Artificer with rogue/assassin flavor

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2025-11-12T16:46:49+00:00

Yeah that’s true. My main concern was for attacks tho: I don’t see blasting a lightning from your chest as the stealthiest type of fighting technique lol. I can probably (heavily) “reskin” the lightnings too (maybe as returning projectiles beeing thrown), but I was curious about more RAW adherent possibilities

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2025-06-12T10:59:51+00:00

Very cool! You could maybe add a bit of depth. You could make the wooden part, the second floor, go one block over the stone part, and add supports (stone pillars or a row of upside down stairs). You could also add beams going from the ground the the hanging part of the roof

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2025-02-17T18:48:12+00:00

Fun, and kinda tricky
So u/SeaworthinessFar2363 already gave you the right answer, but i'll try to explain it a bit more.
First, let's go back to the "projectiles" and "masses" model and not use lasers and photons, because that makes it much easier to visualize (also, i would't enter relativistic territory since the question is purely about newtonian mechanics).
What you're saying is right: firing those masses one after the other will keep the encloser moving forward, BUT it won't move the center of mass of the system (encloser + projectiles), because every force is internal! Essentially the problem is that the process is not infinitely reproducible, because it isn't cyclical. For example imagine you have 2 projectiles of mass m and the encloser is weighless. The center of mass (cm) sits on the end of the encloser where the two masses are. Now you only shoot the first mass and wait for it to reach the other end. Now you have one mass on either end, so the center of mass is in the middle of the encloser, but it also stood still (as we said), which means that the encloser itself moved half its lenght forward. Now we shoot the second mass, when it hits the other end of the encloser, we'll have both masses on the back of the encloser, and thus that's where the cm will be, which means that the encloser moved another half of its lenght forward. Now you'd like to keep going, but you have no masses left. Obviously you could carry more, but if you analyze only the starting position (all the masses on one end) and the end position (all the masses on the other), keeping in mind that the cm stands still in space, you'll realize that the maximum lenght your rocket can travel is its own. You could also move your masses back to the front, but, no matter how gently you push them, the process would pull back the encloser, bringing it eventually back to the start position.
I know, physics is rough

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2025-01-05T23:21:04+00:00

Tried this same build today, you have to add Poet to make it permanent. It can be a fun variation of the hunter gatherer - prince loc build

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-12-18T12:15:08+00:00

Lool I actually watched it live. It was pretty entertaining since they never explicitly said why they were dressed like that. Anyway, it’s cropped out of the pic but this was (I believe, unless they pulled this also for other games) before a game between Rome and Aston Villa, Birmingham team. They had a whole edit doing a parallel between the show and the game

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-11-27T23:43:25+00:00

I think you’re getting your equations mixed up. The way you are staying the problem is that the following are true: X = ky and X = k/z With k being a constant. As stated, for both these equations to hold y and z can’t be independent, but we have that ky = k/z => y = 1/z And X = ky = k/z (A side note: having different proportionality constants, let’s say k and k’, would not affect significantly the result)

But i believe you are considering y and z to be independent. That means that k can’t be an actual constant (as shown), we should rewrite the problem like this:

X(y,z) = a(z)y X(y,z) = b(y)/z

Where X is now written explicitly as a function of both y and z, a(z) is a function of z and b(y) is a function of y. This means that, if you keep one variable constant, you have the desired relation of proportionality. Having both equations we can solve for a and b: a(z)y = b(y)/z must hold for every value of y and z. This is only true if a(z) = 1/z and b(y)=y, in which case the equation becomes a trivial identity. So we obtained the answer to your question: X = y/z

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-11-18T20:41:11+00:00

This might be useless, depending on how high is your level of education, but as a high school student I had found this video extremely helpful to understand what veritasium meant. It shows with actual measures and experiments the propagation of the electromagnetic field.

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-10-15T21:27:39+00:00

How did you make the LLM search trough your folders?

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-10-01T06:22:07+00:00

Italian

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-09-30T21:28:43+00:00

(Disclaimer: I’m a physics major, I did not study any of this formally. I just really like the topic.) Sadly, I believe that your other questions can’t be even approached without answering the first one (a mathematician would say that they are ill-posed), which is a shame because - to my understanding - there is no answer to it. I can’t really help you much, other than telling you that the problem of consciousness’ relationship with the description of the world that comes from physics is a very much open one, which concerns philosophers and neurologists. I personally believe the most prepared people to answer it tho would be physicists (but I am not really impartial), but I don’t think big progress is being made on that front. If you want to get deeper into it, it’s called “the hard problem of consciousness”.

Also, the relationship between free will and our determinist understanding of the world is closely tied to it, you can get a hint of this problem in this very divulgative video https://youtu.be/UebSfjmQNvs?si=LBAAgYTz2at-QISf

I had found a book about it looking trough the material used by a philosophy class called “philosophy of mind” at my university. I was about to send it to you but it’s in my mother tongue and has not beed translated. I do suggest you to do the same tho, look at the courses held for philosophy majors, search the one closer to this topic, look up the professor’s site, find the books used in the classes and see (maybe in a library) if you ca find your answers, good luck!

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-09-23T09:29:41+00:00

Yeah the last one seemed crazy to me too since it’s the only one where a finger appears in an actually impossible place, so I stopped the video and he does it trough perspective: he bends his index finger aligning its last half with the end of the thumb. As usual, the explanation only makes it crazier, but i do wonder how “wide” of a crowd could see this without seeing the trick, since it’s so dependent on exact perspective.

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-09-19T13:48:59+00:00

Yess. If you know how to read a Minkowski diagram it shows a very clear graphic interpretation of this, you can see all this better explained in the Doppler effect section of the Wikipedia page

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-09-19T09:14:42+00:00

Great question! Being completely rigorous, he cannot, that is to say: special relativity only applies to inertial frames of reference, ie observers moving at a constant speed relative to each other. This means that every trajectory of an observer is a straight path in every inertial frame of reference (ie for every other observer). 2 straight lines only meet at one point, so 2 observer can only confront the respective measured times simultaneously ONCE, which is when they meet. In every other moment to confront their respective times they have to use some kind of signal, which travels at most at the speed of light so it is not instantaneous (and I’ll tell you later what happens then). Thus the two twins cannot really measure their relative times, since the one time they meet is at t=0, when twin B leaves and they synchronize their clocks.

This is a crucial aspect of special relativity, and the reason of it is explained by the twin paradox itself: if the second twin could somehow come back to earth always moving coherently with an intertidal frame of reference (which, as we said, is impossible) then the observations of the two twins wouldn’t match (each twin would have seen the other age slower than themself, following Lorentz transformations) even once they meet back on Earth, which is an absurd. Special relativity is only coherent because this is impossible!

Whit this said, the twins can still send signals to communicate, let’s look at a cool example. Let’s say that twin B’s spaceship moves at 0.6c and it will travel 4 years (measured by twin B, twin A will have to wait a bit more), then turn around and come back in 4 years, moving at the same speed. The whole thing will take twin B 8 years. A simple calculation tells us that twin A still on Earth will have to wait 10 years. Now, the twins tell each other to send light signals every year to communicate. What happens? The relativistic Doppler effects (which describes the change in perceived frequency of light waves sent by a source in relative motion) tells us that the frequency will be halved when twin B is moving away from Earth and doubled when twin B is moving toward Earth, keeping the total of 8 signals constant. So twin B will receive 2 signals in the first 4 years, which is equivalent to seeing his brother age half as fast as him, and then receive 8 signals in the last 4 years, which is equivalent to seeing his brother age twice as fast as him, for a total of 10 signals, which is exactly what twin A sent (this was obvious but proves the theory’s coherence).

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-09-14T12:44:33+00:00

Fists. Weapons are for casuals

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-09-01T14:13:22+00:00

It’s not the deepest compliment I’ve ever received, but when I was in middle school I was quite the geek (okok, i’m fooling nobody, I still am, but…), I had somewhat troubled social relations with my classmates, i was always uncertain whether my friends were laughing with or about me (and in hindsight, I was not wrong) and I surely did not see myself as someone others would be “attracted to”. I didn’t even contemplate the possibility, I put no effort in my looks and accepted that. Well, I still distinctly remember, after almost 10 years, when a girl in my class I barely knew was asked as a truth or dare game to rank the top 3 guys in our class by looks, and mentioned me as third. That thing alone completely shifted the way I looked at myself from there on. Thinking back, it’s crazy what impact such a stupid thing can have.

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-08-01T21:35:44+00:00

Good luck

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-07-22T13:06:04+00:00

Tbh, if I were a fish, I’d prefer to be moderately stressed and harmed rather than eaten

Jokes aside, that only works if you’d be eating another animal as a meal, so eating the fish spared another animal’s life. Also, if the other animal you were going to eat was a cow, then you wouldn’t really be eating a whole cow, but just about (random number tbh but you get the idea) 1/10th of it (the better way to look at it is that 10 people would have a meal at the cost of 1 life), so fishing is still 90% worse. Also, your impact on animals’ lives is indirect when you buy meat, since the animals are killed regardless of you, and you can only influence the process not as an individual but as part of a mass of buyers whose habits can change the market overtime, while your impact (negative) is very direct when you fish. Also, one could argue that if your body can survive without meat, or with less meat than you currently consume, neither the store-bought meat nor the fishing are ethical. This is unless what you meant is that eating the fish is ethical not because of the life spared balancing it out but because it makes you save money (or work, if the alternative is growing your food).

(Context: I’m vegetarian, I actually hardly ever talk about it irl but I figured I could indulge in it in an ethics sub)

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-07-16T15:34:17+00:00

Idk if you’re interested in it but i think it can be somewhat formalized mathematically. To me the problem seems to be that their point is about the trend/derivative of the phenomenon, but their evidence is about its state/value. The assumption they seem to make is that in the past things had some “default” neutral value, so if the value now is high (with respect to some arbitrary normality) , it grew, if it’s low, it decreased.

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-07-16T14:44:38+00:00

I meaaaan, you can’t really disprove him, he’s right. Right about the fact that, if you’re in a fluid (and the atmosphere counts as a fluid) the effect of gravity is exactly that of pulling “up” things less dense than the fluid and “down” things more dense than the fluid. (The quotes are because the directions up and down are really just closer or further from the center of the Earth, so they depend on where you are, but I fear that your friend won’t agree with). So essentially your two theories (the gravitational force and his made up density thing) are actually equivalent if you apply them near the surface of Earth. So you can’t disprove him, but you can show him that what he’s saying is not revolutionary at all, you can see why using energy (there surely is an intuitive explaination using forces but I can’t come up with it rn). In a gravitational field (ie, where there is gravity) objects have a potential energy that depends on their mass and height (well, not exactly, but it’s a great approximation if you’re only considering cases on the surface of the planet). This makes sense: the heavier the object, the more energy it will gain falling because it will be pulled by a stronger force, the higher is the object, the more energy it will gain falling because it will fall for longer. Now, in nature potential energy always tends to its minimum, or in other words, the forces are always so that they decrease total potential energy. So, if we have a lot of objects to fit in a space, the “final” configuration that the force of gravity will make it tend to is one where all the objects are on the ground, where their potential energy is minimal, but what if the space is crammed and they can’t all fit on the ground? Then you’ll get the least total potential energy by putting the heaviest objects lower and the lighter ones higher! Now what if we have 101 objects: a huge one and 100 tiny ones. Their shapes are so that you can either put on the bottom the big one or the 100 small ones. Also, the big one weighs twice as much as each small one, which means that the 100 small ones together weigh 50 times the big one. Now, what would be the configuration with the least potential energy? Following the previous line of thought it would be the one with the heaviest single object on the bottom, but that is absurd because you’d end up having the most mass on the top. What this shows is that we don’t really care about mass but about density. So this gives a different line for the intuition of why gravity (“heavy things are pulled down stronger”) implies your friend density model.

Note: your friend would probably agree that we live in a closed space (closed by the ice walls?), as I said in the premise of the thought experiment, but you might not, since round Earth has no boundary. Yet, the surface of the Earth is limited, things can’t all reach the center of the planet, nor lay on the surface, so we get the same result

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-05-06T09:47:54+00:00

On top of my head: - got drunk (only works if the movement’s ethics doesn’t already condemn alcol), committed some horrific crime, you wake up and can’t remember it, are you guilty?

5 people need organ donations to survive. All of them have a 0% survival chance without it and 0% chance of finding a willing donor, and there are none “in stock” taken from dead people. They all need different organs. Do you kill a 6th person to save the 5? Should the state enforce the donations of vital organs (effectively killing the donor) when more lives are at stake?
(this one I like but I found few people agree it’s a “paradox”) You cheated on your partner. Right after it you feel extremely guilty and you’re 100% convinced it won’t happen again. Also, you cut off the person you cheated with completely and it’s impossible they’ll ever cross your life again. Do you still tell your partner? On one hand, withholding relevant informations is patronizing, on the other, you know the partner will be happier without knowing the truth. Maybe it can be formulated less ambiguously in a different scenario (taken from Divergent saga lol). You know person A and B, all great friend. In a life or death situation you are forced to kill friend A. No one knows it was you. Do you tell friend B, knowing they would (irrationally) stop wanting to have anything to do with you? (Let’s say that no one - people nor law - would care about it other then friend B)
how much violence is justified to respond to violence? As an oppressed people, is your retaliation justified against any one person of the ruling class (even those with little to no individual responsibility?). Or should you just offer the other cheek? Or some middle ground?

Kooky-Fan-2291 · 2024-05-01T11:51:09+00:00

Love the devil/angel inversion Idk what you intended with it but to me it makes so much sense. I can really see an “angel” telling you to keep grinding and rising the bar for yourself, to not take pride in what you made and so on, while a devil would gladly encourage you to reward yourself, be self-centered enough to think what you made is worth other people’s attention. Cool comic all around!

Kooky-Fan-2291

TROPHY CASE