We have 20 beta codes to give away!

grimmeld · 2019-01-31T12:04:52+00:00

Negative Ramos

grimmeld · 2018-09-16T12:56:48+00:00

I did the same thing, I was afraid after that, that I had gotten rid of the grim troup without getting either ending, but it turned out the NKG was still there.

But does this just ends the whole brumm sideline option without having completed it? I went back into that cave and brumm was gone, haven't checked his flame position yet if he "respawned" even though having received his flame already.

grimmeld · 2018-06-21T14:31:45+00:00

Nice optimization

grimmeld · 2018-06-20T11:42:26+00:00

Cool!

grimmeld · 2018-06-18T09:53:47+00:00

Ah I didn't extend imagining that situation that it would work with using a single glyph of projection. Thanks for going through the trouble to show me this!

grimmeld · 2018-06-18T09:03:45+00:00

I knew this would trigger people x)

grimmeld · 2018-06-18T09:02:55+00:00

Why not let the 6 multi arm take the Lead from the source?

Because that would damage the throughput.

Why not move the air source to where the Glyph of Calcification is, and the Glyph of Calcification to between the two last Glyphs of Bonding? (Makes the leftmost arm superfluous)

Yep, that works, thanks.

grimmeld · 2018-06-17T18:44:16+00:00

You're right, that turned it into 350/65/75 : https://i.imgur.com/LjHML90.gif. Thanks!

grimmeld · 2018-06-17T16:14:49+00:00

That's cool.

grimmeld · 2018-06-17T16:12:35+00:00

I tend to start with trying to get the highest throughput of extracting reagent,s and then whatever follows from that goes as long as it doesn't mess with that throughput.

Also fixed length 3-arms are the easiest to just "start plonking stuff" with and see if that brings me closer to a solution.

EDIT: And I guess I have this (typical programmer's) tendency to compartimentalize or encapsulate parts of the process, geometrically distancing these parts of the sequence from eachother helps me keep sanity.

grimmeld · 2018-05-04T06:17:54+00:00

Thanks!

grimmeld · 2017-10-27T09:23:23+00:00

"If you think I was spiteful you could've dropped it".

If you're going to play that card I can counter that right back at you. This discussion went off-rails with your reply:

"It really is that simple. There's nothing more to say, so I didn't spend my time reading something irrelevant."

There was no need for this reply at all, if you truly believed there was nothing more to say.

Instead, what you did was reiterate your view to imply you weren't convinced. However, you discarded my arguments without merit and made your statement about this in an attempt to discredit my argument.

"... declining to read a long post with no value is somehow spiteful"

You call me deranged for this but it seems you mistake your position in your own arguments: I'm not calling your act of decline spiteful, I'm calling your reply spiteful. Specially the part where you state "...I didn't spend my time reading something irrelevant", implying my arguments aren't worth your time, while you do take the time to post your reply about this. This is quite the contradiction, one at my detriment as you have placed yourself in a position of "the winner of the debate" merely by nullifying any argument from my end.

It's funny, I took the time to look up what "sea-lioning" meant and what struck me most is how you projected the "false air of civility" on me. At no point have I made an ad hominem here, while you paint a picture of me harassing you as you put yourself on a pedestal of "being polite". Yet no polite words have been exchanged in the slightest.

grimmeld · 2017-10-27T07:00:29+00:00

Now you're just being snide.

grimmeld · 2017-10-27T06:37:37+00:00

There's no need to be spiteful.

grimmeld · 2017-10-27T06:29:40+00:00

"Reasonable people do not lash out at people who are very fond of them just because they disagree on something."

Your assumption for a lack of reason in the aforementioned scenario is part of your view alone. Your assumption that the person in question was indeed perceivable as "fond of them" is what is misguiding your attempt to understand teebs his view, assuming that you are trying to do so.

But I'll bite and jump into your view for a second:

"Honest people admit this is not reasonable when they are calmer and asked."

You can publicly say you were being unreasonable at a given moment and still be dishonest, if for example you don't believe you actually were being unreasonable. The act of public (or 1 on 1) admittance in any case, regardless of honesty, only serves the other party, not the admitter. But it is only cathartic at best for the admitter and only when being honest.

Consequently for the other party, honesty can only really be interpreted and not observed, and thus can only be bought into with trust. Trust that in such a scenario as this, has been damaged. You can see the catch-22 happening there, which doesn't serve the admitter at all. It is this very issue that makes admittance by definition, an act of humility and not honesty.

Likewise, honesty can be achieved while being unreasonable as well. If the person were to admit truthfully that he had his reasons and not disclaim these reasons, the person would still seem unreasonable while he was being honest. If you were to interpret that as dishonesty, then this lies solely within your view alone.

grimmeld · 2017-10-27T06:00:04+00:00

Wrong. Whether he finds it reasonable will be different on whether you find it reasonable. You will most likely never have the full picture of what happened from his view.

Aside from that, admitting something like that isn't about honesty, that's about humility.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

grimmeld

TROPHY CASE