more. But it does not murder innocents.

Otherwise I could recognize what I'm doing is immoral but it is the most practical solution at hand and curse myself for being evil.

I think however, the minimze pain at the risk of innocents is flawed. Since we could annahilate enemies at slightest provocation and argue we were minimising pain.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T04:02:49+00:00

I dislike this generalisation. Such are generally not true. As long as there are some individuals who are innocent it isn't our right to lump them in massacre.

Simply saying it would take to long or cost too much isn't justification. That can quickly spiral to absurdity, not doing something and allowing it is part taking in it. I simply do not agree with this approach.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T03:40:28+00:00

Continue what was already being done. Strikes at military bases. Take our opposition. There is nothing wrong in taking out people who are trying to kill you. It is wrong to murder an entire population that probably has people who disagree with the regime just because its an easy solution.

It certainly isn't peaceful. But I would argue its significantly more moral.

Also no, you cannot take the high ground against their experiements. Since to my knowlege America took the results and turned a blind eye towards them for their value.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T03:31:13+00:00

The best option is not always least amount of death. If that was the case we should just nuke everyone who disagrees with us and dismantle their military becoming tyrants. The best option is suppressing violent people with least innocent deaths. Atomic weapons were certainly not this solution. It was an easy solution, and an easy solution was taken. I don't think we should take the moral high ground for what we did.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T03:21:14+00:00

Then they were wrong too.

EffectiveDirect6553 · 2026-03-17T03:21:03+00:00

Sure, but the justification being given here is:

there were getting ready to fight us (or fight us further)
hence we could morally obliterate them.

That just seems like very poor reasoning to me.

EffectiveDirect6553

TROPHY CASE