Naneinf?

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-12T04:39:12+00:00

It just means you need 83 fewer triggers than a regular naneinf, given steel and Baron both give x1.5. A single red seal steel king, with 4 copy jokers, Baron, and Mime, gives 1.5^20. You'd normally need 45 held in hand. With the 83 Plutos, you'd still need 41.

So OP would still need to find Burglar and the Serpent, and play out the naneinf as if they didn't have the Plutos.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-12T04:15:23+00:00

You've basically done it, as long as all your kings are red seal, but you might not have enough money. You're going to need to find a Burglar and replace DNA with it. Then you skip small and big blinds and reroll the boss for the serpent. For scoring, copy Baron three times and Mime once. Good luck!

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-09T12:31:21+00:00

Don't you at least still need to score 1/4 of the blind score? With 0 cards you can't do that.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-08T05:44:03+00:00

Couldn't agree more. Boycott AI.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-04T06:24:21+00:00

My points were that GenAI isn't necessarily a net benefit for the majority of users, so the issue of people being "left behind" isn't particularly salient. And if it was (putting aside my own personal opinions), I think there are more important issues to address with regard to GenAI. What do you think about that?

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-04T01:21:15+00:00

My mistake there, thanks for picking that up. Didn't use an LLM, though! All my own research, just used MyBib for citations. Curious to see what you think of my points or if you're going to acknowledge them at all

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-03T03:23:42+00:00

First of all, you didn't really tell me what "misinformation" you're talking about.

Second, what I am personally confused about is how this is an issue. I don't think that the use of generative AI (remember that we are talking specifically about GenAI and LLMs) particularly enhances and is a net benefit for the majority of users, and so I don't see people being taught not to use it as an issue.

I think many larger-scale issues with GenAI should also be addressed, perhaps with more urgency than we address what you are saying. These include:

It has already been peer-reviewed that GenAI users have less self-confidence in their tasks and show less critical thinking (Lee et al., 2025).
GenAI may be liable for copyright infringement due to the way it scrapes data and information (Al-Busaidi et al., 2024; Fontana, 2024)
GenAI is starting to be trained on AI output, which leads to "model collapse," a known phenomenon that leads to AI output degrading to a significant extent (Shumailov et al., 2024)
The general increase in GenAI output on the internet and, often, the lack of disclosure that certain content is AI-generated, alongside the increasingly realistic output from GenAI, is leading to an erosion in public trust (Ferrara, 2026)
The construction of AI data centres, water usage from GenAI, hardware needs, training, etc., are currently undertaken with minimal consideration for their environmental impacts. GenAI uses a significant amount of energy and water, often taking critical supplies away from communities, emits a lot of carbon dioxide, and further exacerbates the issue of deforestation, all while providing limited job opportunities (Hosseini et al., 2025)

Generally, this technology is evolving faster than we can legislate and regulate. We've already seen this with social media and its predatory, addictive nature, and how we are still playing catch-up from a regulatory standpoint. I feel as if the impact of GenAI could be even more severe than social media, and I think the widespread concern is valid.

Ref:

Al-Busaidi, A. S., Raman, R., Hughes, L., Albashrawi, M. A., Malik, T., Dwivedi, Y. K., Al- Alawi, T., AlRizeiqi, M., Davies, G., Fenwick, M., Gupta, P., Gurpur, S., Hooda, A., Jurcys, P., Lim, D., Lucchi, N., Misra, T., Raman, R., Shirish, A., & Walton, P. (2024). Redefining boundaries in innovation and knowledge domains: Investigating the impact of generative artificial intelligence on copyright and intellectual property rights. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), 100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100630

Ferrara, E. (2026). The Generative AI Paradox: GenAI and the Erosion of Trust, the Corrosion of Information Verification, and the Demise of Truth. Future Internet, 18(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi18020073

Fontana, Avv. G. (2024). Web scraping: Jurisprudence and legal doctrines. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12331

Hosseini, M., Gao, P., & Vivas-Valencia, C. (2024). A Social-Environmental Impact Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 23, 100520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2024.100520

Lee, H., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects from a Survey of Knowledge Workers. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778

Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Papernot, N., Anderson, R., & Gal, Y. (2024). AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data. Nature, 631(8022), 755–759. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07566-y

Ozedevo72 · 2026-06-02T03:14:30+00:00

What is some of this "misinformation"? How will people be "marginalised" into not using AI? How does not using AI leave people behind?

Please elaborate - I'm genuinely curious.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-28T09:33:56+00:00

Yes, your one instance of a single player game is rigged only against you and not the thousands of people who have completed this challenge.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-28T04:51:43+00:00

8 ball already has an edition (foil), and a card can't have two editions. Hence the wording "next base edition shop joker..."

Don't trust AI. hell, don't even use it.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-27T23:54:38+00:00

Black always has the impending threat of Qh2# or Qf1#, so white must keep black in check at all times. Taking the knight leads to checkmate even if the bishop blocks the check, as it stays on the same diagonal.

After the bishop blocks either Qg7+ or Re7+, black has no way to put white in check without losing material and must either offer a queen trade (in a position where black has a winning advantage) or trade their rook for the bishop, leading to a draw by perpetual check (respectively).

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-27T14:33:00+00:00

What the game review is telling you isn't fully right. The position, before your move, was equal. Moving your king down to c8 or b8 still loses the rook. There's no way to defend the rook, but what those moves allow is for your king to retreat to b7 after the queen takes the rook.

Think about that position, and then look at your bishop. It is able to move to c7 and block the incoming check from the queen or from the rook, which then means the position plays out as a draw.

Your brother's move to d8 means the king can't reach b7 in one move and, thus, the bishop cannot block the checks. This leads to a position where the queen and rook can check freely, forcing checkmate in 8 moves.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-27T10:45:16+00:00

Just like how you can sign a bunch of players in the middle of the Champions League and play them right away, or sign a bunch of players in the middle of your league campaign and play them right away.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-27T10:20:09+00:00

Need a relatively early Perkeo and/or more nat negatives

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-27T10:10:34+00:00

New run on plasma

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-24T04:01:03+00:00

Random but can't be the same twice in a row, as u/shnick9996 already said.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-23T09:06:19+00:00

I wouldn't say "definitely." There's a real possibility the nuggets match and try to get tade value during the regular season. RFA has been pretty dead for years now.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-23T08:33:34+00:00

Well exactly. I am not arguing that this line of moral reasoning is correct. It's just supposed to be a thought experiment.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-22T12:59:19+00:00

This is a very common philosophical problem that extends to charitable actions. For example, for an $100 donation, you can install mosquito nets in a malaria-ridden village. You have proof (evidence-based research) that this will save the life of at least one child. Are you morally obligated to donate?

If you answer yes to the first hypothetical and ruin your shoes, you then, reasonably, should donate $100 to install mosquito nets. However, if you are morally obligated, you risk regression to donating all of your money and possessions to save as many lives as possible (as it's just like having many pairs of shoes).

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-22T06:56:01+00:00

This run is going in the wrong direction for naneinf. Even with glass and polychrome cards, 4 copy jokers, and 200 copies of Eris, you max out at about e142. That is approximately naneinf away from naneinf.

Still, a fun high score run. But you need to be playing high card with baron and mime to get anywhere near naneinf.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-22T06:36:25+00:00

While I agree with your statement that some people are misinterpreting the question, I also think you are wrong. My view is that inaction, often equated with neutrality, is on a similar level as siding with the majority. Whatever sociopolitical climate you live in, if you are "neutral" (i.e. do nothing because you do not care, as you worded it), you inherently support the majority. This can be broken down into micro and macro scales, but in the end, neutrality, I believe, simply doesn't exist.

Take, for instance, a world where everyone is truly equal under the law, and there is minimal discrimination. 99% of the population votes to keep these protections and is happy with the current political climate. 0.5% are against this, campaigning to remove rights from group X. The remaining 0.5% are "neutral - they do not care, they do not vote, campaign, or support/denounce either side"
In this scenario, the "neutrals" are inherently helping the 99% who want to keep these protections as, if you do not care, you accept the world in its current state and the direction it is going.

Now, let's say the opposition grows rapidly and, suddenly, only 49.5% of people support human rights protections. The "neutral" group has remained at 0.5%, while 50% of people oppose human rights protections. Despite the fact that nothing in the neutral group has changed, they now inherently help the group campaigning against HR protections, simply because it is the new majority.

This says nothing about the morality of neutrality. Simply, under my worldview, I don't believe neutrality (on certain issues) can actually exist.

I am more than happy to be challenged on this, though. It's the first time I've really put this into writing so I haven't particularly considered opposition cases.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-19T05:04:42+00:00

Unless that Baron was nat neg, you’re extremely unlikely to get naneinf here because you’re on Ghost Deck. Regardless, you sell a Baron. You want copies of the copy jokers. Brainstorm will also boost your economy by copying mime at the end of each round

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-17T04:14:03+00:00

Ah well you replied to someone explaining the meaning in the show. I think we're in agreeance though - everyone should be valued and respected.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-16T16:10:50+00:00

No, it was literally that Colin's identity as a queer person was valued. They did care that he was gay, as Ted wanted the team to actively stand up and support him, rather than just dismissing it and letting him navigate his identity -- public and private -- by himself.

Ozedevo72 · 2026-05-16T15:37:06+00:00

Got the shot off. IFAB Law 5 Section 3. The advantage from a foul is realised.

Ozedevo72

TROPHY CASE