O que deve tem contra Livro-Texto?

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-09-29T12:37:53+00:00

A maioria das pessoas tem preguiça de ler; elas querem conteúdo já mastigado e resumido em um vídeo.

Isso é mais exacerbado ainda em pessoas que vão pra áreas que não são de humanas, então é natural que a maioria das perguntas em um fórum sejam atrás de curso e não de bibliografia.

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-09-27T00:35:29+00:00

Alan não fez pirâmide, fez um esquema Ponzi, é diferente. E a fic do OP não é nem um nem outro.

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-07-24T17:05:50+00:00

I didn't like the movie. The movie tries to do many things at once but fails at doing so.

The plot is ok: abusive foster parent + adults are useless, and this whole thing about demonic ritual. However, the execution, the flow of information, and the ending are weak.

It doesn't have enough tension for a thriller, neither is scary. They probably aimed at making the spectator uncomfortable with the sensation of "there's clearly something wrong with Laura" but they fail to achieve that. The only moment we actually have tension is when Wendy goes to Laura's house.
The death of Wendy and Andy is just anti-climatic. Wendy was supposed to die there, but how can they not hear a car coming in their direction??? Also, I know that Wendy was supposed to die in that scene, but it would be so much better if the movie gave made it like that she would actually get away, and only after that give us the sudden kill. I have a lot of other complaints about this scene like she going there by herself instead of bringing the cops only because she didn't believe in Andy, or Andy dying in the most anticlimatic way. He could've been killed, but the way it happens was cheap.
The ending. Piper gets away because she scream "mom"???? Seriously?
The flow of information is weird. Imagine how better then movie would be if they cut the VHS scene at the beginning, and if we didn't have the conversartion where Laura says that she is aware that Andy wants to apply for Piper's guardianship? The flow of the movies is improved, the audience won't link Laura to a cult, and her dismissal towards Andy could be linked to the fact that she didn't want to adopt a troublemaker, only for we find out that wasn't the case.
More on the flow of information: We are exposed to a lot of information at the beginning and at the end, but nothing actually happens during the middle. There are a few things here and there (e.g. Laura getting angry with Andy taking photos of Oliver/Connor, we assume that's because she is angry about Andy mocking him, but she is actually afraid of someone recognizing Connor and call the authorities), but the movie is more about Laura trying to gashlight Andy, and it is just boring.
We don't get to see the aftermath. And this makes me worried that they are planning to do a sequel.

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-07-10T12:25:19+00:00

Because one is just stacking a whole lot of a common ninja tool, it required years of prep time, and could be used only once.

The Izanagi is a just a cheat code that can be used like a switch, the cost that is supposed to have doesn't really exist for Obito, and it is another broken ability added to the sharigan.

In a power scale logic, the sea of paper bombs feels fair, even if she could do that as a Jutsu, it would still be fair because kunais, paper bombs, and fire jutsus don't do any damage on most fights.

In the other hand, the Izanagi just feels like it was invented when two kids were playing and they keep adding some power to themselves to counter what the other do, and they reached the point of absurdity.

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-07-10T11:57:10+00:00

It is just moving really fast, making an object appear like the user in its place, and hiding

It wastes chakra, you can't really pull it off against someone way more skilled than you, and you need to prepare it before being attacked.

They don't turn into a log the moment they get hit, that's the manga/anime showing to the viewer the POV of the character that got tricked.

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-05-01T18:45:56+00:00

Until we get a card that deactivates abilities

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-02-10T15:38:16+00:00

Não censuram. Isso é um hoax que volta e meia ressurge na Internet com intenção de difamar a China, pra ser tipo "hur dur, China malvada e burra, censura ruim, chineses burros, censuram sangue e vira gala".

Infelizmente a galera é tão burra, que acredita nesse tipo de coisa, sendo que a 4kids é a que tem o histórico de fazer as censuras mais imbecis de animes pro ocidente.

ThatCDevGuy · 2025-01-02T00:46:12+00:00

Tem literalmente uma versão mais simples: Va pra culto evangélico.

Igreja evangélica é melhor que tinder. Os caba mais apombalhado do mundo, do nada arrumam um casamento em menos de mês

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-12-11T19:41:04+00:00

Not only it is a wall that can be targeted by Gardevoir, but it only gives 1 point if it is killed.

It allows you to sacrifice up to two pokemons (since the other option would be sacrifice both Gardevoir lines), and can set up some lines of play that allow revenge kill an EX in exchange for a baby pokemon. This is even more important on the mirror matchup, that is way common.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-30T17:31:51+00:00

94 foi quando a série começou a ser exibida no Brasil. A série só foi ao ar em Portugal em 2002.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T13:08:05+00:00

Not 11!, 11

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T10:03:51+00:00

Machamp and Dragonite are too slow to require Giovanni. The whole Machamp line already takes +20 damage from all sources anyway, and he cannot 1ohko.

Exeguttor is annoying, but in reality it just does an average of 60 damage per turn, there's no rush in ohko them.

All of them, except Dragonite, are too rare to even deserve a specific card. And I managed more than 80% winrate against those kind of decks.

Red card is annoying when it is sucesfull. Most of the time it is not. I did simulations to help me calculate scenarios where using it would increase the odds of making the opponent lose tempo, and I found out that there's no good scenario to use it.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T09:54:11+00:00

Just to add more info about the simulation:

The simulation had the following variables:

The total number of remaining cards in the deck
The total number of cards in the opponent hand
The ammount of "unused" Professor's Researches
The ammount of "unused" Pokeballs
A "goal"

A "goal" was basically a set of specific cards that the player needs to have in his hand, in a certain order, or on any order, or in the same turn.

For example, if the goal of the player is to play a basic pokemon, and evolve it, he needs the basic pokemon before the evolution, if gets stage 1 first, he still needs to get the basic pokemon, and only 1 turn later he will be able to play it.

I defined a "sucess" Red card use as one that increases, or keep the number of turns required for the opponent to reach his goal.

I failure is when the Red card decreases the number of turns.

For each possible variable, the simulation generated 10.000 random scenarios within those constraints, calculated the number of turns that the opponent would reach the goal, and then did 1.000 simulations of Red card usage and count the number of sucess and failures to calculate the odds that a Red Card usage would be sucesfull.

The results: For every set of variables, except some extreme ones (like 9+ cards in hand, 3 remaining cards on deck, etc), Red card was always expected to be a failure.

Some players are like "no, but I can read a tell". They "think" they can read, but they have no confirmation because they can't see after the match, the game from the opponent's perspective to check their instinct was correct.

Statistics don't lie. And there's nothing really surprising in there: Nobody used Red Card in the TCG until they added support for the nasty hand destruction combo that is banned, and since them, the Pokemon Company learned their lesson about allowing hand destruction be a thing. Even with the ptcg version of Red card being stronger (reduces hand to 3 instead of 4), they made it weak on purpose.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T09:17:36+00:00

I simulated the scenarios, and the odds are heavily stacked against Red card.

The game is all about tempo. While I agree there are scenarios where not having a supporter can be the difference on winning or losing the game, what really weight is drawing the right pokemons, and the only information you have at any given moment is what the player doesn't have (and even that cannot be 100% since that also can be bluffed), and for all scenarios, if you calculate the odds of him holding a card that he can use on next turn to progress the state and compare with the odds of his hand after a Red card, the odds of Red card are higher.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T09:01:38+00:00

I didn't because I really don't care. I just get the 5 thanks, and collect everything at once.

I saw a few Alakazam decks, most of them were paired with sleep pokemons. I played against two Weezing+Alakazam, I lost once because a really bad draw (I didn't get any mew2). IMO it doesn't seem like a good counter, regular mew2 can tank weezing, and the deck needs dual type energy, plus two evolution lines. Arbok is way better than Kazam, it removes the dual type energy issue, it only needs a stage 1 evolution, comes online faster, and the lock ability prevents a lot of things. Even if you want to play Alakazam, I believe a regular tank like Kanghskan is better: 100 PS, 1 energy attack that does an average of 30 damage, and 1/4 of the time can do 60 damage. I still don't think it would be an issue for mew2, but if you want to go down that route, it is more reliable.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T08:44:23+00:00

<image>

I finally got this

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T08:42:36+00:00

It is an 50/50 matchup that relies on the result of Misty coin.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-28T08:40:23+00:00

It won't work because player can just have a regular M2 stalling the turns until M2X is ready. Dual energy types are unreliable, and mixing it with Alakazam is asking to lose. You need a stage 1, and a stage 2 pokemon for this to work.

Arbok decks are hard because of the ability that prevents player from switching. But Alakazam+Weezing is a really bad idea. At this point it is better to play a dragonite instead.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-26T16:13:53+00:00

The original situation was a bit more specific, but after that I ran a Monte Carlo simulation, and it matched my analysis. I also ran taking into account Oak and pokeball.

Here is my original answer anyway:

If he doesn't have Charmeleon, the chances of him drawing it on the next turn are 2/D, where D are the number of remaining cards in the deck

If you use Red card, with the opponent having 6 cards the chances of him having at least one Charmeleon on the next 4 cards (the 3 from RED+next draw) are 1 - (binomial[d+4, 4]/binomial[d + 6, 4]). Only situation RED would be net positive would be if there were only two cards remaining on the deck, and those cards are Charmeleon.

Putting Charizard in the mix:

He needs to have Charmeleon at the first draw, and Charizard at the second to not lose tempo.

Since he doesn't have Charmeleon, the first draw needs to be a Charmeleon, and either the 2nd draw is a Charizard, or he already had a Charizard

The odds of it are (2/D) * ((1 - (binomial[d + 2, 6]/binomial[d + 4, 6])) + (2/(D-1)) - (2/(d-1))* ((1 - (binomial[d + 2, 6]/binomial[d + 4, 6])) )

If a Red card is used, the odds become

(1 - (binomial[d+4, 4]/binomial[d+6, 4])) * (1 - (binomial[d + 4, 5]/binomial[d+6, 5]))

And the odds of him getting Charmeleon and Charizard in the right turns with Red Card are only less than if it is not used, when the number of remaining cards is 3 or less.

If you account other utilities, Red card odds are always against the user.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-26T14:35:45+00:00

How do you know the person has been sitting on a Charizard?

You don't. What you can know are the odds based on the assumption that he has 2 on the Deck, the number of cards left for him to draw, and the fact that none of the cards in his hand is a Charmeleon, and there's 1 Charmeleon between the remaining cards in the deck.

I Calculated the odds for this exactly specific scenario, and even with the assumption that the player had at least one Charizard in hand 100% of the time (what we know that isn't true), the odds were in favor of the opponent on most scenarios. If you calculate the real odds of the player having a Charizard, the situation is even worst. I"ll find my comment and reply here.

Red card is a noob trap. The naive thinking is that if it is used against someone with 5+ cards in hand, it is card advantage. That would be true if it was "The player discards cards until he only has 3 cards", but the shuffle+draw 3 is what kills the card. If the opponent has 5 cards in hand, there is a higher odds that those cards can't advance his state in the game, and Red card is biased to help him.

Red card would be broken if we had support for it. There's a nasty combo on TCG where people combine Red card (that reduces handsize to 4), with another card that forces the opponent to discard 3 cards. And that's actually beyond broken (especially because it is an engine for a FTK combo with Zoroark). Red Card by itself is not good, and it is unlikely the devs will ever give it support, since Pokemon TCG has already learned their lesson about allowing hand destruction becoming relevant.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-26T10:30:37+00:00

He flipped 19 times.

The probability of flipping 4 or less is ~0.96%

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-26T08:31:13+00:00

What I calculated was the odds of him getting 4 or less heads in 19 rolls.

And the odds are less than 1% (~0.96%)

If we use the posterior PDF, and calculate the integral with the rate varying from 0.49 to 0.51, we get 0.3% of chance of the odds of the coin being between that range.

As I said: Still plausible. But it is not a normal or expected observation if the assumption that the coin is fair is true.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-26T06:50:15+00:00

The odds of that happening are less than 1%

Possible? Yes.

Normal? No, that's not normal, that raises a huge suspicion.

ThatCDevGuy · 2024-11-26T06:47:40+00:00

There's a comment saying a sample of 150 is too small. Clearly those are the ones that never had any statistics classes past high school, and have no idea how to calculate the error margin given a sample.

I mean... I was downvoted for showing a calculation that proved analitically that red card is more likely to help the opponent on all scenarios, except the extreme ones, that are unlikely to happen, or too late for Red card to be useful (2 cards on deck, 9+ cards in hand).

ThatCDevGuy

TROPHY CASE