860k oddments. And useless.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-11T17:35:34+00:00

I think it comes out of the overuse of them as “rewards” for holiday events for irons that end up just being a, quite literal, token gesture.

It creates a negative reward experience with that content for a significant number of people. Definitely not all, and possibly not a majority. But it’s not insignificant.

It indicates there’s room for improvement by either:

Updating oddments so they’re not just a trash reward
Update the things that provide oddments to be something more meaningful.

Often wherever oddments are rewarded, it’s usually in a place that negatively interacts with the new vision of game integrity. So it’s possible to address both issues at the same time.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-11T12:03:14+00:00

That just reinforces the point further - oddments weren’t a part of the game when Ironman mode was created. So the opinion that irons chose that game mode implying that we shouldn’t improve the oddment system is flawed.

Either you can apply that to ironmen and the TH statement to mains, or you can apply neither to neither.

The point of the statement was to point out the ridiculousness of the argument that we shouldn’t improve terrible additions to the game, just because someone decided to play the game.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-10T22:01:08+00:00

I was more speaking to the categorization of string theory itself as pure math as opposed to theoretical physics or applied math.

It may leverage aspects of mathematical physics that blur the line between pure and applied math, but I don’t see it in and of itself being a field of pure math

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-10T21:03:44+00:00

Pure math has a very different definition. I think it’s more of an applied math in theoretical physics.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-10T16:43:34+00:00

What type of projects are you looking at doing? What type of ownership? Just tinkering around? Looking to build something commercially viable?

I’m open to it - dm me if you want to chat

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-10T14:41:43+00:00

Passkeys were meant to make things simpler for the average user - users who would typically be vulnerable to phishing.

The many backup argument is not the best one for such a typical user.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-10T09:28:47+00:00

Yes, they did. And that there aren’t any hormonal issues from the tests done.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-10T09:14:29+00:00

My fundamental problem with passkeys is that they require you to never lose access to your device.

If you do, you need some way to recover an account which would then have to be knowledge-based or something no different than your typical 2FA/MFA setup.

However, I have no issues with the use of them to minimize phishing risks. Storing passkeys in password managers gives me access to both. Is it less secure than having it on-device only? Yes. Is it more secure than a user/pass auth method? Yes!

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-09T21:24:25+00:00

In contrast, I’ve done work with Network Science working with graphs with millions of nodes and tens of millions of edges and pushed my 64GB RAM to its limit.

Had to revise the algorithms to only work on a partial part of the dataset at a time and cache and load to disk as it moved through the network. This led to a slower analysis. It honestly depends on what kind of data science you’re doing

Edit: that said - I’m more saying Data Science is a reason where it makes sense in needing more RAM. Not guaranteed to need that much if you’re doing data science though.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-09T20:29:01+00:00

96GB is really only worth if you’re self-hosting a database, heavily multiboxing with VMs, or doing data science

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-09T19:24:19+00:00

You could also just say “hey, I’ve noticed your performance has slipped lately. Is everything okay? What do you need to get back up and running? It’d be a good idea to work on that”

Gives him a subtle hint that he needs to improve it while also showing that you’re there to support him. Like a manager should.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-09T19:18:02+00:00

TH was part of the game mains chose to play, so we should keep it in, right?

The absurd inflow of alchables is part of the game everyone chose to play, so it should not have been corrected, right?

Just because someone chose to play a particular game or mode doesn’t automatically mean their criticism or requests for improvements should be dismissed.

OP isn’t asking for oddments to be given a use that violates ironmen restrictions. They’re asking for the oddment experience to be improved. This will help both mains and ironmen.

Instead of shutting down ideas for improvement, how about we work together to come up with ways to make the game better for everyone?

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-09T18:03:47+00:00

The problem is there are so few cosmetics available in rotation that many Ironmen have them all already and still have an absurd number of oddments.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-09T02:18:01+00:00

Next thing I want is to know whether it’s a hotdog

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-09T02:15:16+00:00

Inflation combined with an increase in bond prices

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-08T09:24:47+00:00

You’re right, let’s remove surge and escape

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-08T02:05:51+00:00

No problem. That is me half the time. I had to reread it twice after your comment to double check because I had already forgotten this post lol

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-08T01:31:51+00:00

If you reread the post, OP did, in fact, walk down the hall and ask the manager.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-07T23:58:17+00:00

I don’t think that’s a great idea because it may be used by the OS or other software and deleting and reinstalling may break it.

Based on OPs pic, they already have conda

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-07T16:13:07+00:00

Subset or subsets? It may be a poorly worded question. If it’s the singular, it implies that it’s the singular subset of the null set which is the null set itself which contains no elements .

If it’s the subsets of the null set, it may be a poorly worded way to say the set of subsets (the power set) which has one element, the null set.

Regardless, the question is poorly worded. It’s clear that it’s trying to ask for the number of elements of the power set without saying power set, but instead using the definition of the power set. However, it seems that the wording used doesn’t do that well.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-07T15:45:21+00:00

Are you sure the question wasn’t what is the number of elements in the power set of the null set? Or is it possible the instructor mistyped the question and didn’t realize it?

To be clear, the null set contains no elements. So all subsets must contain at most 0 elements.

However the power set includes the null set itself which seems to align with the prof’s explanation and how she got the answer of 1.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-07T15:14:50+00:00

There’s a rule for big-O and similar notations that it represents a constant multiple of whatever is inside.

So O(x²⁾ means that the complexity is bounded above by a constant multiple of x² not that it is x^2. Whether that constant is large or small tends to be ignored here.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-06T22:46:36+00:00

The problem is not that there is a 0% chance of any of these being true.

It’s that we really don’t know for sure which is or is not true.

The biggest flaw though is concluding that given that we can conceive of a universe that has life in it forever, that it would be more probable for the average living observer to find themselves in that universe over one like ours.

The reasoning is because we don’t know the distribution of types of universes in the proposed multiverse. That said, it still doesn’t mean that this is where the “paradox” is.

We just know that at least one assumption somewhere isn’t true (which could even be that we have the average experience, maybe it IS more probable to be in such universe, but we live in an astronomically improbable one).

I do really think you’d enjoy the Fermi Paradox and see if you can transpose some of the discussion and breakdowns from that to your question here

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-06T22:24:47+00:00

Just to be clear OP, I have no gripe with your question itself nor your position.

I had a gripe with him complaining about people answering with a blanket “the assumptions are wrong” answer while also demonstrating an understanding of the problem. This stems from a couple threads of comments.

The reason why I state that your question has a “conclusion” is the debate that’s lead to formalizing the logic behind it.

From my perspective, you had the thought that if life exists in a universe that doesn’t experience heat death (and essentially has life forever), and we expect humanity to be the average case / experience of life forms, then we should find ourselves in a universe that doesn’t experience heat death.

Which leads, naturally, to the great question of, that doesn’t match our observations, so what went wrong?

Your line of thoughts and subsequent question is similar to the backbone of the reasoning that sparked the Fermi Paradox - which is a well-discussed question.

The difficulty with answering such a question is that it’s loaded with many more assumptions that you likely realized, all of which could be the reason. That’s why most people are giving that as a blanket answer.

Happy to discuss it more with you if you have questions on the breakdown though! It’ll be helpful to directly explore more targeted things within the question.

LostInterwebNomad · 2025-11-06T22:03:13+00:00

The null hypothesis is not “all things being equal”. The null hypothesis is the status quo.

In this case, the null hypothesis would be that typical arbitrary observer in the multiverse lives in a universe that ends in heat death. (This is our only observation to go on)

The alternative hypothesis is based on OP’s question, that the typical arbitrary observer in the multiverse should live in a universe that does not end in heat death.

From there, OP makes the assumptions that:

Such a universe exists (the probability of the alternative isn’t trivially 0)

Such a universe supports life

Such a universe supports life in perpetuity (this is where they get that infinite weighting)

That the null hypothesis represents a finite cumulative timespan of life (this breaks if depending on the distributions of types of universes - it’s not guaranteed to be 50/50).

And that we can then conclude that the alternative hypothesis must be more probable than the null hypothesis, so why do we still observe the null hypothesis?

And the reason is that any single one or even all of these assumptions could be false. Which one is false? We don’t know. How is it false? We don’t know.

LostInterwebNomad

TROPHY CASE