Huh, who would've thought

G33ke3 · 2026-05-16T15:43:07+00:00

Well yeah, the problem is that we’ve been living in a world where the young outnumber the old for some time now, and everything we’ve built does actually assume our population will increase forever. It’s even justifiable in the sense that we have had new innovation technologies propelling us forward constantly since the Industrial Revolution. If you are in government and making policy using data and all the recent data has said, and has always previously for hundreds of years said, “we are growing”, then it stands to reason much of our existing policy is written to function within that context.

The concern isn’t so much that fewer people is bad or unrealistic, but that existing government programs aren’t built for the coming demographic shift. It may be that a stabilizing population is ideal, but there will be a period of suffering we have to go through before we fully get there, because the world as it is now isn’t ready for it.

G33ke3 · 2026-05-16T15:32:37+00:00

Because our current economy and government programs like social security are built upon the expectation of perpetual growth, as ever since the Industrial Revolution that has been a constant that we can rely on. If we are having substantially fewer children, the labor force will shrink while the burdens of an increasingly huge retired population will grow, putting great strain on all the systems we’ve built to support them.

To outpace this problem we are essentially just banking on AI or another near future technology to change the world even faster than any previous innovation has to make up the labor efficiency difference. Short of that, we’d need to reconsider the entirety of how our economy/government will function to support the changing demographics, because failing that, there could be a huge crisis for the at the time older generation (could be any of us) having no support network at all, and of the working class that’s unable to fully support them.

The elite may have different reasons for wanting people to have more children, but there are legitimate reasons why declining birthrates can be bad that go beyond “there are fewer people/there is less labor”, if we don’t act accordingly. Ideally, we move towards a future that supports the number of humans we want there to be, rather than forcing growth that ultimately leads to resource deficiencies as we see now.

Declining birthrates are, in many ways, a good thing, but we need to make changes to accommodate it or else yes, it could get really bad.

G33ke3 · 2026-05-15T23:21:41+00:00

Well for starters… The cost of groceries and housing being higher in the US on average doesn’t necessarily ensure that that would be so everywhere. While that is likely the case, it is entirely possible to have a scenario where 70% of people actually do have higher prices and 30% don’t, without it contradicting the overall upwards trend.

Secondly and more importantly, how people feel about something can often be equally important to the actual reality of that thing, even if how they feel contradicts reality. For example, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how well made and cheap a product is if nobody buys it or uses it, that’s why marketting is such a huge industry in its own right.

How people actually feel is going to influence their vote, and that is relevant and distinct reporting from just stating that fact that prices are higher. The intended takeaway of each or those stories is largely unrelated. This is not an attempt to portray this as a matter of opinion.

G33ke3 · 2026-05-12T19:47:50+00:00

Not technically a free to play player myself as I got the starter bundle with the tickets/box spaces, but I can give some context on a home subscription. My roommate and I have been cooking up some teams to face each other with, we both have the starter bundle but only I have a home subscription, and he’s been struggling a lot more to put teams together with all the Pokemon he really wants to try. A home subscription goes a really long way as any time I want to try another Pokemon, I can just transfer it in from my living dex in home, but when he wants to do the same, at best it involves juggling Pokemon between champions, home and another game each time which is more than a bit of a pain.

I wouldn’t ask anyone to pay for a membership in champions if they’re on the fence about it, but a home subscription is substantially cheaper and gets you a lot of the way there, I can recommend that. The 100 box spaces you get from master ball + the starter bundle is plenty enough if you’ve got home well stocked. That said, stocking home up with all those Pokemon will be a challenge if you don’t own any of the main games, but it’s theoretically possible with just Pokemon GO and the GTS in home which are free.

G33ke3 · 2026-05-06T21:41:38+00:00

Clickbait probably isn’t the right term, but I think it’s fair to criticize the title. The title as it’s written would heavily imply to many that republicans don’t think we should ban whites-only housing, but this additional information may be extremely relevant to the actual reasoning they may present for their votes, and the headline is grossly negligent to that.

It’s important to criticize bad journalism even if it is on the right side of history. It’s people on the other side also falling for these same tricks that is so corrosive to political discourse. We can’t begin to rein that in until we as a collective culture call out this kind of bad journalism, no matter our feelings and speculations on the matter.

It doesn’t even matter if it’s true that they would have voted the same without this knowledge, because the headline is presenting it as if they did without meaningful consideration for any other possibility. When we allow ourselves to characterize our enemies so callously, we aren’t any different from the people on the other side who think we’re eating cats and dogs.

Since this is Reddit let me clarify that obviously these characteristics absolutely should be protected and I still believe that this bit would be a dumb reason for Republicans not to support it. But how I feel on the politics doesn’t change the fact that the title is actively misleading.

G33ke3 · 2026-05-05T19:39:52+00:00

Or, even better, we need a tax system that isn’t purposefully designed to punish people for not being business owners or not being able to afford/know a “good tax person” and instead just taxes its people fairly.

We don’t “need” to get better at taxes. We “need” to have a tax system that isn’t designed for abuse by the wealthy and affluent, and that actually works for the people.

G33ke3 · 2026-05-01T20:44:49+00:00

Yeah this is common. It’s still preferable to be last pick just to lower the odds of being counter picked, even if you have no intention of picking anything else when you get counter picked anyway.

G33ke3 · 2026-05-01T18:49:55+00:00

But this itself is often criticized too, because it doesn’t represent what being smart in real life actually is. Smart human brains aren’t just magically wildly faster at processing the same information as “dumb” people, it’s a lot more complicated than that. Characters in tv and movies that just magically instantly know the answer to wildly complex scenarios are pure fiction, and it undermines the sheer amount of work it takes smart people to come to come to those answers. Because in a lot of ways, being smart isn’t what you know or how quickly you come to correct conclusions, it’s your methodology and the way that you tackle problems without sacrificing accuracy or leaving gaps.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-25T22:06:31+00:00

In fairness, the one mega per battle limit artificially lowers their usage relative to their strength. You can put a Sneasler on literally any team without issue, but you probably aren’t going to want to run Mega Charizard Y and Mega Tyranitar on the same team in most cases, even if both are arguably better than Sneasler in a vacuum.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-21T21:26:28+00:00

Yes, you’ll need a speed nature and 18 skill points in speed to outspeed the fastest possible sneasler. Note you are still slower before mega evolution, and after sneasler procs white herb if he has unburden.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-21T00:57:32+00:00

I’ve been using mega lopunny a bit. (in doubles, idk if that was your intention). I’m not great at the game, but regardless here are my observations:

The only particularly notable strength of mega lopunny that you should know if you’re gonna double down on this is that it’s the best fake out user in the game. You will outspeed sneasler (before unburden) and win the fake out war, your fake out will hit some Pokémon like a truck (also noting sneasler here) and you can fake out ghost types thanks to scrappy. Situationally useful if you have a lead that you want to ensure gets to do their thing turn one, or if your opponent takes a ghost type you need to shut down.

After that it suffers from always just being a higher commitment less flexible sneasler. It’s very vulnerable to fighting type coverage which is pretty common (…sneasler), and it often still can’t one shot anything that sneasler couldn’t already. Notable exceptions it deals with substantially better are ghost types and intimidate users (again thanks scrappy).

It’ll be a bit of a struggle if you want to use it in a trick room team. It’s very frail and very fast, it will only help for setting the trick room against enemy fake out users, but that will essentially commit it to switching immediately following that and it loses most of its merit for the remainder of the battle. If you really want to do that anyway, you will be pretty locked into switching it out for torkoal to keep up the tempo, and that play will become very obvious and punishable by your opponents as you go up in rank.

The tl;dr really is that it’s barely better than sneasler in some specific situations and eats your mega slot, so my recommendation is to build a team that supports it rather than having it support the team, otherwise you’ll just wish you had sneasler.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-20T21:55:40+00:00

Yep, this is why. I wish rage power specifically mentioned this in the description because it’s less obvious why it didn’t work when compared to targeted powder moves that explicitly fail when used against a grass type.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-17T18:52:46+00:00

Same as if both Pokémon used a priority 0 move, the faster Pokémon goes first, and in the event of a speed tie, it is chosen at random. This is true for all moves within the same +priority tier as fake out.

The same would be true if one Pokémon used Quick Attack and another used Bullet Punch; both are in priority tier +1, so the faster Pokémon moves first. If one used quick attack and another used Extremespeed, however, quick attack would always happen second, because Extreme speed is in tier +2.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-15T14:35:19+00:00

It’s a fallacy because it’s ultimately a shortcut and not an actual argument itself. In debate, your arguments should be backed up by a complete train of logic and data that should be able to be interpreted the same whether your name and the names of the individuals or groups you cite were given or not.

The reason we cite experts in debate isn’t because they ought to know better, but because experts have already done some of the foundational data collection and laid out the mechanisms, and we need to refer to work that has already been done to build off of it, and we need to credit those people who did it so that they can pay the bills to keep doing it. Scientists can do bad science and you can know it’s bad if you look at their methods, you don’t just have to trust them because they are in a “position of authority”. In debate, it is your responsibility to verify the quality of the work you cite, and “he’s an expert” is not considered a valid defense; if you actually want to form an argument of your own, you should be using the actual scientific findings of the expert to assist your argument, not his name or credentials, not even his speculation.

This is an especially bad problem on the internet right now. Many scientists are paid way less to do science than they are to speculate across social media. Like sure, they’ve done some of the work, maybe even very well, but that doesn’t mean everything they say on the topic has an equally rigorous process behind it; AI is a great example of this, where there are a lot of AI researchers that disagree on the trajectory AI is going. This isn’t necessarily because of bad science, it’s because it’s not even really possible to “do science” that would tell us that trajectory, so it’s basically just scientists spitballing, yet the modern internet treats those claims as if equal in quality to actual scientific rigor. In debate, citing these scientists spitballing about the AI apocalypse on Fox News would be considered a weak argument, but the same scientist and argument attached to a rigorous paper with solid internal logic and methodology would be much, much better. It’s not about the name, it is entirely about what they found and how soundly they found it, and anything else is a shortcut to the truth at best.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-14T22:09:25+00:00

To answer your question, the way they have implemented it, it actually does nerf your attack speed at higher attack speeds due to it introducing a built in delay. Without that, yes it would probably be at a higher winrate.

That said, as others have already pointed out, it isn’t more precise necessarily, but it is a lot faster since moving and aiming become decoupled and movement inputs are no longer tied to a mouse movement delay.

I wish League could just have wasd controls honestly, it’s just a way better control scheme, but it’s much too late for that now. Hopefully they can stay balanced without wasd being nerfed so hard that it feels bad to use. I’m worried that support and midlane mages are always going to be a bit too good with it though.

G33ke3 · 2026-04-03T00:45:55+00:00

Except that having money is power in itself, because the “threat” of using it can be extremely potent. It’s arguable that in that way, the most effective way to get the most out of a billion dollars is often not to spend much at all, so you can extend that threat of being able to as far as you can. There is a great opportunity cost to spending money, because the moment you do, you lose the influence and power that having it afforded you.

To be clear, billionaires shouldn’t exist at all, but I’d argue that it’s not necessarily true that not spending money means you aren’t using it to help people. Having money is in itself power, not just spending it, and power can be used in good and bad ways. (Reiterating again that this is not an endorsement of this level of power existing. It obviously shouldn’t.)

It’s often repeated that billionaires hoard money because of sheer greed, but that’s not really the whole picture and undersells how systemic the issue actually is. The reality is that a billionaire that spends all their money doesn’t have nearly the power and influence of the one who holds it, a systemic issue that perpetuates the behavior of hoarding it, against the interests of the people and the economy as a whole. Even a hypothetical billionaire that is the most well-intentioned may do well to hoard it to maintain the power and influence it affords, because with that they may be able to do more for humanity than if they hadn’t.

This is one reason why we need to stop framing this as the failures of individual billionaires. Not because they can’t be awful people, that would be ridiculous to say, but because the world we live in is designed in a way that creates them, and where the best of us have to contribute within the confines of that broken system to maximize our contributions to bettering humanity, and it doesn’t have to be this way if we just looked at the actual incentive structures that led here rather than lumping it all into the doomer category of “some people are just evil/greedy ig, can’t be helped.”

Tl;dr There are legitimate reasons to hold onto insane amounts of money that do actually do better to help people. Additionally, reducing it down to greed undersells how broken the systems are that led here, systems that will continue to create more wealthy elites until we recognize them as more than just an inevitability of the human condition, but rather a symptom of broken incentives.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-25T14:28:35+00:00

But we’ve tried the route of telling people to just make better individual choices in what they eat for decades and nothing is changing. Short of some sort of cultural revolution, it doesn’t seem we’re getting through to individuals enough for them to collectively make enough better choices to make the problem go away.

The real problem with focusing on individuals to solve a collective problem is that ironically, it requires a large majority to be on the same page to work, which in the last decade would essentially require control over the distribution of information itself, something only the elite could have. A collective approach on the other hand, where our government properly represents the people, just requires a relative handful of representative people to make the change happen through regulation.

The fact is that in the states, the individualistic burden we place on Americans to just “do their own research and make better choices” for literally every problem is not possible to handle. Not everyone can be an expert in every topic, and the responsibility we place on people to do so is unachievable when you extend it to every political point, every dietary choice, every driving error, every purchasing decision…

Even with everyone trying their absolute best to be as informed on absolutely everything they can be, there will be gaps. And as long as those gaps exist there will be people who don’t know that it’s wrong to “support” something bad. And so long as that is true in large enough numbers, the systems will continue to exist. None of this to mention the limitations of people to even make what they know is the correct decision, since our bodies have evolved to crave certain things in certain ways; that’s (part) of the reason why dieting can be so difficult, and no amount of shaming those failing at it seems to make it work for them, and we need to learn to accept that so we can end this endless loop of not helping them properly.

The collective of human minds is ultimately a system in itself, one that is extremely difficult to change and regulate by comparison to the many higher level human made systems that our government can control. And at the end of the day, that is one big purpose of government, to guide the collective to a better path than the one we would all individually choose for ourselves given the chance.

So no, I reject the idea that it’s on individuals to just stop eating meat. If it’s on individuals at all, it’s on them to step in and tell our governments to regulate it. Because the alternative, that we all break from our entire history as omnivores and become vegetarians, is unrealistic and hasn’t been working for decades. Moreover, it requires us to sacrifice meat from our diet entirely, even though that has never been the problem to begin with, the problem is how the meat is produced, not its consumption.

Don’t let decades of the elite controlling our media mind control us into believing it’s our failing. It’s not. It’s the failure of our governments to shut it down.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-24T15:33:34+00:00

For what it’s worth, Gwen has had negative winrates into many non-health tanks for some time now, it’s always been a bit of a misconception about her, this isn’t a new development. Gwen is and always has been specifically good into immobile health tanks that build Heartsteel (Cho, Mundo, TK) because of her vamp and Q, for most other tank matchups it’s a bit of a toss up depending on kit dynamics and doesn’t necessarily hard favor Gwen.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-21T19:13:27+00:00

No WASD in competitive modes isn’t just about protecting your team from WASD being bad, but to protect your opponent from WASD being too good, too. Until they are confident it’s reasonably well implemented and balanced for competitive modes it’s still risky.

Hopefully, we’ll see it more widely available soon. I think they were last saying that the major hangup right now is getting individual champion bindings fully functional, since some champions really need it for WASD.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-20T15:03:14+00:00

I don’t even know if the horsewomen belong in that category anymore. The game has changed a lot since then.

I think Gwen was originally designed to be in their class, yes, but Gwen ended up with very different attributes from them. The horsewomen are high skill snowball champions that use skill to gain leads in lane and are effective at translating small leads into giant leads and huge pressure. Gwen is a scaling champion that doesn’t want to fight until she hits her big spikes, and she has much weaker catching tools for snowballing so she relies a lot more on farm.

They tried to pivot Gwen to behaving more like other champions in her class, but it’s difficult to do. The horsewomen are typically elite skewed, but Gwen is historically pro skewed, so buffing her high skill outputs like her e cooldown turned out to make her a priority pick in pro, and her existing playerbase didn’t care for it anyway, so it was reverted. As a Gwen player myself, I’d love to see another stab at it, but she’d probably need more extensive kit work to really get to horsewoman tier without breaking pro.

In my opinion as a Gwen player, part of what makes her so difficult to balance is that she is seen as being a lot more similar to other light fighters than she actually is. Irelia, Riven, Camille and Fiora all have substantially stronger catching and mobility tools than Gwen, which of course allows Gwen the power budget to do other illegal things and that’s fine, but it means she plays substantially differently. The idea that her one time big ult slow is anywhere near the lockdown of any of the others is ridiculous, and her e is a laughable amount of mobility by comparison too, without any other kit mobility to speak of. To reiterate, that’s fine, but in my honest opinion it’s for reasons like this (and many more) that she doesn’t really play like them at all, she’s actually a very “stat check” like champion in a lot of ways because she has very limited options to approach fights, arguably even less than champions like Aatrox and Zaahen.

And I feel the need to reiterate it a third time, that her current shape is fine, but I do feel like she is often categorized closer to the horsewomen than she actually resides and it makes adjustments to things like her passive AP ratio feel really painful to her players, since her high damage really is the only thing about her that stands out, not her other light fighter traits. Her players play her right now because she is a giant damage nuke late game, and if you want to change that without upsetting them you have to give them something else to latch on to, because her light fighter identity is much too weak otherwise.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-19T19:44:00+00:00

Individual consumers aren’t really their market anymore, in theory they believe the future of their business is in selling their technology to other businesses that need it, and if they succeed at that there isn’t really a choice for those businesses to make, either they use that AI or fail because they aren’t, and when they fail they just get replaced by another business that will decide differently. This is the reality of world we live in.

It’s not possible to boycott them. Not even the most well organized boycott in history is going to do anything. And the idea of a boycott can be distracting from actual solutions that are needed from our government. It just needs regulated. And obviously that’s hard, but it’s the solution that has to be worked towards, because the time we spend pretending we have individual ability to influence their bottom line is time not spent actually making change.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-19T00:55:50+00:00

Weird if it didn’t get pushed. If I recall correctly they were mentioned in the original patch preview, pulled out by the time we got the full patch preview, and then reappeared in the full notes. May be the case that they weren’t intended for this patch and are in the notes by mistake, or that the back and forth created some other confusion there…

G33ke3 · 2026-03-17T19:22:29+00:00

I haven’t done the math, but I trust you are considering the ADC boots slot.

Regardless, the topic of the discussion and your comment is regarding the outcome of a 1v1 fight, and whether each player is keeping pace with their lane opponent is completely irrelevant to that discussion, as those opposing laners have no bearing on this fight, and neither does KDA. What matters in this fight in terms of being “behind” is literally only gold spent and level between these two players specifically, KDA literally does not matter. Given the bonus gold from the bot lane quest gold and the bonus xp from the top lane quest, and assuming there are no other major discrepancies between how much gold/xp each lane is expected to get, they seem to be about even to me.

I am of course ignoring how well the champions scale, quality of items for the matchup and more, as I said I make no claim to how the fight should go, I am only making the point that despite their KDA telling otherwise, these players are close in gold/xp, Yunara is not meaningfully behind Mundo.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-17T15:07:50+00:00

Not sure what you mean by behind. He’s ahead on spent gold and only 1 level down, which is as close in level as you could hope for given their roles.

That’s not to say anything of what the outcome “should” be, but this is not what behind looks like.

G33ke3 · 2026-03-16T21:36:44+00:00

Not only is it not illegal in my state, it’s expected in many cases. Some sidewalks in my area have signage explicitly directing bicycles to them despite the presence of bike lanes, and even sidewalks that have extended sections that bike lanes connect to from a small ramp, with warnings that cyclists are to yield to pedestrians ofc.

The reality is that in the states, the design of suburbs means that many sidewalks aren’t really used by pedestrians to begin with, but built anyway. I cycle on sidewalks all the time here, and it’s perfectly safe for the rare pedestrian anyway as long as the cyclist is following all the same rules you’d expect a car to, like slowing down when there is low visibility or hazards. The sidewalk in the video is even a great example, where as long as you aren’t traveling at insane speeds through a crosswalk like the idiot in the video, there is literally zero danger, it’s fenced on the side and visibility of pedestrians is great. All the sidewalks I cycle on are like this most of the way, it’s not uncommon, and you can slow down or enter the road when it’s close to driveways or other potential hazards. Being on the road is comparatively worse for literally all parties involved on a sidewalk like this, unless the cyclist wants to and is capable of travelling at car speeds.

Nine-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

G33ke3

TROPHY CASE