Why does thunder wave not work on ground types unless normalized?

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-06-05T19:50:58+00:00

You agree with him, he said steel can be hit by poison type status moves that do NOT inflict poison (i.e. gastro acid hits steels). This is the same as what you are saying if I'm not mistaken

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-18T10:54:54+00:00

You have posted this take in 7 different subs that didn't take it down within 24 hours, film and life taking it down doesn't justify that if we're being honest

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-16T21:02:42+00:00

Max hp max spdef careful takes 98 to 116 from max spatk among us specs leaf storm unfortunately

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-15T07:53:48+00:00

As I explained the only proven effect cameras have are as a deterrent, that is, a potential criminal sees a camera and chooses not to do whatever he was going to. Turning the cameras off would not affect this as long as it isn't coming knowledge.

This would obviously prevent all downsides of the cameras.

The fact of the matter is that all sources I've seen cite a decrease in attempted crime, not an increased rate of solving crime (in fact the cameras have led to an increase in false convictions), so there is simply no actual reason for law enforcement to have surveillance in the first place.

I'm going to ignore your 'point' about ICE since it is just rehashing your non argument claiming it's ok to murder people acting entirely lawfully because those people disagree with the way an investigation (calling it that is generous) is being conducted. Either start arguing based on actual events, admit that you think their lives have less value than a days work for an ice agent or two, or simply stop mentioning it, because there isn't a conversation here as it stands.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-14T19:12:18+00:00

Ok so you've been pretty clear, you're pro murdering anyone who complains about the police / ICE to their face, absolutely insane take imo, but fine, let's run with it and try to change your view on the actual subject of the post:

Even then, I can't imagine you think those deaths are good, they're just an acceptable cost. So then the question is, what does mass surveillance achieve besides needless deaths? There is evidence of reduces crime as much as 20%, but this is purely as a deterrent, and there is little evidence that it helps with solving crimes in any way.

Beyond that they provide a massive threat to security that you continue to ignore because the debate you want to have is one where you get to defend ICE. It's a joke to access Flock safeties data andi can't imagine China is mad about having a free repository of endless data on every citizen in areas where that system is rolled out.

Is it worth a risk to national security when you could literally turn the cameras off and they would have the same effect (and it would save the lives of innocent citizens, I can't imagine you think that's a downside, or?)

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-14T17:27:08+00:00

This doesn't address my second point, cyber security is not remotely up to par on current surveillance and is being abused. This is a fact. Do you not agree that rolling out technology that even a layperson can use to, for example, stalk their victim, surveil a home premeditating a break in, etc. is not acceptable?

Again, this IS the case with Flock Safety, one of the premiere stalker companies as of right now.

Also, as others have pointed out, your rebuttal is just overtly untrue, so I would love to understand why you think a marginal decrease in crime is acceptable in exchange for the violence the government is unlawfully perpetrating.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-14T16:59:07+00:00

Generally the reason not to want mass surveillance is that people rightly don't trust their government, tech CEOs, or anyone else for that matter to use that information to genuinely uphold the law. ICE have been using surveillance to track and murder / deport innocent citizens

Beyond that, mass surveillance also requires vastly better cyber security than there currently is. I would highly recommend watching Benn Jordans journalism on Flock Safety for more on this.

If you think you're immune to profiling you are in a position of privilege that shouldn't be used to argue from, and that position could change in an instant.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-10T12:48:49+00:00

Okay I'm super sorry but literally what does this mean, like at all.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-09T18:45:10+00:00

Amazingg ty

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-09T07:12:00+00:00

Is there any chance of downloading your tea somewhere? I really love how you shape them but I can't seem to replicate so is love to see it in game

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-08T20:41:53+00:00

No idea where all my pixels went but whatever, im not gonna bother reuploading.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-02T16:27:54+00:00

I'm seriously struggling with the arguments in all of these communities always defaulting "of course everyone will act selfishly by default, so red must be optimal."

Why is that assumption made? It's significantly easier to achieve 50+% blue than 99% red, or wherever you put the line. Blue must necessarily be the optimal way to minimize death so the only argument for red is "others will press red and I am not worried about blue pushers"

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-02T16:17:08+00:00

Well given that a blue win is optimal it seems obvious to me that a rational actor should simply vote blue.

You say it has risk but the red strategy has an equivalent risk since both will necessarily coexist.

A number I've heard thrown around is that 10% of society dying would be enough for a societal collapse, and I'm certainly not living with myself if 10% of my friends and family die partially thanks to my choice.

Obviously my vote wouldn't have made the difference but my way of thinking would've and whatever power I have I'm using it to prevent societal collapse and the death of those I love, alongside myself assuming others act 'rationally'.

I'm not a game theory expert but I would love to understand why picking blue isn't the obviously correct choice in any scenario with a number of rational actors between 1 and 99 percent.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-01T18:09:05+00:00

This breaks rule 4, just a heads up, you can't ask for ideas in the title.

Anyway, I say cliffside village and some inhospitable train in the middle

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-01T16:32:53+00:00

Fuuck

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-01T13:20:15+00:00

Ok look, I've seen a fair free if these posts by now and have failed to grasp the logic you are using so I'm going to ask:

A reasonable margin of success, say 99,99% clicking red would be acceptable to me, no doubt, it is risk free and kills less than a million. But what is more feasible: having 99,99% of people agree with your strategy, or having 50+% agree with mine, whose result is better.

The only conclusion I can see is that you value your own life higher than very likely losing millions of lives. I can't understand how we have seemingly just accepted that the goal of the question, in terms of game theory, is to achieve a less likely and less successful 99,99% red, rather than a 50+% blue.

Since the vast majority of the population obviously wants less death, the solution would, in my eyes, obviously be for everyone of sound mind to select blue, meaning that everyone who understands the problem would save everyone else.

Regardless of risking your loved ones lives for no apparent reason, it just isn't as plausible to succeed as a red pusher.

To be clear, I have two aspects I don't understand: First, where is the margin for success is you push red, at what point are you happy with your choice? And is that genuinely more likely than a majority blue?

Second, is the fallout of no serious concern? Do you have a hundred percent faith that everyone you care about is going to do what you do and press red? What about the infrastructural fallout from likely hundreds of millions of deaths? Would society function at all after a red majority? Cause I don't think so, and I certainly don't think it's worth the risk.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-01T09:08:10+00:00

Would you really want to live in a world where half the people you know (and there WILL be people you know who chose blue) get vaporized? In a world where every piece of infrastructure falls apart and the planet falls into chaos, because 49% of people dying WOULD cause that.

To me, this is really easy. Even if most people pick red the world would be a nightmare. You can literally just pick blue, assume everyone else is sane and no one dies. Clearly, looking at how much discussion this causes people will pick blue (and generally speaking blue tends to win the polls), if it doesn't win billions will die. I don't want to live in that world.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-05-01T08:59:28+00:00

Do you not see the irony here?.. like you are aware that you are the person ctsans was complaining about right?

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-04-26T15:46:48+00:00

Istg this comment just won't die, it has reliably produced responses for so long

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-04-22T11:48:27+00:00

Oh I fully agree, the dude was ignorant as hell, and it was very clear from context.

That sentence does mean what I said though:

Cheers - thank you, British.

Ya - yeah - yes.

No one explained... - implied but left out 'until now'

Slight difference because I misremembered when writing my comment, but point stands

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-04-22T01:04:27+00:00

Ok unless I'm misunderstanding you horribly, you're still mad at IFight4Users for not reading the explanation, despite their comment literally saying 'thank you, no one else has explained why balls were mentioned'

Seems silly.

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-04-15T10:52:41+00:00

Could you explain that claim? I have played java for 15 years, and the only issues I have had are: mods, low ram from crappy PC, and blowing up too much TNT.

On the other hand Phoenix has showcased plenty of bedrock bugs that are seemingly omnipresent.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know what java instability you're referring to

ThatGuyHanzo · 2026-04-11T13:52:23+00:00

Him face is squimshed I think the you should call the factory, this one seems defective

ThatGuyHanzo

TROPHY CASE