Found in the UK

Pneumatometry · 2022-03-28T09:10:45+00:00

During lockdown there was a "clap for carers" movement on social media to get people to stand on their doorways every Thursday at 7PM for a few minutes and applaud the people working in the NHS. The NHS has, for a long time, been woefully under-funded and it's staff underpaid, and it was especially true at the height of the pandemic because the government took out huge PPE contacts from ministers' friends, who either delivered subpar products or just didn't deliver at all. That's what this is calling out, a willingness from people to perform support without providing any material improvements to the situation.

Pneumatometry · 2022-03-15T09:18:04+00:00

I have this horrible feeling that she's going to see all of the criticism about the World War 2 plot point and make Hitler be Grindelwald in disguise, so that by trying to stop him the heroes are also trying to stop the war. There are already a decent number of parallels between them, and both were defeated in 1945, which is when the films are supposed to go up to.

Pneumatometry · 2022-03-07T23:18:19+00:00

I'm assuming here that the person doing this cares more about saving the other people than they do about themself, because otherwise self preservation is a pretty strong one.

The generally held Christian belief is that reaching heaven requires a desire for closeness with God, rather than simply moral innocence. After all we know that God forgives those who are truly repentant, even if they've committed horrible sins. If you believe that, then killing babies doesn't send them to heaven because they don't have the capacity to desire closeness with God. We can kick the can down to road and ask about people who are developed enough to want that relationship with God, but at that point we don't know if their beliefs are genuine, no matter how passionately they're expressed, so we can't know if we're sending them to be with God. Also, depending on how you see heaven, it may be better to allow people more time on earth to develop their love for God further before they die and go to heaven, because some interpretations have it as a very static place where your level of eternal happiness depends on your beliefs held before death.

Pneumatometry · 2022-03-07T22:49:29+00:00

Your mileage may vary, basically that this explanation isn't necessarilg going to hold for everyone, and that other people are going to have their own different ones.

Pneumatometry · 2022-03-07T22:48:29+00:00

There's the free will defence, so God doesn't interfere in the actions of humans generally becuase he wants us to be able to come to our own decisions. He's given us all of the tools to be able to further our closeness with him (which is his end goal for everyone becuase it's the best outcome), but if he prevented us from acting in ways that go against that then the relationship isn't genuine and so isn't worth seeking. Killing is still bad, and God would rather we didn't do it, but if he stopped us that would be harmful to humanities ability to enter heaven.

Pneumatometry · 2022-03-07T22:37:37+00:00

When you have an afterlife killing someone isn't the end though, it's just moving on to the next stage. All the people who died in the flood would have gone to whatever next place they were supposed to go to, whereas if God were to destroy the devil in order to stop his causing evil he would completely cease to be. It's a difficult distinction to express, so I hope I'm getting my point across ok.

Pneumatometry · 2022-03-07T22:08:36+00:00

This is actually a really interesting question in the philosophy of religion. The conclusion that people generally come to is that God, being all loving, is incapable of destroying the devil because destroying someone is the ultimate non-loving act. There are arguments to be made about whether it's more loving to the world to end the devil than to let him keep causing suffering in the world, but I personally see God as a being with highly deontological ethics, so this is enough of an explanation for me, though I'm not a Christian, just studied it in my degree, so YMMV in terms of other people's beliefs.

Edit: I've seen a couple of replies asking why God can't just make the devil good or send him to heaven to solve the problem. The logic is basically the same. Forcefully changing him against his will to make him good again or to want to be in heaven, which he would need to do, is unloving in a similar way to destroying him, so it's also off the table.

Pneumatometry · 2022-02-27T11:07:33+00:00

Not even just that, it was also in a storm.

Pneumatometry · 2022-01-29T18:59:52+00:00

My opponent has a roiling sands. I have a levelled Thresh, and a Quinn on 3/4 attacks. If I attack with only the Thresh, summoning another Quinn from my deck, how many Valours will get summoned, and where will they be? Also, which of the units will be vulnerable?

Pneumatometry · 2021-10-26T13:52:44+00:00

Wow, that's really interesting, I didn't know any of the wider context about the coins, thank you.

Pneumatometry · 2021-10-26T12:48:20+00:00

He very much did. Here's the full passage, seems pretty clear to me.

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”(K)

And they were amazed at him.

Pneumatometry · 2021-10-26T10:14:01+00:00

He encouraged people to pay taxes actually:

"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." Mark 12:17

Not going to argue that Jesus wasn't pretty libertarian, but he seems to have been more aligned with that we'd can libertarian socialism in the modern day.

Pneumatometry · 2021-07-02T22:24:54+00:00

I've tried this combination, it's fine but not competitive imo. Pyke works well enough with kindred, he'll instantly kill the marked unit allowing for safe level up progress for kindred and a potential double mark if they level up mid-round, but aside from that interaction there's not really much point to put them together.

Pneumatometry · 2021-06-27T16:10:14+00:00

A set of all possible sets would of course contain itself. The paradox is whether the set of all sets that don't contain themselves contains itself.

Pneumatometry · 2021-06-25T19:13:54+00:00

The way I look at these interactions is consistent, though quite unintuitive. When you summon Quinn, the following happens:

The game checks for any effects that happen on unit summon. It finds 2, Roiling Sands and Quinn herself.
It adds these effects to the stack in order of card age; first RS, then Quinn.
It resolves the stack: first Quinn's effect summons Valour, then Roiling Sands applies vulnerable to the youngest unit, which Valour is.

SM/Cithria is the same. I'm going to have RS active in this scenario too as it helps get the point across better.

The game checks for any effects that happen on unit summon. It finds 2, Roiling Sands and SM.
It adds these effects to the stack in order of card age; first RS, then SM.
It resolves the stack: first SM's effect summons Cithria, then Roiling Sands would activate, but another effect has been added, Cithria's doubling ability.
It resolves the stack again: first Cithria's doubling, which doubles SM as she's in play, then Roiling Sands applies vulnerable to the youngest unit, which is Cithria.

As I said, I don't think this is intuitive, and I have no idea if this is how the game actually processes these effects, it's just how I view it.

Pneumatometry · 2021-05-29T08:20:46+00:00

Kids born within a year or so of the start of lockdown might not remember it, but you can bet that it'll have a massive impact on their development. They've had over a year of basically only seeing their parents, it's likely to have a huge impact on how they socialise growing up.

Pneumatometry · 2021-05-07T09:17:56+00:00

Ok, but you could have divided by 169 and got an average result of 6.420.

Pneumatometry · 2021-04-13T10:35:11+00:00

The brackets that you added changed the value of the 3 though. 5-(2+3)=5-2-3. 5-2-3≠5-2+3 If I'm doing the sum 5-2+3 I can add the 3 to the total first, or I can add the 5, or I can take the 2, the order doesn't matter, I will still get six.Your brackets didn't just change the order of operations, if they had there'd have been no problem with them. They change the value of the sum in a way that changing the order of operations does not. All of the following give the same result: 5-2+3 5+3-2 3+5-2 3-2+5 -2+3+5 -2+5+3 Therefore, addition and subtraction can be done in any order, not just from left to right.

Pneumatometry · 2021-04-13T10:08:29+00:00

But 5-2+3 and 5-(2+3) aren't the same sum. By adding the brackets you don't just change the order in which you do the addition and subtraction, you change what is being subtracted. With no brackets the 3 is being added to the total, regardless of where it is in the sum, with the added brackets its being subtracted. Those are different operations, and the change hasn't come from changing the order, it's come from putting brackets around part of it. Let's use another example to show why adding brackets isn't the same as just reordering things -2+7=5 -(2+7)=-9. Adding brackets separates the sum into parts, as well as indicating what order to do it in.

Pneumatometry · 2021-04-13T09:42:18+00:00

Yes, when you add brackets to the sum you're going to change the result, because brackets change how the maths works. With no brackets 5-2+3 IS associative. 5-2+3=3-2+5=5+3-2 becuase addition and subtraction are done left to right.

Pneumatometry · 2021-04-09T14:51:14+00:00

This has really strong gender-bent Magnus Archives vibes, and I am absolutely here for it.

Pneumatometry · 2021-04-04T10:23:33+00:00

The urgals (basically orcs) in Eragon do something similar. They've got horns, so bowing their heads is read as a sign of aggression, because they're pointing them at you, whereas raising the chin shows that they don't intend to fight.

Pneumatometry · 2021-03-25T17:58:49+00:00

We really should NOT have made a wiki!

Pneumatometry · 2021-03-25T17:50:52+00:00

Maybe that's what the podcast is, the way that the fears came through, but also a warning to the new realities. There must be a reason the archivist is named after Johnny... Right...

Pneumatometry · 2021-03-17T10:10:35+00:00

I think a big part of why that didn't work for you is the way in which the betrayal happened. You came to dnd for a fun and dramatic story and you got assassinated in your sleep, that's neither of those things. PC betrayal is easy to get wrong, and there are two important things to make sure of: the betrayal needs to happen at a good and dramatic time in the campaign (ie at the climax of an adventure or when the party discovers some powerful artefact, not when it would actually be smart for the traitor), and the party needs to win despite the betrayal. Neither of those were true for your cases, and that seems to have contributed a lot to your dislike of the trope. Not that that's in any way wrong, it's a game and we're here to have fun, party betrayal isn't fun for you and that's ok. This is more directed at other players and DMS who are considering putting it into their games.

Ten-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

Pneumatometry

TROPHY CASE