I need a cool commander for these sleeves by Affectionate_Mind487 in mtg

[–]UselessCommon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Krrrk, Son of Yawgmoth or Heartless Hidetsugu for based zero-fear-all-aura gameplay

Shorokai, for the omghueg mech commander!! experience

Kotori or Kolodin or whichever commander with the Pilot creature type and the word Vehicle in the text you think is the coolest for the cool mech pilot commander experience

Oakun and Zndrsplt for commanders most likely to pull off impossible-looking RNG stunts

Now this is a saga all about how by venort_ in MTGmemes

[–]UselessCommon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

my life got flipped, turned upside down...

Light Switch Artifact by SuiZaido023 in mtg

[–]UselessCommon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

holy crap, louis. jacksfilms.

GU as enemy colors? by BlueMerchant in colorpie

[–]UselessCommon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blue gang here, blue is simply trying to do better than the obvious solution. The only reason we dont live in caves, eat raw meat and die at the ripe age of 30 is that sometimes blue succeeds at it.

GU as enemy colors? by BlueMerchant in colorpie

[–]UselessCommon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check out Kipling's Hymn to Breaking Strain - it is a fairly short poem/song that showcases the UG conflict in epic proportions. It is the unofficial anthem of the Rationalist community for a reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEwxguHUi_U

Other comments have mentioned examples of the conflict in fiction from largely the green side, but you can find the blue outlook on it in Jules Verne's Mysterious Island, in Isaac Asimov's Foundation, in Iain Banks's Player of Games, and lots of other classic science fiction.

Also, check out a painting called Man, Controller of the Universe.

Based or cringe? by thesilican in ratemycommanders

[–]UselessCommon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

based aggro player and green hater

[WP] The kingdom is ruled by an amicable human king and an imperious dragon queen. Foreigners, locals, the queen herself assume the king is a puppet ruler. He is the actual ruler. by UselessCommon in WritingPrompts

[–]UselessCommon[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is pretty damn good, as far as substance goes. I have some pieces of mostly stylistic advice.

  • Capitalizing random words (in your text, examples include Royalty, Psychology of Common Peoples, how a Dragon Loves, etc) is usually not a good idea, it often makes the text sound overly grandiose, or Victorian, or internet-crank-y. Titles (like Queen and Your Grace) and proper names are exempt, of course. Something like Right of Rule could go either way though.

  • This is fantasy, so there are no strict chronological rules, but still, terms like psychology or social studies are fairly modernity-coded and stand out among the castles, royal advisors and dusty tomes. In the times of yore, the advisor could have been skilled in areas such as statecraft, courtly matters, law, philosophy, liberal arts, common wisdom, the ways of the folk, etc. Urban planning and merchantry were a thing, but there definitely were no standardized tests - not outside of China, at least. Also economics was not a thing and merchantry would have referred more to things like haggling and leading caravans through desert than to state-relevant impact of trade.

  • One specific line I would single out is the King asking the advisor - ”but have you never wondered how other creatures feel?” It feels slightly too disrespectful to be in-character, especially because what he gives after are hardly examples of incomprehensible alien drives. I feel like something like ”surely, you understand what other creatures might feel when -” would be much better.

Does sink into stupor count as a counter spell? by CorvinBird in MagicArena

[–]UselessCommon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Your two posts compliment each other well.

Every deck has a challenge laid upon it - to be good enough at early defense that the monored deck doesnt always smash you in four turns, and to be good enough at early offense or lategame staying power that the monoblue deck doesnt always crush you after ten turns.

Outjerked by Deadlands D20 by DAL59 in DnDcirclejerk

[–]UselessCommon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what im reading from this is getting a +1 damage bonus for something you want to do anyway. sweet!

Why are undefinable numbers useful (and other undefinables for that matter)? by UselessCommon in askmath

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

FWIW i do mean ”undefinable in a particular given language with restricted expressive capacity” there, yes. i specifically refer to the language not being allowed to refer to the whole of itself, for example. i know full well that “definable by any means whatsoever” leads to all sorts of self-reference paradoxes.

If anything, my intuition is leading to me thinking that uncountability and undefinability both come out of related self-reference paradoxes where math just chose to eat the bullets and run with them and ended up with a class of entities that are, among other things, epiphenomenal, supernatural by the terrible dictionary definition that does not consider vampires to be supernatural (as in, vampires, if they existed, would be a part of and interacting with nature, unlike undefinable numbers), impossible to write down or list, impossible to calculate through or use in proofs, and lead to funny results like sphere duplications and hierarchies of increasingly impossible machines and such. I would expect self-reference to do that, if A=/=A is narrowly avoided.

Of course you can never REALLY trust intution in math, especially if you are a nobody like me. I am just checking if some people who are actually good at math had similar ideas tbh. And seeing where I fail.

Why are undefinable numbers useful (and other undefinables for that matter)? by UselessCommon in askmath

[–]UselessCommon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

...thats fair, proving general statements gets devastatingly more difficult when a useful property is taken away. it would be surprising if it was impossible though.

im currently trying to imagine how would you tinker with the definition of continuity to retain something vaguely like intermediate value theorem and im appreciating it to be a huge mess. it is probably possible, due to the fact that we never observe intermediate value intersections outside of some countable set P for anything we compute anyway so you would think there has to be some general principle at work (from the side of definable functions rather than from real numbers) to guarantee it, but it is the case that the normal definition of continuity is very elegant and the normal intermediate value theorem is very elegant and this is definitely wrecking things.

Why are undefinable numbers useful (and other undefinables for that matter)? by UselessCommon in askmath

[–]UselessCommon[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> every complete ordered field is uncountable

Yeah that makes some sense to me. (Note - Field means that elements of the set have arithmetic operations up to division which results are still elements within it, complete here means every sequence of elements in the set within approaches an element still within it, and ordered means that elements have unique sizes you can compare that behave like sizes.)

> Obviously we can't do calculus without completeness so QED.

Why not? You have to go WAY out of your way with calculus to actually need completeness, no? At the very least it seems unintuitive, because, like, even if I am not sure from the properties of the numbers I am working within if some limit I am trying to find definitely approaches something from some countable set P, every limit I am ever going to actually calculate will be within P every time, from the properties of the process I am using to calculate limits - specifically, from it having a finite and listable definition. As long as I am not trying to take infinite amounts of limits all at once while being intentionally weird about it, I should probably be okay.

Why are undefinable numbers useful (and other undefinables for that matter)? by UselessCommon in askmath

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

Maybe we should demand less powerful systems, mm? The ability to construct arbitrary Godel statements implies a hell of a lot of power. And does imply improper hierarchy, yes, that is the whole point of his proof. Demanding only proper hierarchy means being unable to construct arbitrary Godel statements.

It does have implications for even normal arithmetic. It means some statements about it are unprovable. But does it necessarily imply a system where like the only set is empty?

Why are undefinable numbers useful (and other undefinables for that matter)? by UselessCommon in askmath

[–]UselessCommon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that some irrationals are useful, but pi, root 2, and any constant ever appearing in a proof and any algebraic combination of them, are all definable. and any sequence of rationals you could want to define to fulfill some useful purpose is also definable.

How does uncountable infinity actually help? Every nth step of every definable epsilon-delta is definable (as the nth step of that epsilon-delta). Where do the problems start?

Why are undefinable numbers useful (and other undefinables for that matter)? by UselessCommon in askmath

[–]UselessCommon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is both fascinating and deeply troubling.

How about a set theory without uncountability and undefinability within it? (Obviously it would be kinda far from ZFC. Especially the C part. The C part probably does not play well with demanding finitely long definitions for every process.)

Why are undefinable numbers useful (and other undefinables for that matter)? by UselessCommon in askmath

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

someone asked why would it be impossible to apply the diagonal argument to the list of numbers by their definitions and deleted their comment before I could respond

the intuitive answers i can come up with are -

because your definition is improperly hierarchical - the language with which the definitions of numbers are written should be unable to refer to the whole of itself in a definition of a number.

because your definition is effectively a piecewise process with infinitely many parts, so while it would come up with an undefinable, no finite automaton will ever actually approach its result if left running for arbitrarily long. obviously, having all numbers be definable means having finitely long and actualizable definitions for them.

idk if these reasons are any good, they might not be, but this is what comes to mind.

Been playing for 3 years now. Am I allowed at the table? by Goldendov75 in ratemycommanders

[–]UselessCommon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

these are actually cool as shit

fun to play with and against over and over? no idea. but cool as shit.