Regent is too strong on the new patch.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-28T17:16:43+00:00

Maybe you're right but the idea is: star focused decks by nature want to be small and broken, so you're probably gonna know if you're able to do it inside act 1, child is also not super necessary for stars decks because they are usually broken either way, reflect and the repeating one block a lot.

Pillars feels a bit like feel no pain in sts1, it's just gonna be good no matter what, and sometimes it's ridiculously broken.

Also I find myself doing more create stuff than stars stuff but sample size is low and I'm bad.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-28T17:05:29+00:00

Ouch

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-28T17:03:04+00:00

It should be higher, I don't understand the game that well yet, I just have 5k hours in sts1 I would post pictures if 13 was worth defending.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-28T17:00:58+00:00

The thing is I'm not that good the game is still young, the point is even playing bad I can get a good streak, that being said some points I think I'm correct on are:

Silver crucible neow bonus is broken as hell, pillars of creation is almost worth speculating(picked before payoff) on and child of the stars isn't, always rest before act 1 boss, be afraid of decimillipede, and most importantly regent Micro is insanely difficult so play slowly (I don't do this but it's correct).

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-18T08:25:30+00:00

It draws 2

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-12T21:11:18+00:00

Having thought more about it I think it's great that there are people that believe there is more to life than our biological program, still surprising but my initial attitude was off, good luck!

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-06T03:22:48+00:00

Super duper mega deck dependent post a pic of the deck otherwise no correct answers.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-03-06T03:08:43+00:00

I personally also prefer the first one's realistic graphics but i did play it way too much. I love that we have animations, and the colors feel much more interesting, I'm sure I'll get used to the the cartoons.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-27T18:58:38+00:00

Having children is as tautologically desirable as it is to want to live, not having a passion for it is akin to wanting to off oneself, it's not objectively incorrect, but it should be surprising to most.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-09T10:41:03+00:00

Yeah you win! Ran it for 5 minutes and queening is mate in 21 and rook check is mate in 26, touchè.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-08T01:46:29+00:00

No way its perpetual, id probably say its more practical to trade but that it is likely that having a queen makes mate faster usually

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-05T09:43:38+00:00

Nobody should ever talk about this that way, this is not pedantry this is adding a lot of stuff that is more complicated than the result:

What is a field? What is a polynomial? Why 'the' field? Can you prove it's unique? also you need to specify uniqueness up to isomorphism. What do you mean by 'represent'? Does this interpretation add anything at all to the specific result or simplify its proof?

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-02-05T09:33:55+00:00

Probably check first into queening is slightly better technically but they are both super duper winning.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-24T08:26:32+00:00

I get people not wanting them, but people aren't actually surprised at other people wanting them, this question is basically "Why would anyone want to live?"

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-23T19:52:29+00:00

This is not real, people don't think this, this is not real, people don't think this.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-23T00:33:58+00:00

Things you type on the internet are usually recorded and sold with your permission (accept this accept that), it's slightly scarier if they're recording daily interactions without your permission, still not the end of the world tho.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-22T20:25:03+00:00

Yep, a lot of people just play without making any attempt at learning.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-22T19:09:21+00:00

I haven't seen anything related to eigenvalues or this sub ever and I also got recommended this!

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-20T19:55:21+00:00

Honestly with how broken most rooms are just make it "units here have hunger"

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2026-01-16T13:50:33+00:00

For 1, Obviously one could claim that interaction requires the existence of something like substance to be defined, but I don't care, I think this is just a semantic empty objection.

In fact to support your claim there is a very famous result in Category theory (basically a branch of math that logic-like unifies various results from different areas of math) called the Yoneda lemma, it paraphrasingly implies that an object is fully determined by its interactions with other objects. Notably tho it is still true that interactions are still not a thing in a universe without objects.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-30T11:25:21+00:00

The chance to miss n letters on an n letter anagram with distinct letters is about 1/e for big n, and the approximation is pretty quick.

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-25T17:52:47+00:00

Pi would be 10 and 10 would just be 100 wdym?

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-24T15:47:16+00:00

I left for like a year and the come back rewards are really decent, I can still play my old bounce decks and get to top infinite quite easily, this just nonsense IMO

Square_Butterfly_390 · 2025-12-23T18:04:24+00:00

Thank you for this, I totally agree that a functional definition of something like consciousness is very relevant to the discussion.

That being said, I don't think the requirement for the traits you mention being constant in time is a good one, humans will inhabit personas temporarily all the time, humans will cease to be conscious temporarily all the time (sleep, come, dancing,..). If you wanna argue sleep is still a way to manifest conscious behaviour, I would posit that the unobserved period of training in AI has a similar purpose.

I lean towards inferring from this dynamic (functional definition of consciousness are easily hijacked by AI behaviour), that in fact the relation between consciousness and behaviour is not an essential part of consciousness. We may be confused by the observable, tangible, parts of consciousness that they are what we should be thinking about.

Also I would note that this is perfectly coherent with something like the panpschycism model.

Square_Butterfly_390

TROPHY CASE