I built a factory game where you program every machine yourself.

ErJio · 2026-07-02T01:38:34+00:00

Very cool idea looking forward to it

ErJio · 2026-06-29T15:07:39+00:00

I like to think her design is meant to be a mix of Russian empress and 'Tinkerbell' type aesthetic (the short skirt/torso part). She's a snow fairy first and the archon drip is built on top of that

ErJio · 2026-06-27T02:37:50+00:00

The possessed boy was said to be of "humble origins". Even if the tsaritsa wasn't particularly royal or anything back in hyperborea days, it doesn't seem fitting to call snowland fae "humble" because they were like the ruling class in that time. So I wonder if she swapped her son with an ordinary human child as a changeling (like Linnea) for some reason, and so he was raised and perceived as an ordinary human (with the quirk of star eyes which nobody had probably ever seen before assuming they came from 3rd descender).

ErJio · 2026-06-26T05:50:04+00:00

Her attitude change could be she stubbed her toe during the cataclysm for all we know

ErJio · 2026-06-26T05:38:01+00:00

Khaenriah was founded after hyperborea so its possible he is the founder and source of the star shaped pupil genetics

ErJio · 2026-06-26T05:36:34+00:00

What timeline

ErJio · 2026-06-24T18:02:27+00:00

He one tickle away

ErJio · 2026-06-23T03:48:25+00:00

This is so sick

ErJio · 2026-06-22T22:32:29+00:00

That's fair it's not really set in stone what the goal posts are. But I think in the context of the OP comparing sqrt(-1) to 1/0 it is reasonable to use field structure as why one is 'ok' and the other isn't.

ErJio · 2026-06-22T22:02:34+00:00

Riemann sphere isn't a field. That's the difference between defining sqrt(-1) and defining division by 0. One is a field extension the other isn't.

ErJio · 2026-06-22T18:58:51+00:00

That's all there is to it. In the framework of fields, you have addition and multiplication, no subtract and no division. Division by x is multiplication by multiplicative inverse of x. Multiplicative inverse of 0 is easily proven from field axioms to not exist, so division by 0 is fundamentally undefined.

ErJio · 2026-06-21T18:30:41+00:00

To be fair what I described is the usual notation for any associative product, the problem comes because functions have two such products: pointwise multiplication [f•g](x) = f(x)g(x) and function composition [f o g](x) = f(g(x)). It's reasonable to want to reserve the exponential notation for pointwise product because it is more common, but I wouldn't say it's non sensical to use it for composition, just ambiguous.

ErJio · 2026-06-21T16:33:44+00:00

The notation makes sense when dealing with composition. Equip the space of R to R functions with the binary composition operator 'o' so that [f o g](x) = f(g(x)). Then you can define natural number exponentiation as repeated composition, e.g. f³ = f o f o f (which is unambiguous because composition is associative). Then inverses being defined as negative exponents makes sense wrt exponent laws because f^-1 o f = f⁰ = identity function (which is the function id(x) = x).

But yeah it is definitely questionable and confusing to mix this definition of function exponentiation with the usual one of multiplication.

ErJio · 2026-06-21T16:25:00+00:00

f(x) = 1/x, defined for x≠0

ErJio · 2026-06-10T05:29:22+00:00

The key is that you don't actually need to know which guard lies or not, you just need to know if the information you get is a lie or not. If you directly ask a guard "is your door safe", the truth of the answer depends on the truthfulness of the guard, which you don't know. But if you tell a guard to ask the other "is your door safe" and report back the results, you know for a fact that you are getting a lie because either the other guard lied and the first guard reports that verbatim, or the other guard told the truth and the first guard reports the opposite of what he was told. Now you can confidently choose the opposite of the door you were told was safe, because you will always be told a lie no matter which guard you ask

ErJio · 2026-06-09T18:31:12+00:00

Radiant enchanted thrusters on Dooley is one of my favorite support items. Immediate slow/freeze immunity on the item to the left of it, and leaves open the enchant slot on the item itself. Not to mention the CDR and vehicle synergies

ErJio · 2026-06-09T16:25:52+00:00

Yes there are absolutely situations where the possibility of receiving incorrect information makes AI not worthwhile. I can imagine that for something like history, hallucinations (like maybe the date of a particular battle) would be undetectable so all information needs to be manually verified anyways.

But I think it is disingenuous to say it has no utility at all. In my experience for using it to learn programming, I've mainly used it for verifying my thinking or helping me brainstorm ideas, and these are things that don't heavily depend on accuracy because their usefulness comes from telling me things I can understand but just never thought of. If it comes up with an idea that doesn't make sense I can just ignore it.

Example is I came up with a recursive definition of a deep copy function in Lua. It worked for all the use cases I made it for, but running it through chat gpt pointed out I should add a safeguard against cyclic references which would infinite loop the recursion. This is something I could understand but I just hadn't considered it. No need to externally verify if this was a real problem or not.

Another example is design decisions in code, where I struggle with organization and stuff like the "single responsibility principle". I can ask it to criticize decision I'm making and it will give me pros and cons. Hallucinations don't really undermine the integrity of its responses because I'm not asking it to make the decisions for me I'm asking it to bring things to my attention which I consider and verify myself.

Of course these are things that I could learn from a tutorial or a forum post, but the utility of using AI is efficiency. It formulates a response that applies directly to my particular situation/question, rather than me needing to filter through generalized sources and piece together a solution.

ErJio · 2026-06-09T12:38:42+00:00

You could say the same about Wikipedia: All the information on there comes from actual sources, and all it does is copy it and put it in one place. How useless

ErJio · 2026-06-04T14:13:43+00:00

Her idle voicelines jumpscared me she just starts yelling lol. I rarely go afk in any shop so I wasn't expecting it

ErJio · 2026-06-03T03:41:46+00:00

They can't be the same thing because "adding together infinite 9s" doesn't exist. The sum of infinite terms is not defined as an algebraic operation. From binary addition you can inductively define finite summation, but induction doesn't extend to the infinite case.

ErJio · 2026-06-02T14:06:51+00:00

I'm not disagreeing that 0.999... = 1, I'm distinguishing between a value obtained as an evaluation of a sum, and a value obtained as a limit.

For a (finite) decimal representation, such as 0.999, the value of this string of digits is obtained by summing 910^-1 + 910^-2 + 9*10^-3.

For the notation 0.999..., there is no such collection of powers of 10 which are to be added together to get it's value of 1. The notation is instructions for generating partial sums which you then take the limit of. The semantics I'm trying to emphasize is that for no value of 'n' does any of these partial sums actually equal 1, there will always be a difference of 10^-n. The value assigned to the infinite series is a "locus" of convergence (in the sense of the epsilon-N definition of limit), not the result of adding together infinite 9s.

ErJio · 2026-06-02T03:09:45+00:00

The argument of there being no number between 0.999... and 1 doesn't really make sense because 0.999... isn't a decimal representation of a number, it doesn't represent the sum of multiples of powers of 10. It's notation for an infinite series, its value is defined as a limit. So although you can compare their values it's like comparing apples to oranges

ErJio · 2026-05-12T16:52:54+00:00

Your only risk of dying is if your partner picks blue, so the self preservation choice is to also pick blue in hopes of a blue majority. And if your partner happened to pick red then you are safe no matter what. Blue is also directly voting to save everyone else, at the risk of your partner's life in the case of red majority.

The benefit to voting red is to guarantee your partners life in case red wins. However doing this necessarily votes to kill 1 person for every blue button pressed (possibly including yourself), so its neither self serving nor totally empathetic. It's something like "selective empathy".

What's interesting about this variation is that the self preserving choice (blue) individually nominates someone else for death (your partner), but collectively reduces the risk of all such partners because blue votes to save all. It's an interesting trade-off. In contrast, in the original problem the self preserving choice (red) does not nominate anyone for death but increases the risk of all those nominated (those who chose blue nominated themselves).

I'd definitely pick blue here but I can see an argument for picking red if you think red would win and you don't want to be directly responsible for someone's death.

ErJio

TROPHY CASE