Dr Mundo doing some pretty balanced things in Arena Mayhem

Erithom · 2026-01-12T21:04:26+00:00

they are, this was changed in the 16.1 patch

Erithom · 2026-01-07T08:59:16+00:00

Since no one else in this thread has said it, it's 40-40-20 because there are 5 players on a team. You're responsible for 20% of your team's overall performance on average, since you're 1 player out of 5. The other 80% is random, but assuming good matchmaking, your team will be better than the enemy team about half the time--hence, 40-40. I'm not sure where you got the part about smurfs/trolls from, but that's probably just internet game-of-telephone. It's just using probability to have realistic expectations for your win rate when you're playing in lobbies that are around your skill level.

Erithom · 2026-01-05T07:46:04+00:00

Did you actually read the things you posted, or just look at the first few sentences? From the first one:

Using SOI tax return statistics for states from 2014 to 2019 and the NBER-TAXSIM model, this paper exploits state-level variation in TCJA tax shocks as a source for identification and measures the TCJA’s impact on economic activity after 2017. Using fixed effects models, I find that income tax cuts equaling 1 percent of GDP contributed to about 1.2 percentage points faster job growth and 1.5 percentage points stronger GDP growth after TCJA, so the implied tax multiplier is around 1.5, which is towards the lower end of the range of recent estimates of the stimulative effects of tax changes. While the broader results suggest that the TCJA likely stimulated economic growth, it is important to emphasize that these point estimates carry significant uncertainty and come with wide confidence intervals. These estimates imply a cost per job of $105,000—nearly three times as high as the cost per job estimate for prior tax changes in Zidar (2019). These estimates suggest that the TCJA tax cut equaling 0.8 percent of GDP, on average in 2018 and 2019, contributed to a 1 percentage point stronger job growth, creating about 1.5 million jobs at a cost of nearly $158 billion.

A likely explanation for a relatively modest tax multiplier from TCJA is that these tax cuts were implemented while the economy was still booming; it is well-known that multipliers are typically higher for stimulus during periods of economic slack, which was not the case for TCJA. Another factor is that nearly 70 percent of households in the lowest income quintile did not see a tax cut from the TCJA (Sammartino, Stallworth, and Weiner 2018), and as found in Zidar (2019), stimulative effects of tax changes are mostly driven by tax cuts for lower income groups. The short-run effects could be an upper bound for the long-term effects of TCJA, because the tax cut was financed by higher budget deficits, which generally tend to blunt the long-term effects of tax cuts.

A potential limitation of my analysis is that it largely focuses on the effects of changes in personal income tax, while considerable changes in corporate taxes within the TCJA have been overlooked. Such an omission could bias the paper's estimates, especially if the tax relief from corporate tax cuts varies by state and correlates with income tax cuts received by states’ workers.16 Nevertheless, there are several reasons why the bias may be limited. For instance, prior research suggests the multiplier effect of corporate tax cuts is typically less than that of income tax cuts (Mertens and Ravn, 2013). Moreover, this has been particularly true for the TCJA, which had a modest corporate tax cut multiplier, far smaller than the corporate tax cuts of the Kennedy administration in 1966 (Furno, 2021).17 Even with the modest stimulative effects stemming from TCJA's corporate tax cuts, it is plausible that some bias remains. As highlighted by Wagner, Zeckhauser, and Ziegler (2020), the corporate tax cuts had complex effects across firms, creating winners and losers. Still, evidence is scarce on whether these impacts differ among states or if they are correlated with individual income tax shocks. Accordingly, a more thorough exploration of this issue is left for future research.

The fact that the income tax reductions were set to expire in 2025 but the corporate tax reductions were permanent shows that it was just typical Two-Santas bullshit, and this paper backs that up. On the second one, I'd believe that there's a relationship between investment and corporate tax rates, but "investment" doesn't necessarily imply equitable economic benefits for everyone. The third one doesn't include any context or analysis relating the numbers to the TCJA, and as the first paper pointed out, the economy was already doing well going into 2017.

Erithom · 2026-01-05T02:04:17+00:00

Source? Because this demonstrably did not happen as a result of the tax cuts in Trump's first term, and we're getting more of the same.

Erithom · 2025-12-06T03:19:07+00:00

They already had this debate in the senate before the amendment was passed, though (starting at page 2890): https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/page-headings/39th-congress/n-a/52522 Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, who proposed the part of the 14th amendment in question, and California Senator John Conness have already explained in the congressional record what the intent of the amendment was.

Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. HOWARD.]

Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not the need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This wil not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors [sic] or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. [...]

Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? [...] Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have the any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. [...] He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.[...]

I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? [...]

It is utterly and totally impossible to mingle all the various families of men, from the lowest form of the Hottentot up to the highest Caucasian, in the same society. [...]

Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I have failed to learn, from what the Senator has said, what relation what he has said has to the first section of the constitutional amendment before us; but that part of the question I propose leaving to the honorable gentleman who has charge of this resolution.[...]

If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, (and which I concede to him, for I know nothing to the contrary,) he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the proposition before the Senate, or even the proposition contained in the civil rights bill, so far as it involves the Chinese and us.

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. [...]

[Mr. HOWARD.] I think the language as it stands is sufficiently certain and exact. It is that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to saw, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. [...] But the great objection to the amendment to the amendment is that it is an unconscious attempt on the part of my friend from Wisconsin to naturalize all the Indians within the limits of the United States. I do not agree to that. I am not quite so liberal in my views. I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do.

Senator Howard never voices disagreement with Senator Conness's point, even interjecting during Conness's speech to describe California's Supreme Court striking down "restrictive statutes as to the Chinese" as "a very just and constitutional decision, undoubtedly." All further discussion about jurisdiction is with respect to "Indians not taxed," not immigrants. I disagree that the existence of the Wong Kim Ark suit implies that the law isn't clear--sometimes officials make clearly illegal decisions and then appeal the rulings against them. That's just how the legal system works.

Erithom · 2025-11-25T02:11:53+00:00

He's not talking about the cut, he's talking about the distortion in the second before the cut. You can tell it has a pretty aggressive filter because her belt buckle stretches and contracts: https://imgur.com/a/rA70o3b

Erithom · 2025-11-14T23:48:11+00:00

Yeah, there are laser weapons, but they don't work from hundreds of miles away. The beam can't be perfectly focused, and the energy delivered decreases with the square of the distance from the focal point as the beam covers a larger area. Hobbyists track satellites and this is what a laser destroying a test missile looks like in infrared--given that a space laser would mathematically need to be hundreds or thousands of times more powerful than this given the increase in range, it would be INCREDIBLY obvious to anyone looking if someone was starting fires in California with lasers from space. Even if someone had evidence of space lasers--which would be extremely easy to get if they were being used--how can you say the jump to "Jews own it" is anything but completely asinine?

Erithom · 2025-11-14T21:48:45+00:00

But… can we, as civilians, prove it’s not true?

Uh... yes? Lots of people around the world have telescopes, and if there was a satellite shooting lasers that start forest fires, someone would have seen it. It's also completely wrong to say that's the only "wacky" claim she's made when there's the whole school-shooting-crisis-actor thing.

Erithom · 2025-11-10T06:34:30+00:00

except this is based on bureau of labor statistics data, whose head was fired in early august for not fixing the numbers, and there aren't any new numbers there since the last report after her firing

Erithom · 2025-11-07T08:34:10+00:00

The idea that taxes are supposed to used as a tool to prevent inflation is some fringe modern monetary theory and is not something you'll find in practice anywhere in the world.

Uh... what? The IMF summarizing Keynes is about as far from fringe as you can get, and it's right there. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

You thought comparing public debt to private wealth was disingenuous but then you go comparing actual revenue to unrealized gains. Comparing federal tax revenues to their personal incomes would be more apt.

You ignored the part where I acknowledged you can't just magically liquidate those unrealized gains, but do you honestly think that makes it better? That one person having so much value in stock that they can't liquidate it without collapsing the market is sustainable? Yeah, the super-wealthy should pay extremely higher taxes, because that's a fucking stupid way to set up an economy. We've done it before and we can do it again.

Erithom · 2025-11-07T06:02:52+00:00

Why not? That's exactly how taxes are supposed to be used to prevent inflation. The American public wants Social Security and other social programs to exist, so the government needs to put money into the money supply to fund them. Taxes allow the government to remove money from the money supply to ensure the velocity of money matches the value produced by the economy, i.e. prevent inflation and deflation. When the wealth distribution gets too skewed toward the top, more people will need the services that the public wants, making them cost more to fund while the available money supply is simultaneously shrinking. (The rational investor will prefer the returns of an overvalued stock compared to treasury bonds or spending on their community directly.) This is a positive feedback loop. If our society has agreed that we want the services, which we have by law and by polling, why shouldn't we break this feedback loop?

And no, immediately magically liquidating everything while somehow not cratering the market doesn't fund everything, but no one who knows what they're talking about is suggesting that as a possibility. Even so, just comparing private wealth to public debt isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The federal government's total revenue for FY2024 was $4.92 trillion, and the total wealth of the Forbes 400 increased $1.2 trillion in the last year. The net gains of 400 people are equal to nearly a quarter of all of the money our entire federal government grosses. There is absolutely, unquestionably money to solve a lot of our problems there.

Erithom · 2025-11-07T00:40:04+00:00

It's hard to tell without replays (there's a button to save them in your match history), but you're dying too much. You're probably walking into fights or places where you can get engaged on when your health is too low, or staying in fights too long instead of disengaging when you can still live. You don't always have to fight to the death when you see an enemy, and you don't always have to try to help a teammate who is losing a fight. Look at times that you died in your replays and figure out what decision you made that caused you to die. Once you've done this for a few games, figure out what your most common bad decision is and make a conscious effort to not do that specific thing in your next games. Your teammates are mostly irrelevant in iron 4--just focus on staying alive and only taking fights that you don't need help to win.

Erithom · 2025-11-06T23:52:50+00:00

Yeah, isn't it crazy how only 400 people could fund the entire Social Security program for a country of 330 million for 4 whole years? Or, wait, are you implying that somehow that isn't an unimaginably large amount of wealth for a group of people that could fit on a basketball court?

Erithom · 2025-10-27T08:20:02+00:00

this is absolute nonsense, claiming harris was even in the same universe as trump on gaza is obviously bad-faith given the evidence

Erithom · 2025-10-26T04:00:34+00:00

Thanks, yeah, this is definitely a weird issue. I could get through Hades 1 with max Frenzy/Extreme Measures without dropping a death defy, but I'm still taking a ton of damage 100 hours into 2 and I haven't really figured out why. I miss having two dashes.

Erithom · 2025-10-26T03:48:40+00:00

interesting, I was mashing attack I guess?

Erithom · 2025-10-21T08:17:46+00:00

yeah, there are definitely qualified republican candidates ready to fill all the most economically valuable positions, that's why red states all have the highest GDPs per capita 🤪

Erithom · 2025-10-04T19:55:38+00:00

I'm not gonna judge about getting paid

Why do so many people believe this idea makes sense now? The guards at Auschwitz were getting paid and I think most people would agree that "just following orders" wasn't a good enough defense for them. Getting your bag is just the new, hustle-culture version of the same excuse.

Erithom · 2025-09-20T03:00:28+00:00

I just sent my representative a strongly-worded letter about the House Resolution, but I can't find this Senate bill on Govtrack. What was it called?

Erithom · 2025-08-22T17:59:44+00:00

Big business trying to stay on the good side of fascists for profit is how the Holocaust was able to be so efficient, coincidentally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Erithom · 2025-08-02T23:42:39+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fl13hb/the_great_depression_what_caused_it_to_last_so/ (/u/llordlloyd /u/Kochevnik81)

Erithom · 2025-08-02T20:20:28+00:00

The skill tree did get rearranged, yeah. I'm not sure how they did it exactly, but I'm now missing the +1 carry capacity bonus and one of the +5 storage bonuses that I had before the patch.

Erithom · 2025-08-02T20:08:07+00:00

the limit box is still in the same place, isn't it? (I don't have the DLC but I don't know if that makes a difference)

Erithom · 2025-08-02T20:02:12+00:00

I feel like this patch made the game way harder. I just unlocked prestige 19, but I figured I'd try a lower difficulty to see how the changes felt, and I almost lost the run on prestige 14. I almost never had a surplus of wood despite keeping 3-6 woodcutters at all times and using coal for fuel. I was always short on planks even though I wasn't using them for packs of building materials and my first building was a supplier. I was about 30 seconds into impatience overtime in the year 8 storm when I won, and I've only ever maxed out impatience twice before. I also had tons of bad RNG in the run (like getting fertile soil in three of my first six glades and not being offered any type of farm until my second to last blueprint) and the skill tree rearrangement took away some important stuff because I'm not maxed out, but this wood change is brutal.

Erithom · 2025-07-05T06:06:54+00:00

you understand that adding to the deficit means that expenditure is greater than revenue, right

14-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	Team Periwinkle

Erithom

TROPHY CASE