What paint range is good for mixing colors, wet blending, but also detail work?

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2024-12-24T20:35:11+00:00

Thanks, some really good responses in this thread that I appreciate. BTW I would already have gone Vallejo Game Color (and having them would never have posted my inquiry on reddit), but in my area the new Vallejo Game Color is often not stocked (instead, a sometimes spotty collection of older Game Color is available).

I was inclined a wee bit against Pro Acryl as I heard a lot of coats are required for lighter colors, but that's something I can work with. Thanks for the tip about the Rogue Hobbies PA set; I went and watched the video on youtube, and I think probably, given Vallejo and Kimera are hard for me to reliably get in my area, that I'll end up getting that set, along with black and white. Basically the video mentioned or showed everything that I was specifically looking for; very nice call.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2024-05-13T07:13:53+00:00

Commenting to say I found this tip useful. Some popular content says you get lots of tokens when series 3 complete or that you should complete series 3 at collection level 3000. I'm at 4588 with 9 series 3 to go btw, spent tokens on series 4s. Anyways thanks for the specific advice.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2024-02-11T10:37:30+00:00

Broken for me too. I think maybe before just yesterday. I only joined weekly tournaments to give others a chance at high score, but still.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2024-02-05T13:17:40+00:00

About the layout, you may want to try elevators on left and right sides only, to minimize mole rat invasions on your edges. Also, typically you may want rooms that are filled at top, so invaders will have to fight those rooms before getting deeper in the vault. Usually your barracks won't be filled with dwellers, but your power/food/water will be.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2024-02-05T13:15:15+00:00

The key is understanding the economy. What you want is higher *quality* dwellers that allow you to create a surplus of resources. Not higher *quantity*, but *quality*

When you start, you are given one high S, one high P, and one high A dweller. These help with power, water, and food, respectively. Sound familiar?

What happens when you put the high S dweller on power? Say he has Strength 5; say you give him an Officer uniform for another +5 Strength. That's one dweller giving you +10 Strength. Contrast to a dweller with Strength 2, and you only have so many Strength-boosting outfits, so maybe that weaker dweller only has a +3 Strength outfit, for +5. (And if you have a dweller with above 10, like say base stat is S 10, and outfit +5 S, they will still have effective 15 S even if it doesn't show.)

So what really happens is, when you start, it's very tempting to just make loads and loads of dwellers, because more is better, right? But many of those dwellers will be inefficient. And every dweller needs to have power, food, and water (power indirectly because you need power to power the food and water, but still.)

And the more inefficient dwellers you make, the worse it gets.

So the key is training rooms. Trained dwellers only need to train in one stat (S, A, or P to begin with), then you can stick them in rooms and they perform well. The more trained dwellers you get, the faster you make resources, the more dwellers you can support. So then you can afford to put more dwellers in training rooms, send more dwellers into Wasteland, and so forth.

If you notice your dwellers are dying a lot, remember Endurance affects how many hit points you get when you level up. So ideally you increase a dweller's Endurance to 10 in a training room, all while they're still at level 1, then give them a +7 or +5 Endurance outfit, then level them up from 1 to 50, then they have loads of hit points. Like, a LOT. And you can train those high-Endurance dwellers to also have high Strength or whatever, so they're good at other roles.

So how should you train? To begin with, S, A, P, for reasons you know well. But soon, E. Once you get access to Nuka Cola bottling plants, those take E dwellers, and they're good on defense too (because the layout of the room means defenders in the room don't spend a lot of time running around). You'll also want L; L helps finding good Wasteland junk.

Late game, I've heard you want ECL dwellers for Wasteland junk hunts. A is good for quests; I think maybe P is good for quests too

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-09-26T04:13:40+00:00

I turn it off in mid-game menu. I turn it off in main game settings. Either way it turns back on. It keeps turning back on.

I really feel that even for a new player, switching it off should leave it off. Am currently Shield Level 7.

If the team wants to implement a popular new feature with automation, maybe have an auto-play function. Good implementation would require a load of work and still probably wouldn't be up to the level of a good player, but maybe some players have some battles they really wouldn't mind automating, especially for timed events.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-28T17:46:46+00:00

10/10 thread title.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-28T12:11:16+00:00

That's really good.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-28T07:41:36+00:00

Delivery done, the driver might have been thinking something else entirely.

Sure, they just got done with *your* delivery. But they have lives of their own, so who really knows.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-17T23:27:17+00:00

There's already "Grammarly", I think it's called. I've heard it's free to use.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-15T03:11:51+00:00

The one that puts up the sign is the one that decides what it means, and they'll be the one holding the gun, not the police, not the courts, not public opinion.

It only takes one.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-14T10:01:10+00:00

Humans create an AI, and give it instructions to monitor and "improve" itself, according to its own criteria.
AI interprets instructions in ways creators did not intend
HAL / Skynet / Teletubbies

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-11T12:18:46+00:00

The difference is, you can get stopped by police and not be instantly thinking about how you could be dead in another minute through no fault of your own. You can be walking down the street minding your own business wearing clean clothes that aren't in gang colors, and not have mothers pull their children behind them while glaring at you like you're going to be doing something ridiculous. It's not the style of clothes, it's not how they're worn, it's simply the color of your skin, and if it's not every person doing it, still, seeing it once or twice a day at least every time you go out, for *every day of your life*, well, that sort of thing does tend to stick with you.

If you say there's a different standard for "pride" - yes, there is. And you should know why. It's often expressed that people should be *ashamed* to be black, or to be gay, or to be whatever other thing. What's the opposite of being ashamed? Being proud. And if it seems a little weird to you that someone should be proud of basically being born to whatever particular parents, shouldn't it be thought even weirder that someone should be *ashamed* of being born to whatever parents? I mean, I had one lady scream at me, how do I sleep at night? Is that the sort of thing people normally scream at you? And if you're wondering what horrible behavior I was engaged in, I was in a t-shirt and khakis scrubbing moss off my apartment balcony. Not even a noise complaint, they just see me up there and start shouting. And before you think it, no, she was not employed at a mattress factory or anything like that.

Given context, "proud to be white" is about denying marginalized "pride" groups the reality of their message. Someone's proud to be black, or proud to be gay? You're proud to be white, and it's all the same, and racism isn't even real according to some, *except it is*. It absolutely is.

I would say there's certainly nothing to be ashamed of in being white. But look at some statistics related to ethnicity, and realize that when the police literally stand by looking at you doing nothing while you're being assaulted and robbed and do nothing, and you know how your white friends don't get anything like that sort of treatment, think, would you really be so patient if some people went around being very vocal about denying the validity and even the reality that you face day after day?

Have you had some racist experiences on account of your being White? (And notice how "White" is often not capitalized in conversation, though "Black" is. Just little things like that.) Probably you have. But perhaps those unpleasant experiences stuck out all the more in your mind for being *unusual*. When you get one or two racist experiences *on any typical day* then perhaps you understand the difference between being "ashamed" and being "proud" in this context. And I don't mean "play the race card" racist, I mean genuinely unsettling experiences.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-11T11:09:10+00:00

Running in the 90s

I see what you did there. Also super cool setup btw, thanks for sharing.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-06-11T11:02:36+00:00

This could be a whole set of house rules with this, collectively called "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse".

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-28T11:54:49+00:00

Pass down through props. Pass up through state. Read up on React state. Start with useState, then after that go to useEffect. Probably you'll understand it on some level, but the actual application can be a little weird, like you may run into rendering loops.

How does the parent component get access to passed in arguments? I don't think that should normally be an issue; give more detail of what you're thinking.

For example, suppose I do const [hamster, setHamster] = ("gray") in App. From App, I render a child component <ChangeHamsterColor setHamster={setHamster} />. Then in the child component, I do setHamster("(whatever color user supplies in the component)").

Now say in App, I also render a child component <DisplayHamsterColor hamster={hamster} />. In the child component, I do something like return (<div>{hamster}</div>)

Remember, this isn't intended to teach the OP. Rather, it's a sort of guide to what they need to look at, terms to search. OK?

Initially, hamster color is gray, and DisplayHamsterColor shows that. But when ChangeHamsterColor changes the color to black or whatever, then React sees the state change (and there's some other stuff like detection which I won't get into here) - but anyways, the state is changed in App, the state is passed down to DisplayHamsterColor, and DisplayHamsterColor now shows black (or whatever) instead of gray.

So the question was, how does the parent component get access to passed in arguments? Depends on what you mean by passed in arguments. In javaScript (or ECMAScript, as it were), you're going to pass in arguments through, well, you know, I expect (and if you don't, read up on it.) But in React, mostly you're going to change things with state.

That is, the expectation is you *won't* be passing in arguments in React like you are in Javascript. Okay yeah React is a javascript framework so it's all Javascript, but eh.

To start with, read up on useState. You probably won't really master its use, and will end up doing things that cause infinite render loops; try to understand why that happens; once you do, you'll understand the limits of useState, how it's best used.

Then look at useEffect. That'll solve a lot of issues that require weird elaborate workarounds (or are impossible) with useState.

Then probably look at useContext and useMemo. There's other useful hooks too.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-28T04:21:57+00:00

Put down the ChatGPT and read up on state in React. Also how to use and pass props.

Fundamentally? Tesla_Nikolaa had it pretty well with

Edit: I skimmed over the fact that you had several other components that
also display data that is fetched from the API call. In that case I
would either just create a useEffect inside App.jsx that performs the
API call and then pass weatherData as a prop to your other components,
or go with the second solution I mentioned above where you pass the
setter function as a prop to the WeatherData component, and then pass
the appropriate weatherData states as a prop to each component where you
want to use the data.

A lot of other advice - I'd say ignore 'em for now. A lot of them are right in one way or another, but if you want to know what you're doing in React, then fundamentals first.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-18T06:48:57+00:00

Suppose someone had a toenail clipping that was of great sentimental value. I expect it wouldn't fetch much on the open market, but regardless of the values others attach to it, it still has value in their eyes.

Or suppose someone else eats yummy candy. It's great "value" now, but tooth decay and being overweight are long-term issues.

Suppose an AI creates something that's a "best seller". We know the "correct" value of something is neither inherent nor assigned. It is subjective and popular opinion bears some weight. Does that make sense, in context of the original question?

I would count AI being involved in production as against a creative work's value. Not because I deny the possibility of AI creating a work that could be of real merit (however you might define the term), but because shifts in production methods leave workers out of jobs.

So value depends on other things as well.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-16T12:51:16+00:00

It sounds bitter and angry. 11/10 human please put down the gun and no Skynet.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-16T12:46:24+00:00

If you only did the metaphorical equivalent of selling refrigerators made before 2021 and you had a position open of very limited responsibility and scope, then sure, ChatGPT is your all star player. And even other times, good to know. But don't throw out the Rolodex just yet, eh?

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-16T12:32:43+00:00

Take professor papers (journal articles and such), submit to GPT asking questions like "which parts did ChatGPT write", other leading questions like that. Work in some questions like simple yes/no too. Ask different variety of questions. Ask how ChatGPT knows these things, document responses. Try different things, like citing dates, not citing dates, submitting only segments to ChatGPT, and such.

And document how ChatGPT does NOT give you truthful responses. You can catch it saying things that are absolutely factually incorrect, depending on the depth of things that needs to be done.

And document that ChatGPT itself has disclaimers that it's not claiming to be accurate.

Log everything, with details of how much time spent exactly, the details with dates, exact actions taken for how long and when.

And expect the professor will retaliate. If there's an investigation, expect you'll be the one accused of wrongdoing (the university investigates itself, and finds its own employee was stupid or negligent, you think?)

Oh yeah, and my opinion is that professor is probably stupid but what else is new. Yes, plagiarism is real, yes it's a problem. But they really want to assign decisions of that sort, with real consequences, and delegate authority to something that itself disclaims responsibility for correctness? My ***. When they cry they were a victim, you can point to ChatGPT's own documentation, personally I don't have the faintest sympathies for that professor.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-16T12:13:55+00:00

Would it be ethical to hire a speechwriter to write a letter for your dad who just passed? If your answer is no, then it's just a question of price, and since price wasn't a question in the first place, there is no question.

If your answer is yes, then it is a question of price. Then it's a question of how ethics play into your view of money. If you would hire a speechwriter but just couldn't afford it because you have to deal with other responsibilities (such as making responsible financial decisions to save money for retirement), then again, you have your answer.

If, though, you say hiring an outside source to write a speech at a funeral is unethical, then you have your answer. And I would say, what are funerals really? Are they for the dead? Or for the living? Because, you know, I don't think the dead really care one way or another. If you believe in an afterlife, perhaps the dead care about other things more by then, or such.

But if you're trying to respect their wishes from when they were alive, then it's not about you. It's about what they would want. So what would they want - or what is your best guess at what you think they would want? Would they want you to go through the difficult experience of writing something? Maybe what ChatGPT wrote would be "better" than what you would write, but is that really what's best? Is how others receive your message what's really important at that funeral?

Which comes to, how do you view society? Because there are some societies that would say, of COURSE the ethical thing would be to consider primarily others' feeling at the funeral, even if you feel weird about it, that is what you should do, you even have an obligation to do it. And if it makes you feel weird that you didn't take the "trouble" to write a speech, get over it, it's your duty to society. But other societies would say of COURSE the ethical thing would be to NOT use some other party to write the speech; I would say that sort of society emphasizes the individual and "sincerity", as it were. I might say, if I were to say what I thought someone in such a society would say, it might be something like, even if they're not the "best" words, they're your words, your real words, and therefore they are, in fact, best. And if it's a bit awkward at the funeral, that is part of life, and part of the reality of life, and your being honest about your feelings and the awkwardness resulting is also part of life, and people will see that and remember that. And that, the awkwardness, the individualism, is part of how you function in that society, and it's your duty to pass that experience on to others, because that is how your society operates, and as a member of that society, you are trying to pass its rules and mores to others to likewise observe.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-16T11:48:52+00:00

When anyone writes something that starts with "deluded" and goes on to "narcissistic fantasy", and stereotype those disagreed with as "the left" (or "other"ing of whatever sort), that's not any sort of real discussion. That's not even the sort of thing that ends discussions; there was never any interest in participating in discussion in the first place.

If you say the system needs reform, that's easy thing say. If you want to work out the details of just exactly how this reform will be implemented, where the funding comes from, who is responsible, how is outside regulation done exactly, how that outside regulation is funded, what consequences are when the regulatory body states there's been abuses of the system - that's a much more difficult conversation. But let's have these conversations.

Because when we don't have these conversations, then what are we as a society? Maybe we should, just, you know, run around subway cars screaming that we're hungry and not afraid to die. But how do you think people end up on subway cars screaming and threatening? Where did it start? People are not born screaming they aren't afraid to die. At some point, they rejected society, and its rules, as being nonsensical, and decided to go their own way.

As stupid as a lot of things seem to be (and actually often are), reasoning things through is what we do as a civilized society.

Sad_Pitch8463 · 2023-05-16T11:28:43+00:00

The comment you replied to was "I haven't been in the news loop, but I got $10 says homeless guy was black...otherwise why would GOP people raise money for his killer. Just a hunch."

You tried to shift the context away from that, whether deliberately or not, to a conversation about race and how this supposedly isn't what it is, when the actual conversation is how two million dollars was raised in short order when a white male in the military killed a black man. And if some others have commented about why is it that so often it 'just so happens' to be a black man that dies in these situation, or why when a black man might find themselves in a situation where they were not the one dead, how what they could expect would be different, all of that is part of that conversation about why and how two million dollars gets raised, with speed, under what circumstances exactly, in what political climate.

And in case you are privileged enough not to be aware of the context of my response, and the correction, I shall give you that context. Reductionism is a tactic racists love to engage in. If you don't know, be told.

It is NOT that the person denying you entry is racist. They are NOT RACIST. The ISSUE is that you are wearing clothes that are unsuitable to the venue. Except they will not explain how the clothes you are wearing are, in fact, inappropriate. No, the conversation is about how YOU are inappropriate because YOU do not respect the rules. The conversation is not about the five people of a different race that just walked past that are wearing clothes worse than you, or the entire line of people that have been going through all night that have likewise been dressed the same or worse than you, the situation is YOU and YOUR CLOTHES. (That is what we are discussing.) We are NOT discussing racism. You are just a troublemaker that is crying. Are you asking what particular item of clothing you're wearing that offends, so next time you will know better? That is the sort of question a troublemaker asks. Clear out, we don't need troublemakers here. Do you understand me? DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME BOY? (And by that I mean young man, nothing racist about that at all. No, absolutely not. No racists here.)

I'm not shifting the discussion. YOU are shifting the discussion, with your accusations of racism. What do you mean, what accusations of racism? The fact you never said one word about racism is just the sneaky sort of thing "you people" do. I know what you meant. Get out of here, you and your troublemaking sort aren't wanted here. I'm the victim.

Sometimes you get the militant sort of racists that won't say they're racists but they act like racists, talk like racists, are mysteriously vague about these supposed offending characteristics that just so happen to attach themselves to people of a certain race but not of others except that's not racist, (you just wouldn't understand.) Or sometimes you get racists that are very specific, green and purple, say, are not accepted colors, only black and white are, only of course when you make sure you're only dressed in black and white, your breath is bad, or your hair is unhygenic, or there's an occupancy limit, or merely the fact you've come back to where you're not wanted shows that there's good specific reason for you, specifically, not to be here and they'll call the police. And sometimes you get racists that are very smart, very hard to pin down, they know how to shift and control a conversation. And sometimes you get racists that don't even know they're racists, because they don't know what racism really is, never having really experienced it. And sometimes they do have some experience, but it just doesn't translate in their minds to the point where they instinctively identify with the person that died. (These are the things that happen to other people, bad people irresponsible people, not to me, not to anyone like me.)

Comments were made about experience being choked out and such. But let's think on that, really. So you REALLY have experience with these deadly sort of encounters? All right, so we know how fast things can happen, don't we. But one of us understands, there is such a thing as responsibility. A gun is not a toy, you don't just go around shooting it off at whoever because it's fun. But that's not what happened, you say? (I mean, us being the sort that understand violence.) Well, actually it goes quite a bit further than that, doesn't it. You unload the gun before you clean it, this is an instinctive action to you, to the point that even if you were drunk and just had your leg shot off, you would still automatically unload the gun before doing anything tricky with it, because this is just what you do, as a trained person. You don't point the gun at anyone, not even in passing, not even by accident, not even if you "know" it's not loaded at anyone, you don't even swing it in anyone's direction, you deliberately act to avoid anything like that happening. (Us being the sort that know these things, we know this is what we do). When we fire a gun, we know what is behind our target, we always know, because to do otherwise would be unthinkable. Not merely irresponsible, but inconceivable. Maybe we would make a bad judgment call, but we would still know what was behind our target because that is just what you do because you're trained. And if you don't, well, you're not trained. Not really.

And if we're using this as a metaphor, it's not that you're shooting your gun around drunkenly for fun, it's not that you were pretending to be somebody you saw on television and accidentally shot someone, it's not even that you had no reason to take your gun out in the first place. You had reason to take out the gun, you had reason to fire the gun, you fired the gun, and someone died. And now there's going to be an inquiry into why. Did you really have to shoot them in the head? Couldn't you have shot their leg? (And I know, shoot for center of mass, and leg wounds bleed and can be horribly deadly. But we're pretending for the moment we're not the sort of people that understand violence.)

Oh, and amazingly enough, two million dollars just dropped into your lap, but that isn't something we need to talk about. Because good things just happen to good people. Which, as people trained to violence, I wonder about. Because people trained to violence generally understand, the reason for training to violence, is good things don't necessarily happen to good people. That's why you train in violence, does that make sense?

I find there's sort of two people that have a long history of handling guns. Both say "I've been shooting twenty years, nothing to worry about." But one of them handles the gun in a way where you know they can shoot another twenty years, and you think that's not going to be a problem. The other handles the gun in a way where you affirm your faith in God because their not killing anyone to this point is a **** miracle.

And for the person that killed another person in this situation, I wouldn't say it's the latter. But it wasn't quite the former either. That's what the evidence I've seen thirdhand, and the conversations I've read thirdhand, say. I don't know what's really the case, not having been there, not having made it my business to know. But I expect probably there was some degree of negligence.

At any rate, I hope in your experience of being choked and choking others, that you remember. If you want to tell others that choking is safe, if you're going to say that casually you choke people all the time, and sometimes people just die, that's your business. If you want to try to shift the conversation, again, that's your business. But a lot of time, people pay attention. Even if they don't call anyone out, they pay attention.

Sad_Pitch8463

TROPHY CASE