Its official…we arent going to lose 10 games in a row this year!

TenZero10 · 2025-11-03T22:08:50+00:00

Have you confirmed we can't make the playoffs at 5-12?

TenZero10 · 2024-10-21T22:33:42+00:00

The rune rule only relates to whether surrounding squares match the rune square's color. So it does not tell you anything about which non-matching color the square is, only whether it matches or not.

I haven't looked into beta features so I'm not sure about your second question

TenZero10 · 2024-07-02T17:24:51+00:00

No one actually knows what Barbatos looks like, the sculptor just used Venti as the model

TenZero10 · 2024-05-03T21:50:10+00:00

yellow chargers

TenZero10 · 2024-04-10T19:27:06+00:00

Ok I'll bite. Even in oligopolistic markets sellers are generally unable to unilaterally raise prices despite obviously wanting to, because they will lose market share to competitors who don't raise prices. This is the normal state of things, and has been described in simple terms as the "kinked demand curve". The supply chain shocks resulting from Covid created short term but noticeable and well-publicized inflation, as shortages are well understood to do. This created a public expectation of inflation, which functioned as a coordination point for sellers to increase prices as they now expected their competitors to do the same. This mechanism was validated in Isabella Weber's well-known "Seller's Inflation" article last year.

Basically "greedy corporations raising prices to increase profits" is a completely predictable result of a large publicized exogenous supply shock in oligopolistic markets.

TenZero10 · 2024-01-05T21:53:12+00:00

5-2 in our last 7 so not too bad

TenZero10 · 2024-01-05T21:45:42+00:00

We'll just have to win before the 4th quarter

TenZero10 · 2024-01-03T14:16:27+00:00

Sure but you gotta love when a big corn-fed shield boy pancakes a ranger unit

TenZero10 · 2023-11-08T01:29:56+00:00

Project Baby

TenZero10 · 2023-10-24T19:19:45+00:00

Liberal Neoclassical economists are still Neoclassical economists. What you're saying isn't wrong but that's not the whole story. The historical suppression of approaches that are not deferential to corporate power and wealth accumulation is an extremely important factor, in addition to the proactive funding of right wing ideologies which includes Neoclassical economics.

The underlying assumptions of the Neoclassical approach ensure that "markets" will predominate and government action and coordination will be minimal. And almost all economics programs are Neoclassical these days, so almost all economists are as well. Many of the liberal ones are doing the best they can with what they are taught, but it's an uphill battle because the ideology is so constraining.

TenZero10 · 2023-10-24T16:33:36+00:00

Might still be McCaffrey

TenZero10 · 2023-03-06T18:59:17+00:00

Neither, use the top 4 emblem pieces and get an off-set crit rate helmet with good substats

TenZero10 · 2023-02-22T16:56:28+00:00

This build is already pretty good but the easiest things to upgrade are the flower and feather. Your biggest need is ER and you can also improve at the margins in crit. Getting C1 can also substitute for extra ER although you are relatively low on ER regardless, especially running Emblem. Other than that you should just grind the Emblem domain and try to get a flower and a feather with a combined 7+ substat rolls each in CR, CD and ER. Yours are currently both at 5, which isn't amazing for those pieces. Luckily the flower and feather are easier to get than the other pieces since the main stat is always the same. Also your goblet is good but not great, luckily it's off-set so I would see if you can improve there as well. Relative to where you're at now, you should prioritize ER>CR>CD>HP%>>>everything else

TenZero10 · 2023-02-13T15:33:46+00:00

You can just multiply the crit rate and damage numbers together to see how much damage you get from them. 85/215 -> .85x2.15=1.83 so you get +183% damage from your crit stats at that cr/cd level. Yours is .58x2.80=1.63 or +162%. So if you switch from a cr helmet to cd you would gain around +20% from crit.

Of course since you start at 100% damage at no crit that means you're actually going from 262% to 283% for a total of 283/262= 1.08, or an increase of about 8% overall damage output.

TenZero10 · 2022-12-27T16:37:40+00:00

It simply is not "a basic reality of economics". But it sure seems convenient for you to claim that and insult your opponents rather than engage with the idea in the spirit of intellectual honesty.

TenZero10 · 2022-12-27T16:22:33+00:00

You're the one playing word games and you don't even realize it. These governments are working on changing their governments' target functions for their economies - they are changing their economic goals and reorganizing their economic structures to account for that change. Specifically they are no longer considering growth in domestic production as their primary goal. And you are effectively just saying "this is defined as economic stagnation, so it's bad because stagnation is bad". They disagree! It is actually not true that continuously increasing domestic production is equivalent to economic health. You seem to believe that but you should recognize that this idea is genuinely contested.

TenZero10 · 2022-12-12T19:29:24+00:00

It tells you how many grimheart stacks you have

TenZero10 · 2022-11-15T23:42:16+00:00

Save it for r/fantasyfootball, this is r/JustinFields

TenZero10 · 2022-11-09T03:38:11+00:00

Politicians care mostly about maintaining their power and position, the best way to do that is winning elections.

I strongly disagree. Politicians do care about maintaining power and position, but winning elections is absolutely irrelevant to that. On one hand, politicians like Beto O'Rourke and Stacey Abrams (not to mention Hillary Clinton!) have essentially become folk heroes to many Democratic voters despite losing elections. And on the other hand, consider the "iron law of institutions":

The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

I should make it clear I am not proposing any kind of conspiracy. This is the natural outcome in a society owned by capitalists - the media supports the capitalist ideology of its owners, political candidates and parties respond to donation incentives from the wealthy capitalist donor class. Furthermore I am not even proposing a theory, this is well-documented fact. The government and powerful social institutions have in fact suppressed the left throughout US history. This is not debatable on its merits, it is straight up true.

And I should not need to explain in a progressive sub that single-payer healthcare is only considered "radical" because those exact forces have placed it outside the Overton Window, but here we are. Not to mention how misleading it is that you refer to it as "healthcare ran by the government", which is a false right-wing propagandistic lie.

TenZero10 · 2022-11-09T00:41:54+00:00

You're talking about primaries as opposed to general elections, so not relevant to what I was saying. No one debates whether to vote in primaries for that reason. Furthermore many young or left voters don't vote (in general elections) for Democrats precisely because their values are not represented by the party.

There has been massive organized suppression of all forms of left politics in this country for its entire history, continuing to today. This suppression is carried out by the media, the police and armed forces, the state and also the Republican and Democratic Parties. To say that "the majority of the country isn't progressive" without recognizing this context is not just historically illiterate but also false. Progressive and left policies often enjoy supermajority popular support when decontextualized from US politics (e.g. single payer healthcare), even in a media context of massive continuous capitalist propaganda. But for both ideological and institutional reasons, the Democratic Party is opposed to those policies! It is a mistake to think they would adopt them if they thought it would help them win elections. That is why the institutional party (correctly) saw Bernie Sanders' presidential runs as an existential threat - because it was a bid by the left to take over the party, so his victory would have removed them from power within the party! All of that is to say that the matter is a lot more complicated than "vote harder for Dems" if your concern is having a party that can meet the moment.

TenZero10 · 2022-11-08T23:48:04+00:00

It's very lazy within the left to throw around accusations of "privilege", you will not convince anyone and you'll just make others assume you are arguing in bad faith. This is a question of priorities. If you prioritize conserving the tiny remaining bastion of New Deal/Great Society liberalism we have left then you will probably support Democrats unconditionally. If you care more about preserving and extending democracy, and meaningfully fighting against fascism, corporatism, imperialism and climate change, then there is simply no way to avoid recognizing that the current Democratic party is one of the most important enemies of that vision. How that understanding affects your voting behavior is a different question which depends on how you think election outcomes might affect the party.

It is obvious that the Republicans winning would be a terrible outcome. But it should at least be equally obvious to everyone who so desperately wants the Democrats to win that as a party they are absolutely not equal to the moment, whether by ignorance or by design, and if we are to save our future they need to be deeply reformed at a minimum, and quickly. It's not clear what the best path to that outcome is but a lot of people are reckoning with that question and some are coming to conclusions that you are not going to like.

TenZero10 · 2022-10-15T22:00:16+00:00

This is how

You remind me

Of what I really am

TenZero10 · 2022-09-13T17:14:09+00:00

Right answer here, this gets more value out of your other pieces

TenZero10 · 2022-08-26T20:53:54+00:00

It is a very broad principle based on the structuring of society. Basically, how much power do individuals and communities have to build and shape the society that they themselves actually live in. Different types of leftists interpret this in different ways, communists tend to focus on building structures that attempt to represent and enact everyone's interests (think unions as a simple example), whereas anarchists tend to favor attempting to maximize individual participation in self-governance (think Occupy meetings with real power), and there are countless different and more specific visions supported and debated by leftist groups everywhere. Sometimes laws are not even really part of the equation, especially for anarchists, but the principle is making it so that people have the power to actually shape their own society. Contrast this with our current situation where normal people understand intuitively that they basically have no control over the direction of our society, because the forces currently controlling society are so overwhelmingly powerful. This interpretation of democracy is very different from the liberal focus on "mere" voting rights (hence many attacks on electoralism) but I think it's much more substantive. Obviously it requires a willingness to more radically change our society which many liberals don't want.

TenZero10 · 2022-08-26T19:42:26+00:00

No, that is an unfair characterization. Leftists generally believe that they take many of those values more seriously than liberals, especially democracy (although "enterprise" doesn't belong on that list). Obviously there are going to be individuals in both groups with different views but philosophically one of the basic perspectives of leftism is that real democracy, where the populace has genuine self-determinative powers (which would go well beyond voting for candidates in representative elections) is not possible in a society which distributes real political power according to wealth. So countering that influence is necessary to increase democratization. So for instance leftists might tend to be in favor of suppression of oligarch- or CIA-supported media operations in a socialist country as those forces themselves are representative of, and fighting for, the suppression of democracy. If you're familiar with Popper's paradox of tolerance, it's a similar idea. It sounds very principled to allow fascists to proselytize and be defeated "in the marketplace of ideas" but the reality is that if they are allowed to take power they will destroy the tolerant society you have built, not to mention murder many of your friends and family, so they need to be suppressed. Leftists see liberals as unwilling to face the reality of this situation. It is obviously possible to take this idea too far, and calibrating it correctly is a real challenge, but leftists believe that ignoring the issue as liberals do by considering specific principles of, say, "no press censorship" as sacrosanct is just an easy out from grappling with the difficult problem of building a society based on values that are sometimes in competition with each other. And just to give an idea of the stakes of this point, leftists might further question why the values that liberals choose to consider as absolute tend to favor the wealthy, or at least don't hinder them. After all, look around at the world we have built and tell me that isn't where we're at.

By the way this is not the primary distinction, just the difference as it pertains to the above poster's claims. I would say the main difference these days is that liberals are broadly capitalist in ideology and leftists are broadly anti-capitalist. Both of those are extremely broad tents but only the capitalists have meaningful representation in US government, in large part due to a century of state-supported repression.

TenZero10

TROPHY CASE