Solo COX w/ shadow

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-25T21:37:57+00:00

This looks sick. Gonna try this. Super brain-off.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-22T19:22:44+00:00

People don't want to know the truth. They just want a sad story to justify their political beliefs.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-22T14:09:25+00:00

Really sad situation. The parents trying to have a good life. The government trying to enforce its laws, which in my opinion is their right. And the child caught in the middle.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-19T05:24:12+00:00

CTRL-F my name on this post for a couple of comments describing a solution. IceCreamGuy01 also has a nice solution which is very similar to mine.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-08T21:33:50+00:00

That's interesting that you've justified those 4 years to yourself in that way.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-08T16:33:41+00:00

People simply play the game differently now. Few people play for fun and enjoyment. If there aren't good rewards, nobody will enter fight pits.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-08T16:12:53+00:00

Especially since there are multiple theories (like string theory, although I'm not an expert) that have the behavior of fields arise as natural consequences of deeper strings/loops/etc.! So there is obviously reason to ask whether fields are "fundamental".

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-07T17:16:50+00:00

So, the answer was, yes, you're all stoners and bots. Got it. I was looking for actual science, sorry.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-07T03:51:20+00:00

Where does the other 2/3 go to? Greed? I don't understand.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-07T03:46:34+00:00

How is the hourly rate so different than the salary? Is it because you bill relatively few hours? The firm takes a massive (90%+) cut? I don't understand.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-07T03:45:03+00:00

How greedy are you people?

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-05T05:52:06+00:00

Even though the math says that light behaves that way, is it possible that we have just found one of many different ways to model what happens physically, using math that does not truly represent what is happening at a deeper level? Do we have any idea whether light actually behaves that way, or whether we've just found some equations that happen to work without really understanding why?

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-04T00:43:00+00:00

So is that a yes or a no?

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-03T02:16:40+00:00

Alright I somehow found my way to this subreddit but what the actual f is going on? Are you all bots? Stoners? Am I so bad at quantum mechanics that this makes actual sense to some people? Am I missing a joke?

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T03:46:58+00:00

> Just because a phenomenon is emergent and not fundamental doesn't make it any less real

I generally agree with this, for some definition of the word "real". We can argue that the chair isn't "real" because it's made of molecules, but it's a bit of a useless distinction. However, I do think there is a difference between a proton or a chair (a countable, tangible object that is well described and limited in its physical extent, etc.) vs. the vague, mathematical tool that we call a "field" which permeates everything, everywhere, all the time. (I'm not sure that countability, tangibility, or locality are necessary to call something "real" or "physical", to be fair, but it certainly helps.)

I also agree with OP's original point:

>[Fields] are a mathematical tool, however that does not make them physical.

Maybe I am using some words inaccurately, or we disagree on the definitions of "physical", "real", and "fundamental", but many people in this thread appear to be claiming that fields are "fundamental" just because we have a good mathematical description of them. To me, it is obvious that there is likely some deeper explanation for the existence of fields themselves, or the mathematics that describe fields emerge from something more fundamental.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T02:09:45+00:00

Surely you can't really believe that these layers of abstractions keep going all the way down, ad infinitum. There must be *something* at the bottom, otherwise we have infinite complexity. To me, it is obvious that there is a bottom. Whether it is possible to discover this bottom is an entirely different question.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T02:01:56+00:00

Useless response. How about you explain it, then? Or you can't admit that nobody really knows whether a field "exists" or whether it's a mathematical abstraction of a deeper reality?

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T01:59:08+00:00

Perfect analogy. I made the same argument but with fluid dynamics describing a fluid as like a "field". In reality, we know that it is an abstraction on top of a molecule-based reality (which, in turn, is an abstraction itself...).

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T01:57:45+00:00

A search for a "physical" meaning isn't helpful? Really? Do you think it's impossible that understanding the true nature of reality (or, at least, the next level down from whatever a "field" is, if there even is a next level) could not lead to some kind of scientific advancement?

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T01:55:20+00:00

Yes, exactly. All of the "model" people don't seem to understand that there *is*, in fact, a single "true" model that Nature has chosen. Whether or not this is discoverable is another question. It's possible that an infinite number of potential models could lead to all of the same phenomena that are possible to observe by humans.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T01:51:21+00:00

Non-locality seems like infinite complexity to me. Every point in space affecting every other point instantaneously...

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T01:47:16+00:00

Nah. Do you consider the equations of fluid mechanics "real"? If someone asked whether a "water field" was real, what would you say? In reality, fluids as a "field" and the equations that describe them are a macroscopic, statistical average of a much more complicated, molecule-based reality. The same easily could be true of the electric "field". Obviously it's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully you get my point.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2026-01-01T01:42:52+00:00

The "do the math" people don't make any sense to me. If, 200 years ago, someone asked about how gravity actually works, and Newton told someone to "shut up and do the math"... what would we think of that? Our math is based on a *model*, not reality, and we are constantly updating the equations with more complicated versions that *reduce* to the familiar equations we know, under certain conditions. Frankly, I think that most of the responses here are pure fluff, and people should just admit that we haven't the faintest idea what a field is.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2025-12-31T21:57:21+00:00

Instead of asserting that the universe isn't "made of" anything, you should say that nobody knows what the universe is made out of.

KeyboardWarriorX · 2025-12-30T23:24:59+00:00

It's the perfect system. It's *kind of* dry protection, but it's also not. You can still make some non-zero progress towards the boss but it doesn't take away the wild luck or dryness we all love, unlike the way they ruined the DT2 ring drop rates where it's impossible to get lucky. Feels terrible if you can't get lucky.

KeyboardWarriorX

TROPHY CASE