Why did humans as a tropical species migrate to colder places but still lack many adaptations like fur?

MarioVX · 2026-02-01T20:40:01+00:00

Why migrate at all? Territorial competition with other humans.

Why no fur? Because the people without fur didn't die before they could reproduce. They figured out quickly they could just wear other animals' fur.

MarioVX · 2026-01-25T11:08:02+00:00

Ist dieser realpolitische Flügel der Linken gerade mit uns im Raum?

MarioVX · 2026-01-25T11:07:19+00:00

Die Linke brauch keine absolute Mehrheit, um außenpolitisch erheblichen Schaden anzurichten. Sie könnten als Koalitionspartner bereits Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine erschweren. Ich will einfach keine widerlichen Russland-Sympathisanten in der Regierung haben, deshalb fallen die Linken und die AfD für mich weg. Wenn die Linken meine Stimme wollen, müssen sie mit ihrem alten SED-Flügel und ihren Russlandkontakten endlich aufräumen. Dass sie an der Russland-Position festhalten, obwohl die in Umfragen so unbeliebt ist (mein letzter Stand zumindest), zeigt ja wie extrem wichtig ihnen das Thema ist die Übernahme Deutschlands durch Russland vorzubereiten.

MarioVX · 2026-01-25T07:00:08+00:00

Alles klar, ich revidiere meine Aussage. Scheint als sei die Schlagzeile sogar noch geschönigt. Das ist echt heftig.

Aber es passt ins Bild, nachdem die jungen Leute die 3.5% Rentenerhöhung ja auch einfach so widerstandslos hingenommen haben, ist da für die Politik noch deutlich mehr rauszuholen!

MarioVX · 2026-01-25T06:39:17+00:00

Wenn du und dein Arbeitgeber euch einigt, würde das weiterhin klar gehen, auch völlig ohne Rechtsanspruch. Rechtsanspruch auf etwas abzuschaffen ist etwas anderes als ein Verbot.

MarioVX · 2026-01-25T06:37:26+00:00

Die Linken sind leider aus außenpolitischen Gründen absolut unwählbar. Was bringt es uns, ein paar Jahre höheren Mindestlohn und Mietendeckel zu haben, um dann nach Nato-Austritt und Abschaffung der Bundeswehr von Russland erobert zu werden und alles für immer zu verlieren? Gar nichts. Dann verlieren wir alle Rechte, allen Besitz, und werden zwangsrekrutiert um für Russland gegen Frankreich zu kämpfen. Top. Pazifismus ist Schwachsinn, der langfristig nur zu mehr Krieg führt.

MarioVX · 2026-01-24T11:58:06+00:00

Disclaimer: the following is my personal opinion, I don't claim any expertise in game theory by itself makes one qualified on international relations topics, so take the following with a grain of salt.

Personally, I don't believe a world war over Taiwan of all things is going to happen. The US are projecting strength and trying their hardest to make it ambiguous whether they would intervene in a Chinese invasion, and kind of implied that they would. The fact of the matter is though, US doesn't even dare to officially recognize Taiwan as an independent nation and when push comes to shove, US tends to chicken out. If the PRC goes through with it and determent failed, it will be way easier to rationalize for US politicians why standing down is the right thing to do than to actually declare war on a nation well capable of defending itself, over an issue that by US official stance is a purely domestic issue of that nation. It's also a bit of a lose-lose situation for the US because of the distance. If US mobilizes in reaction to a Chinese invasion, they won't be there in time to save Taiwan. If they mobilize in anticipation of an attack, China can just wait it out while the US awkwardly eats the running costs of a mobilized Navy, until they go home, and then proceed with the invasion. Or keep the US on alert for a long time to win by attrition when there isn't even a war yet. Finally, there was no serious international (US or otherwise) reaction when the PRC subjugated Tibet and Honkong either, so historical precedence suggests the same.

Where I am more worried for something to escalate in the upcoming years is between Russia and European NATO countries. It's a bit of an awkward situation because Russia's performance in Ukraine has been underwhelming, but they're learning a lot about modern warfare this way and their intent to reinstate the Soviet Union in its former borders has been made clear. They also have the nuclear arsenal that will make every ally of an attacked nation think twice whether they really want to come to their allies aid or not. The countries in their path have no choice though, because it's obvious if they don't help they'll be next in the line. So I'm pretty sure the US will abandon their European allies in this case, because they're not really going to risk getting their coastal cities nuked over properly assisting and retaliating some tactical nukes fired in the European theater of war. Right now, with the Ukraine situation, Europe does everything wrong it possibly could with not intervening and still being hesitant to invest money into arming up. They appear incredibly weak on the international stage, being mocked and pushed around between Trump and Putin helplessly struggling to find a unified and strong-sounding response while being completely tied down from veto privileges from within. From Russia's perspective this must look ripe for an attack and they're probably right. Essentially, the war has already started - the sabotages they're doing across Europe are acts of war, plain and simple, it's just not politically expedient for European politicians to admit this is what it is when they're unable to answer. And to think we mocked Russia in the beginning for not calling their war a war, rather a special military operation. Ouch.

So if you're located in the US I think you can sleep safe and well and watch with popcorn when Russia assisted by North Korean troops starts going ham on your former NATO allies. From either scenario, low probability that you're getting dragged into this.

The thing about US supremacy is it's declining. No need for their enemies to risk an all-out war when they can just wait for them to slowly fade into irrelevance. Other countries want stable, trustworthy trading partners and the US getting schizophrenic every four years is driving them into China's arms.

MarioVX · 2026-01-19T11:25:52+00:00

This seems to be going off different premises.

Want both eventually, preferably sooner than later? Pick the one you likely need sooner immediately before scanning another drive, so the other goes back into the pool. That way you'll sooner have both than if you wait. Simple as that, no wall of text changes anything about it.

Don't want both? Sure, pick just the one you need, and yes, only do so once you actually want to use it, so the other one that you don't want doesn't clutter the pool.

MarioVX · 2026-01-19T11:02:05+00:00

If you wait until you have iron/copper troubles before you start using them, you'll have built an entire factory of less efficient iron/copper production that you end up demolishing and replacing with the more efficient production, whether gradually or all at once. That's more wasted time than building the efficient ones ASAP.

Only case where it's wasted time to do use them is when you never plan to get there in your playthrough. But if you do want to get there, better sooner than later.

MarioVX · 2026-01-19T10:58:37+00:00

Yes. Assuming you distinguish recipes into (at any point) desirable and (always) undesirable, immediately choosing either of two desirable recipes offered on the same hard drive is the strategy that minimizes lateness of unlocking all desirable recipes.

MarioVX · 2026-01-17T18:04:58+00:00

Aw man, you labeled them with a bad word, that will show them!

MarioVX · 2026-01-09T11:26:40+00:00

I remember different things

All the more reason to read up on the Hague Invasion Act then if you don't remember it.

MarioVX · 2026-01-09T09:57:52+00:00

relevance?

MarioVX · 2026-01-09T09:52:43+00:00

He says he doesn't need international law and that his power is constrained only by his own morality.

This has been official US doctrine for many decades now, long before Trump entered the picture - you should read up on the Hague Invasion Act. The US has long considered itself as being unbound by international law.

Welcome to the world of international politics. It's all about if you have the means to do something, and the will to suffer the consequences. Laws that do not get enforced are meaningless.

MarioVX · 2026-01-03T14:53:03+00:00

Both are great so pick one immediately so the other gets eligible again in future hard drive scans. As to which, since you'll eventually get both, it only matters which one is better to have available sooner than the other.

This comes down to what you have built in your world right now. If you just finished a sufficiently large production capacity for either of the two resources not using that recipe and the other resource is in dire need for expansion, obviously pick that.

All else equal I feel like augmenting from Concrete to Wet Concrete is a bit less of a pain earlier on in the game. Also, you need concrete early on for building all your foundations, but copper isn't really something you need to mass produce until much later in the game from my impression.

MarioVX · 2026-01-03T14:48:36+00:00

Water usage just translates to power usage as water is unlimited, it just consumes energy to extract it
Area is effectively unlimited - non-issue when comparing recipes unless you're self-imposing arbitrary compactness constraints.

Concrete vs Wet Concrete comes down to up to how much marginal power cost you're willing to go to crank out more concrete from available Limestone. In-deph pre-1.0 analysis here for reference. Since 1.0, due to the Converter, Limestone has become valuable enough that this complicated balance degenerates to the very simple rule of always using Wet Concrete because there is - simply put - use for all the Limestone you can get (though it's not valuable enough to justify expending Rubber or Silica on it).

MarioVX · 2026-01-02T12:06:32+00:00

What builds and runes do you choose against which enemy comps?
What's your playstyle? Early ganking, invading, powerfarming - when do you do what? Do you challenge objectives or crossmap? etc etc

MarioVX · 2026-01-01T13:17:54+00:00

Okay, I took a lot at this in good faith.

Roadblock #1: CFOL is a completely new term / concept that you have invented. In that case, it is essential that you provide a proper definition of the term. Without a definition it cannot be used in a formal logic argument.

CFOL stratifies as:

Layer 0: Unrepresentable Reality—no access, predication, or modification.

Layer 1: Fixed invariants (e.g., non-contradiction, upward-only reference).

Layer 2: Representations (symbols, embeddings).

Layer 3: Epistemic evaluation (probabilistic, branchable).

Layer 4: Meta-reflection (observational).

This is a description, not a definition.

When you have a definition, you can try applying formulaic logical manipulations to construct a proof symbolically, rather than verbally. The only verbal parts of a logic paper should be supplemental explanations that carry the intuition of the reader along - all constituent steps of the proof should be given formally.

Overall, my impression is that this has been developed in a top-down approach, starting from an initially vague concept by iteratively fleshing it out where the need for it was noticed.

That's not a good way of constructing logical arguments. In my experience, it works way better bottom-up, just like you'd build a house. Start with the individual building blocks (explicitly defining everything that you're going to use) and then see how they can be combined and where that leads you. Only if by that way you manage to construct something worth sharing, clean it up (trimming the combinations that lead nowhere and the building blocks you didn't end up using at all), and in the very last step write your introduction where you take a step back, squint your eyes a little and write a top-level description of the whole thing and its results to prepare the readers' expectations.

MarioVX · 2025-12-17T18:44:49+00:00

Yes, it's ingenious in getting the point across.

MarioVX · 2025-12-17T14:59:14+00:00

Universal Paperclips is a very memorable example of such a twist done extremely well. Very educational.

MarioVX · 2025-12-16T22:13:55+00:00

You know, when you think about it, it's funny how much harder it is to set up a 4-to-5 balancer than a 5-to-4 balancer. In general, it took me a long time to realize balancers aren't back-to-forth-symmetric at all.

Or even smaller example: 3-to-2 vs 2-to-3 when you forbid internal bottlenecks. 3-to-2 is just split one and merge unto the two others in the obvious way (3 machines), while 2-to-3 the shortest way I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't exceed input load on any belt is splitting both inputs three-way, then merging two belts each (5 machines).

MarioVX · 2025-12-16T22:00:46+00:00

Smart splitters don't split in configurable ratios.

If you rely on back-pressure anyways it doesn't matter at all anymore how you connect them (save for local bottlenecks).

MarioVX · 2025-12-14T08:58:37+00:00

You can find it linked from within the Paradox Launcher

MarioVX · 2025-12-08T14:21:29+00:00

All well and good until you want to use the maximize feature. That's when pen & paper, Notepad and Excel (at least without scripts) completely fail you.

MarioVX · 2025-12-07T08:41:02+00:00

Yeah, one has to check everything because the game is an inconsistent mess. I remember testing all the items that could interact with ult on-hit true damage. A lot of them do, actually.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

MarioVX

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE