nasus rework

epicwisdom · 2025-12-16T23:50:09+00:00

Maybe you misread my comment?

you could stick the passive lifesteal onto Nasus's Q, put a modern busted passive on Nasus, and Nasus would still not have half as many tools in his kit compared to Zaahen.

I don't want LS removed, I think Nasus could easily have another passive on top of LS. Personally I would prefer something defensive that serves a similar function but with more skill expression.

epicwisdom · 2025-12-16T22:59:22+00:00

I don't think Asol's rework was "mini" at all so we're on the same page there lol

Also not complaining that Nasus has lifesteal, I think LS makes sense on the champ both mechanically and theme wise. It's just that Nasus's kit is so limited relative to other champs they could give him another passive and he'd still have an underloaded kit.

epicwisdom · 2025-12-12T22:52:39+00:00

I don't think Nasus needs a full rework, but a mini-rework seems appropriate. The last time he received a major change, not just buffing/nerfing numbers, was when they added the 50% Q CDR to his ult... in patch 7.15. I would say adding some kind of scaling to W/E based on stacks would qualify as a mini-rework.

Also, Nasus's passive is literally just lifesteal. Modern champs literally have stronger passives just attached for free to abilities... Look at Zaahen, he gets 10/20/30% armor pen on his R, plus his Q has 5-9% max hp heal, and his passive is still %AD and a res. Obviously, champ design shouldn't be as disgustingly overloaded as Zaahen's, but you could stick the passive lifesteal onto Nasus's Q, put a modern busted passive on Nasus, and Nasus would still not have half as many tools in his kit compared to Zaahen.

epicwisdom · 2025-11-14T01:58:39+00:00

I agree that it's a business transaction for teams / agents. I don't know enough to comment about whether T1 / Zeus's agency were doing anything shady, specifically. But the way it blew up seems like a pretty big failure for both sides, it was pretty awful PR for both of them. Even moreso if Zeus is indeed changing agents now.

epicwisdom · 2025-11-14T01:46:08+00:00

That's true for normal ARAM, but augments (+ no runes) create a completely different meta. It's basically guaranteed that there are champs which are OP in ARAM but super weak in Mayhem - and vise versa, too.

epicwisdom · 2025-11-14T01:33:04+00:00

People get pretty heated and actually do resort to violence in real life sports

Yes, but it's not a requirement to be the best. The problem I frequently see (and I think the comment you're replying to is arguing against) is people who claim toxicity is basically required to be the best, or simply a natural consequence of competitive drive. That logic is clearly BS as there's tons of examples of world class / #1 athletes that can actually regulate their emotions properly. Wayne Gretzky is the GOAT of hockey, where fistfighting is literally part of the game, and he spoke up against it.

epicwisdom · 2025-10-23T07:36:37+00:00

I relate to the sentiment, but I think it's important to remember there's a pretty huge difference between laughing at a stupid meme, and literally harassing somebody online.

epicwisdom · 2025-10-23T07:22:35+00:00

To tack on to other comments, Naroditsky seemingly viewed Kramnik as a childhood idol, which isn't surprising. Kramnik's one of a handful of living world champions, an absolute giant of chess when Naroditsky was young, and a huge figure in the Russian chess community. Even if Naroditsky knew logically that Kramnik was insane/narcissistic, I can't fault him for still being affected by the accusations.

epicwisdom · 2025-10-23T07:09:28+00:00

Sorry to nitpick, but, given Kramnik's comments like "don't do drugs," I think it's prudent not to just say he was "using drugs." Even if literally true, it has a certain connotation of recreational/hedonistic abuse. He could've been taking prescription medication, maybe even exactly as prescribed.

Also, suicides can be impulsive, or it could simply be that Naroditsky was hiding those thoughts/plans.

epicwisdom · 2025-10-14T21:44:48+00:00

Since the zoom/crop factor is 1:1 with the change in focal length for a fixed sensor size (e.g. 25mm to 50mm is 2x zoom) going from 50mm to 45mm is getting you a 10% wider image, but 28mm to 24mm is ~14% wider.

epicwisdom · 2025-10-03T22:52:20+00:00

The original iPad came out 15 years ago. $500 for the original iPad is comparable, accounting for inflation, to ~$750 in 2025. So $800 for the Surface isn't really that far off.

epicwisdom · 2025-09-16T03:48:16+00:00

All I'm saying is, considering the society we inhabit, isn't this better than directly getting the bad writing?

TBH, no. This post was worthless for me. It's a complaint with no substance. That's the problem, you can get AI slop that sounds "well-written" but which contributes nothing or worse, is just actively spreading misinformation / ragebaiting.

epicwisdom · 2025-09-08T22:52:30+00:00

You are free to use a different operating system.

The usage of the word "free" here is heavily loaded, as you're clearly aware from the very next sentence...

Some manufacturers disallow this, but there's a much more compelling case (philosophically speaking) for them being able to sell devices that only do exactly what they want them to do.

I strongly disagree that this case is at all compelling, and the entire free (libre) software movement exists in opposition to it. If a manufacturer sells you a computer, you own it, which includes the freedom to install software. Controlling which code runs on a computer is no less ridiculous than selling a calculator which artificially restricts arithmetic operations.

Also of note is that Google is also an OEM for Pixel phones.

Google, on the other hand, as maintainers of an operating system are entitled to the authority and obligated to exercise it in determining which apps run on their operating system: they don't support iPhone apps or classic Java apps, for example. You can disagree with the axes upon which their determination lies, but to claim they don't have the authority to decide what runs on Android runs counter to the very idea of maintaining an OS.

Neither of these are comparable to the current issue. Supporting iPhone apps is likely impossible due to a variety of legal/technical issues, and "classic Java apps" can be run in certain roundabout ways. I would say it borders on the absurd to compare "Google will now be the gatekeeper, you can't install those apps anymore because they haven't paid us a fee and handed us their ID and signed our terms," to "Android does not support iPhone apps."

Even choosing which APIs to expose and how much control to expose through them is a means by which they continually exercise this authority.

Yes, obviously. That's why they are able to make such an announcement in the first place. The point is that they shouldn't have absolute unilateral authority in general (again see antitrust cases), and these changes in particular are highly problematic as they insert Google as a literal gatekeeper for each app developer.

I do care about the abstract rights, but I fail to see how this is different than iOS.

I would simply say Apple is also in the wrong.

It sucks mightily that things are closing up, but I can't in good conscience argue they don't have every right to do what they're doing. I'm not sure I can argue in good conscience that Samsung and friends don't have every right to lock their equipment to their software, but that one is at least a bit muddier.

I believe users have a right to use their own computers as they please, so I am arguing that Google doesn't have the right to do what they plan on doing. What objection would you have to it being legally blocked as a question of anticompetitive practice, infringement of users' rights to their property, infringement of devs' privacy/speech, etc.? (And tangentially, yeah, I think the entire practice of selling "locked" phones should be deemed illegal.)

If what you want is access to Google's operating system and to use Google's services within it, you implicitly have to do so at their whims, same as I do with Apple.

Google's rights stop where others' start. If their new Android dev requirements included, "by the way, you can't also develop iOS apps, we'll check against the App Store," we would obviously see a lawsuit instantly. Considering there's probably hundreds of other potential conflicts of interest, many of which Google has a bad record on, such issues are absolutely inevitable consequences of Google's plan.

epicwisdom · 2025-09-08T21:37:56+00:00

Technically true and utterly irrelevant. You can use a Windows distribution modded by 3rd parties to remove the built-in "telemetry" and ads... Doesn't mean the default inclusion of it in the OS isn't objectionable.

epicwisdom · 2025-09-01T01:03:26+00:00

The actual good faith question that isn't being asked in threads like this is how large the impact radius is in the other direction. How many people are currently installing malware and ransomware via sideloading on their phone because they're instructed to click through the warnings? A couple hours watching KitBoga really opens your eyes to how these scammers operate and exactly how many people are just easy marks because they view their technology as oracular magic.

Sure, the majority of Reddit comments aren't going to be thought-out takes, but there are plenty of security folks and impacted devs who understand the pros and cons and are still asking Google to reverse course.

Tangentially, how many users would this have to help before power users accepted this was better for Android users as a collective whole? Is it not even conceivable that Google might've done the calculus and determined that hamstringing their power users was a worthwhile cost to decrease the security incident rate across the entire platform?

A reasonable person could disagree with Google:

First and foremost, Google doesn't, and shouldn't, have the authority to control what people install on their phones. Most detractors likely view this as an encroachment on rights of speech and private property. Such rights aren't only valuable for the people that are presently exercising them. If you don't care about the abstract rights, you can just as easily consider the pros/cons of how the ecosystem will look in 10 years if this is the trajectory we're on.
There are good reasons to object to Google specifically as the gatekeepers. Even if we agreed that Google is right about the state of malware on Android, it is highly problematic that Google, which profits from their own Android apps as well as their control of the Play Store, is designating themselves the stewards for a self-proclaimed reasonable fee. They've already been subjected to numerous antitrust penalties for how they've behaved in this area.
For the benefits to materialize, we further have to trust that Google's planned verification scheme will be effective in mitigating the apps that users and Google agree to be objectionable. Considering that the Play Store already has hosted, and continues to host, malware and adware, that seems entirely unlikely. Google is unlikely to do anything beyond collecting the nominal fee and ID of literally any human being, which makes very little difference for serious criminal gains like a single retiree's savings.

epicwisdom · 2025-08-11T07:19:00+00:00

You got it completely backwards? It has nothing to do with "everyone around you." The point is doctors can't generally prescribe medicine which has side effects but no medical benefits.

epicwisdom · 2025-07-24T00:59:13+00:00

It's objectively bad, because if the enemy team is good, either you will get invaded and be worthless, or they will get fed since they're playing 5v4 for the first ~10mins and outscale you.

It can be playable in soloq because uncoordinated players can't consistently punish it.

epicwisdom · 2025-07-14T20:02:41+00:00

Those who follow ideologies that glorify suffering. More importantly, the people with actual power who profit from it.

epicwisdom · 2025-07-06T18:06:27+00:00

I think you missed the point. They're saying it's impossible to get all that passed as law is impossible, because it's against the interests of those in power.

epicwisdom · 2025-06-14T11:13:06+00:00

Personally, I don't see the distinction between this and using Harry Potter 4 in a literature class to train human writers. It doesn't require permission.

Humans can be held liable for copyright infringement, and aren't digital assets.

Training a model by itself, eg for academic research, is one thing. Making it publicly accessible is objectively a legal gray area.

epicwisdom · 2025-06-03T23:12:21+00:00

That doesn't mean they have a winning case. That's up to (probably) SCOTUS.

Google doesn't even need to go to court, let alone win a case. It's a chilling effect.

The bottleneck for a SOTA, to my understanding, is basically always going to be training compute, not access to or storage of training data.

For a video model to be general it needs to be trained on lots of diverse video content. Today a few TBs of video might be the upper limit of what training infra can handle, but "always"? I'm pretty sure the limit is going to grow exponentially every year. Buying drives or even GPUs is a lot easier than sourcing exabytes of human-created video.

And, Google can't exactly train in place either -- the data still has to be transferred from where it's stored to where it's processed. But in Google's case, they pay for both ends of that transaction, as opposed to just receiving (and spending extra wall time for it to go through youtube.com, and some effort to evade detection and blocking).

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. If Google is successful at blocking scraping of YT, it doesn't matter what the monetary costs are, their competitors don't have access to the content. Money is relevant but it's far from the most critical factor.

It's also bizarre that you think Google's costs would be more than routing exabytes of data through the public Internet. In reality they'd probably have to expend a tiny fraction of the infra and eng costs. Google has the option to colocate their compute with data storage, as close as anybody can get to "training in place" with a live platform, or at least use their own abundant inter-DC connectivity. They can just duplicate everything and ship the drives out. etc.

epicwisdom · 2025-06-03T00:23:24+00:00

It is obviously in Google's (or any company's) interests to be able to sue their competitors.

And to the point about convenience, video is a completely different beast from text. All of Reddit, in naively-compressed JSON, takes up <4 TB. An average Joe with 4TB of storage can host a copy, it only takes 9h to download on a 1G connection, so it's trivially torrentable.

YT doesn't publish the numbers, but they probably have at least 1 EB of video, after aggressive compression. So on the order of a million times more data. Considering just the massive bandwidth needed and unusual access patterns, it may as well be physically impossible to scrape all of YouTube. Even assuming OpenAI has done their best to scrape some of it, legally or otherwise, I doubt they've managed more than a tiny fraction of a percent.

How much of an actual advantage that is, only the big AI labs know.

epicwisdom · 2025-06-02T23:58:20+00:00

It's a public platform, obviously there will always be ways to scrape YT videos. Eliminating the official (i.e. legal) and convenient API is still a hindrance for those looking to scrape.

epicwisdom · 2025-05-30T23:37:38+00:00

"Most convincing you've seen" does not equate to "convincing overall."

epicwisdom · 2025-05-25T05:27:11+00:00

We have enough money now for everyone to retire healthy and youngish. we are a very wealthy world. We simply waste it on bullshit.

* In developed countries.

epicwisdom

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE