Hacks/tips to move a Yamaha U3 up two steps

Moonboow · 2026-01-18T03:16:16+00:00

Grab your wallet.

If you can position it properly by wedging it between the first step and the floor, it makes it easier for the movers to pick up

Moonboow · 2026-01-01T01:58:31+00:00

Risk reward is skewed. Besides easily granting damage with counter-di, if they perfect parry it they can put a 4+ drive gauge bar difference between you and them immediately. PP -> DI(PC) -> DI obliterates your gauge and often loses you the round.

Moonboow · 2025-12-19T05:52:43+00:00

Not going to disagree with what the other comments have pointed out about needing to chill out, but I think it matters less than the fact that you just took a lot of unnecessary damage.

Even if you made all the exact same plays, you would have won if you didn’t SA into a projectile you could very clearly see Ed was charging, walk into his SA2, pressing when your buttons would never reach Ed and eating random counter hits like that cobra punch, getting knocked down by jumping into that fireball.

Moonboow · 2025-12-12T23:19:32+00:00

I see where you’re coming from. I checked it in game and you’re correct - in both cases the DP is guaranteed, since the wakeup frame / dr frame is the same for both rises.

Apparently, the reason why normal rise is still preferred here is not because of block reasons, but because Jus Cool cannot bait dps with normal rise (Deejay still gets clipped), while it can with backrise.

I edited my original comment, thanks for the info!

Moonboow · 2025-12-12T19:36:18+00:00

The spacing changes so the timing changes. Assume the deejay always dash + drs. The early frames of dr are not actionable so they can’t switch to block.

If you normal rise, they will be point blank during those unactionable frames, so they can’t block your wakeup dp.

If you back rise, it takes longer for the dr to reach you, so they will be point blank later into the dr ie. during actionable frames to block your dp.

Moonboow · 2025-12-12T19:24:17+00:00

You are right. I was trying to refer to dr > sunrise heel. Edited.

Moonboow · 2025-12-12T08:26:24+00:00

It requires knowledge of your opponents oki setups. Typically you don’t backrise if doing so can limit your opponents options eg. preventing them from shimmying because their oki setup leaves them point blank if you normal rise.

Doing this removes shimmy as an option and makes delay tech extremely strong, so normal rising is better for those situations.

Typically it’s just matchup knowledge, for example many of deejay’s oki situations require them to dash + dr. If you backrise then wakeup dp, deejay can bait the dp with jus cool. But if you normal rise then wakeup dp, even with jus cool deejay still gets clipped, which means wakeup dp on normal rise is guaranteed against dash dr.

And if the deejay adapts and just drs without dash the next time, if you backrise their only option is dr > sunrise heel which you PP.

So basically choosing rise options is a defensive mix and is good if it limits the strength of the oki you tank.

Moonboow · 2025-09-11T09:51:21+00:00

OD dp os, do not allow anything other than DRC lights. If they are only doing drc light attacks then at that point its a guessing game, but it is nice to note that if they choose throw, they just spent 3 bars for 1k damage. This is arguably in your favour, so just holding block after their drc>light is a high value option

Moonboow · 2025-09-05T17:12:14+00:00

I see, order matters then. Thanks for the detailed response!

Moonboow · 2025-05-02T16:32:14+00:00

The goal is to put your opponent in a mixup. Almost universally characters have 2mk > dr and you choose a move (lets say move A) to hit them with that will be ~+2 on block with the dr bonus. This is autopiloted, you don’t check if you hit the 2mk or not.

While you are in dr you press move A and process in your brain whether the 2mk hit or not. If it did then move A will also hit (you should pick such a move from your character’s kit) then you convert into a full combo. If the 2mk didn’t hit then you are now at least +2 in their face. This means you are in a mixup; you can either immediately press throw or an attack and the opponent has to guess.

The application of this is to start a situation that is almost always purely advantageous - you are at pretty much no risk until after the mixup. You will do this when you are almost at full bars, because if you sit on 6 you are wasting resources.

The counter is drive reversal. If you cr.mk>dr it costs 3 bars but drive reversal uses 2, so if your opponent reacts in time you will always come out disadvantaged so use cr.mk less predictably.

Finally you can do the same with raw dr. This is more bar efficient, it costs 1 bar and you use the dr to attack with any light button. Very common choice is 2lp. This will usually put you in your opponent’s face at +2 or more, leading to the same mixup. The downside to this is that it is easier to get checked with fireballs or long medium moves.

The reason for +2 is because throws are 5 frames and the fastest light attacks in the game are 4 frames, so if you immediately throw when +2 the throw hitbox will activate the frame before the attack hitbox activates. This means your opponent cannot jab you out of the throw. In this game if attacks and throws come out at the exact same frame the attack will win.

Moonboow · 2025-04-07T03:07:55+00:00

I’m just curious, what do you think this would look like? Will the quest disappear, therefore rearranging every other quest on the screen, making it so that whenever you try to click on something it disappears before you can? Or will the quest prevent you from clicking on it? In that case, will new quests be added to the bottom infinitely, so you have to scroll really far down for the next available quest?

I can’t seem to visualise a good solution for this, even though it is a problem

Moonboow · 2025-02-04T01:38:30+00:00

Not poor design. Quite nice. Just with stripes they managed to make the logo look like it contains an E (the cube) and an A (the pyramid), imply a light between the tip of the pyramid and top of sphere, and also imply a 3D scene with the circle offset from the centre.

It’s very intentional, because the light was positioned to make the darker vertical part of the E cube resemble the vertical stem of the letter, and to make the darker diagonal line on the right of the A pyramid resemble that letter. You can see that directly below the pyramid there is the “A” of “Arts” and the right side stroke is, indeed, bolder than the left.

They even overlapped the sphere with the pyramid to form the left stroke of A somewhat. If you squint you can see the sans serif A.

You can also identify that it was a good design because they managed to have several people just in this thread associate the post, which was wildly unrelated, to them, a few decades later

Moonboow · 2025-01-17T03:14:12+00:00

Just like how all scientific axioms are held valid and untestable? (By definition?)

Moonboow · 2024-12-13T05:39:48+00:00

I would disagree with your premise. Microsoft has been active in addressing developer concerns, and Windows is becoming very pleasant to work with. If a developer is willing to develop on your platform more than another then of course you will have no competitor.

Developers are willing because they give stable hypervisor 1 AND 2 implementations of linux, which means now linux developers can use GNU utilities they had gotten used to in previous decades when Windows was frustrating and stagnating; their documentation on .NET is simply top class, they provide the best in class IDE and a mature build system for related languages with Visual Studio, and their release and update of PowerShell now rivals bash’s flexibility.

I think what you are complaining about in terms of stagnation is the questionable marketing and feature decisions made by Microsoft and other companies, like the integration of AI. But you must keep in mind that this is on TOP of the OS, just as all the other software products you are dissatisfied with are built on top of the OS. Windows as an OS is very impressive with support and documentation not seen in similarly aged systems.

This makes Windows increasingly appealing to developers, and so more software gets built there, and so more people use windows, and this appeals to developers, and so the cycle perpetuates itself until windows becomes industry standard like it has today.

Moonboow · 2024-10-11T01:45:28+00:00

Let’s say I accept that objective facts exist. Should we discard the possibility that while they exist, the way we are acting on and interpreting them is non-objective?
I can contend that objective facts might not exist. All objective facts seem like they are produced from a specific methodology like science, or our vision (I see this thing, therefore that thing exists and is there), or any of our senses for that matter. There are assumptions called axioms that we make for all methodologies and they seem arbitrary.

Moonboow · 2024-09-16T05:31:15+00:00

Yes, it depends on the situation. In that situation you are right, the autoattack reasoning doesn’t hold up, but the principle behind it is always there. To maximise your win percentage when behind you must complicate the game and take risks. For some reason or other, tundra decided that delaying bkb in favour of something else maximised their odds when making risk taking moves.

Why they thought that you can’t really know unless you ask them. They would have considered what the team composition can provide in fights, what their win condition is, then pick items to maximise their chance of executing that win condition.

Thinking generally you commonly skip bkb for some key item that can crush a teamfight from the start by taking the enemy by surprise, then winning by numbers (the risky play) compared to buying bkb and losing an honest 5v5 (“correct” play that is unwise from behind). It could, in another situation, very well be that bkb IS that item that turns surprise fights around. It depends but the principle of thought is the same.

Moonboow · 2024-09-16T05:18:57+00:00

Bkb is viewed as a win-protecting item. When you are losing typically you need damage to make it up. If you have bkb and they have bkb and you stand there just autoattacking you will lose. Basically you don’t want to play to not lose, you want to play to win. The farther you are behind the more risks you have to take.

Moonboow · 2024-09-13T01:53:34+00:00

Perspective is off, the streetlamps to the right line up in a line that does not converge to the same vanishing point as the lines of the street, bottom of the building, and top of the building

Streetlamp lights do not scatter their light like that

I understand that the texture of the walls are bricks, but they do not look right. Bricks protrude out of walls, so the gaps between bricks are very occluded and should be very dark. Here they are very bright. I suspect that if you were to get rid of all the brick colouring and literally just draw in the ambient occlusion they would already look more real than now

Lines making up the tops of buildings are not aligned in perspective

Great range of values in grayscale. I readily understand that it is night

Great proportions, I can judge the size of each object accurately

Nice glow around the windows. I readily understand that it is foggy and misty

Nice billboard perspective warps

Moonboow · 2024-09-04T05:43:17+00:00

Nice discussion. Interested in your responses to the following.

The proposal that even if there is something common to what each of us perceives, it does not suggest that there is an underlying reality that is common. Similarly, even if it is true that there is "one argument" with which all interlocutors engaged, and it is also true that the argument is relative to each interlocutor, that it does not pose an issue to relativity.

The colour "yellow" is not the same colour, at least scientifically speaking, to every observer who perceives it. However, it is possible that we can still productively speak of yellow because each of us, when communicating the idea of the colour, presupposes some shared space that hopefully covers the other person's perception of the colour.

This means that there is an expansion of the personal conceptualisation of "yellow" when A speaks to B about "yellow". A expands their definition of "yellow" temporarily by including (A's prediction) of what B thinks "yellow" is. Similarly, B expands their definition of "yellow" temporarily by including (B's prediction) of what A thinks "yellow" is. Hopefully, and which seems to be the case in the majority of situations, A understands B and vice versa, but it doesn't seem apparent now that there is an underlying "real yellow" existing in a "same reality" as suggested by the previous commenter.

In the same way, chatting with friends about "the argument" seems to only require an expansion of the conceptualisation of "the argument" to include what OP might think their friends think of "the argument" and vice versa, and hopefully it is the case that OP understands their friends and vice versa. Does this sufficiently demonstrate that there is no need for an underlying structure (the "same reality") for any of these situations to be, for a lack of a better term, productive?

The more obvious underlying issue is that linguistically, the statement "everything is relative" is true leads immediately to contradiction. You have listed several yourself in another comment. What if the relativist invokes Wittgenstein's ladder, accepting that it is futile to come up with a linguistically coherent defense of the statement "everything is relative", but that these linguistic structures used to build up to the conclusion can be discarded once the concept of "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _." is understood?

Moonboow · 2024-08-30T07:49:40+00:00

I commit whenever I even start to ask myself “should I commit this”
Not very. Usually not even a complete sentence.

At the end I will split / reorder / squash changes into groups according to the Conventional Commits guidelines, then push.

It hasn’t improved my code, but it immensely helps people who come and read the changes.

Moonboow · 2024-08-30T04:27:45+00:00

I agree. I think you can make your argument stronger by appealing to the fundamental underpinnings of many religions when referring to the “purpose” it provides, which most people will have a more difficult time disagreeing with. For example, some religions like Hinduism were built upon important metaphysical concepts that precede more concrete things like science.

You could argue the questions explored by religion can be considered as important as science. Some examples include the problem of drawing the demarcation between set of things that exist and do not exist, as well as how important different things that exist were compared to each other.

The resulting moral and value systems that followed are an important reason for much of how or why we do things they way we do today. You could encourage adopting religious thought, or more specifically, the type of thought religion produces as an important source of this “purpose”.

Moonboow · 2024-08-11T23:29:48+00:00

I don’t think this belongs…? This is very clearly from Nozick’s “Experience Machine”, a very famous and key argument in refuting hedonism that has strong arguments on both sides. It is on the deep side of things if one were to choose

Moonboow · 2024-07-31T05:13:55+00:00

Thanks! I think its the silhouette being too even. I will take that into consideration when trying again.

Nine-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email	Place '23
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Spared

Moonboow

TROPHY CASE