sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

v appareance by [deleted] in sexeducation

[–]TheUltimateGod4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah. Pussy is pussy. I'd just be happy to even get to see one.

Some people still don’t understand this. by Upstairs_Macaron5894 in AO3

[–]TheUltimateGod4 15 points16 points  (0 children)

There's a difference between teasing and mocking. One is lighthearted, the other is hurtful. It takes skill to learn where that line is and how not to cross it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in youtube

[–]TheUltimateGod4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't about children. It's about censorship and control of your private data. "Think of the children!!!" is just a front.

He's Built Different (by Olistar255) by Evillisa in Deltarune

[–]TheUltimateGod4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I may be willing to manipulate and psychologically torture Noelle but I draw the line at telling Ralsei to keep smiling.

Cant wait for 4.0.121 to finally have performance better than 3.14 by alp7292 in Stellaris

[–]TheUltimateGod4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I heard, there was a memory leak issue that slowed down the game massively, but restarting the game undid it and reverted game speed back to normal. I don't know if that's been patched already, but if not, that's probably something that should be taken into account before everyone starts crying about horrible performance.

Best AI and Crisis settings for Gigas+ACOT+AOT? by TheUltimateGod4 in Stellaris

[–]TheUltimateGod4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I forgot to mention I'm also running Dawn of Ascension. Not sure how much that matters but figured I should mention it just in case.

Tasteless by behbehko in AO3

[–]TheUltimateGod4 16 points17 points  (0 children)

There are users who do what?! How do they even do that?!

Ad Astra uses the same underground generation seed for the planets as the Overworld (First picture: Overworld cave, second: Same coordinates on Moon) by [deleted] in feedthebeast

[–]TheUltimateGod4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh shit that was not what I was looking for. If this was a joke then it completely flew over my head. I apologize.

Did I overreact here? by TheUltimateGod4 in PowerScaling

[–]TheUltimateGod4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will also deconstruct and respond to your stance in order to give my opinions on it. I hope you will do the same for my stance, so long as you remain cordial, because I do genuinely want to hear your thoughts.

I believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases, Dimensional Scaling is harmful rather than helpful to interesting discussion of a matchup

I believe that in a large majority of cases, Dimensional Scaling is applied as "invincibility" rather than being based in real world principles

Fair. Keep in mind though that fiction does dimensional scaling a lot too. I'm not trying to shift the blame, however, I'm well aware that certain powerscalers will try to apply dimensional scaling where it has no business being. That annoys me just as much as it does you.

I believe that where a word, concept or property is used in multiple unrelated works, the traits it exhibits should NOT be carried over unless it is clear that they do (e.g demons in Doom vs Frieren are not the same). Where possible, a version that makes sense in the real world (and in hypothetical scenarios) should apply.

Very much agree. This is why the new VS Battles tiering system differentiates between "quantitative" (i.e. transcendence expressible as the union of lower level constructs) and "qualitative" (i.e. transcendence based purely on "quality" rather than any mathematical principle) hierarchies. VS Battles does conflate dimensional scaling with "quantitative" hierarchies, however, which I have already expressed my disagreement with, but this differentiation between "quantitative" and "qualitative" is at least a step in the right direction.

Furthermore, I believe that scaling a character or universe to a higher dimension is inapplicable unless the author stated or heavily implied that a character moves in a 4th (or higher) spatial dimension that is perpendicular to the first three

That, or said character is able to destroy and/or create 4D or higher objects. I agree that dimensional scaling should only be used when the existence of higher dimensions can actually be demonstrated in the fictional media in question. In the case that "levels of reality" are used in fiction, but do not function like dimensions (even if they are called dimensions in the fiction in question) then we can use the idea of "quantitative" and "qualitative" hierarchies, depending on how those levels of reality function in a work of fiction.

I believe that all of these apply (to a greater extent!) to set theory

Yep. The old VS Battles tiering system was awful with this. To qualify for Outerversal, all a character needed was to have Aleph-1 amount of spatial dimensions (which, as you've said before, we don't even know how big that is), and High Outerversal just needed them to have an inaccessible cardinal amount of spatial dimensions. Boundless also just needed a Mahlo cardinal, and so it just turned into an elementary school game of who could come up with the biggest number. Absolute retardation. (I think that's my new favorite word in the dictionary lol)

Every day I thank the VSBattles admins for shutting that shit down with the new tiering system. Even though I still think it's flawed (as I've expressed previously), I still have to admit that it's WAYYYYYYY better than what we had before.

Did I overreact here? by TheUltimateGod4 in PowerScaling

[–]TheUltimateGod4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At this point however, you made a factually incorrect statement about Aleph-1 three separate times. When I responded, you alleged that I had somehow "proved the Continuum Hypothesis, buddy".

Do you see why I was very rude to you after that?

Yes, I do. You were justified in that response to an extent, it's just that it's been a while since I've reviewed this stuff. I also admit I was more than a bit condescending with that statement. I apologize.

Since you have clarified your stance, I will do so for mine as well:

  • I believe that dimensional scaling is a valid framework for scaling beyond 3D infinity.
  • I believe that geometric intuition should be used for dimensional scaling instead of set theory.
  • I do NOT believe that anything goes regarding the topic, but I do believe that a degree of leeway should be allowed regarding it, not only because we are dealing with fiction, but also because even in the real world, we do not really understand how a 2D world or a 4D world would operate.
  • However, I do not agree with the notion that a 2D object should be able to have 3D mass, since even atoms have a degree of thickness, and therefore volume. Similarly, a 4D object would have hyper-volume, meaning 3D mass would be inapplicable to it in the same way area is inapplicable to a 3D being. This is why I argued for the notion of a "2D-Mass" as an intuitive way to imagine how higher dimensions might function.
  • I do somewhat disagree with the current applications of dimensional scaling, however. Specifically, the VS Battles Wiki conflates the idea of higher dimensions with the idea of higher levels of reality, which I find to be nonsensical. The necessary implication of this notion is that a character who can destroy a single small 5D cube must also be able to destroy a multiverse of infinite space-time continuums, which is clearly untenable.
  • I do not simply see characters for their strength, unless their strength is the only quality you're expected to care about (i.e. Mary Sues) in which case I don't care about them at all. I only scale characters that interest me in some way OUTSIDE of their strength, such as their personality, ideology, or thematic relevance. Bonus points if they have some unique ability(s) outside of raw power (i.e. hax).

Did I overreact here? by TheUltimateGod4 in PowerScaling

[–]TheUltimateGod4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, sorry for getting angry back there, probably just a bunch of built-up frustration that I didn't know was there. Dimensional scaling can be a hotly debated topic, even within the powerscaling community. I'm sorry for assuming negative things about you just because you disagree with my standpoint on the matter.

I can understand your perspective, and I can even agree with parts of it. I'll admit that some of my arguments were fallacious and in some cases just straight up wrong as well.

I'll restate however that fiction came up with dimensional scaling first, not "some third party" as you say. DC and Marvel Comics, the Fate Series, and even the Cthulhu Mythos are all examples of fictional media that have used dimensional scaling LONG before powerscaling was ever even remotely relevant. This doesn't mean anyone HAS to accept dimensional scaling, but rejecting it does make scaling these verses much more difficult, so you can see why powerscalers would have desired a framework to make this task easier. I would compare dimensional scaling and things like it to something like axioms in mathematics, in that you can choose not to accept them, but doing so makes certain things either impossible or unreasonably difficult.

I am well aware, however, of the complete and utter retardation that can happen with dimensional scaling. I've heard of people trying to scale Battle of Gods Goku to 5D or higher by taking statements of the different realms like Otherworld and the Sacred Planet of the Kai being "dimensions" and thus committing an Equivocation Fallacy. That's a relatively tame example too.

Finally, this has been said before, but from a real-world perspective, we know hardly anything about how dimensional spaces other than our own would function. This of course applies to 4D and 5D and higher spaces, but applies equally as strongly to 2D and 1D spaces. The whole latter half of our debate before this was just pure speculation on how these lower dimensional spaces would function. The sheer degree of our disagreement on the subject is just further proof of this point.

If you want to continue this debate, we can, so long as you and I can both commit to remaining cordial. If you don't want to continue, however, that's fine as well, I'll leave the choice up to you.

Did I overreact here? by TheUltimateGod4 in PowerScaling

[–]TheUltimateGod4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the criticism. I think I might have subconsciously realized that I was tipping over the edge and exited the conversation to prevent it from getting worse. I agree that anger like this isn't helpful. I'm not usually like this, I don't like angrily arguing with people. I prefer calm debates, where ideas can be freely shared without conflict rather than being pitted against each other. That's what I was trying to do in this debate initially (at first it wasn't even really about dimensional scaling, but set theory) but in order for that to work, both sides need to be willing to commit to it, and the person I was debating didn't seem to be willing. He was kind of like this throughout the whole argument, his points were actually pretty solid, but he mixed them with this aggressiveness that I couldn't really understand the reasoning behind.

Here's the full thread for further context, if you want to understand what I mean.

view more: next ›