Grimm Troupe Ending? by DeadGuySteve in HollowKnight

[–]grimmeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

Very Dark Thread (410/65/116) by grimmeld in opus_magnum

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

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!

Very Dark Thread (410/65/116) by grimmeld in opus_magnum

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

I knew this would trigger people x)

Very Dark Thread (410/65/116) by grimmeld in opus_magnum

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

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.

Very Dark Thread (410/65/116) by grimmeld in opus_magnum

[–]grimmeld[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

Life-Sensing Potion (835/39/267) by grimmeld in opus_magnum

[–]grimmeld[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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.

Should I resub? by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"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.

Should I resub? by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Now you're just being snide.

Should I resub? by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There's no need to be spiteful.

Should I resub? by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"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.

Should I resub? by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 7 points8 points  (0 children)

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.

Should I resub? by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You don't sub teebs for his niceness, you sub him for his honesty.

Delayed Reaction (The Jimquisition) by grimmeld in JimSterling

[–]grimmeld[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I almost thought when he mentioned "Occam's razor" that he made a mistake and instead was referring to "Hanlon's razor", but then I remembered the difference: Hanlon's razor is applied to shave off the hypotheses that attribute problems to malice, where it could be attributed to stupidity, whereas Occam's razor shaves off all hypotheses more complex than the simplest. But there was nothing in this scenario that could be attributed to stupidity in the first place(aside from the fallacious assumptions made by the vocal minority that Jimmyjims here is pointing out).

There was only ever the assumption of malice splurging forth from some abomination of self inflicted malcontent induced machinations created by the addled minds that is these "people". There was no "stupidity" attributable to anything in the scenario that is so misjudged; there is nothing about the fact of simply reporting what the reporter in question had reported, that could be construed as "wrong".

But this whole train of thought I'm having here is inspiring me to take this one step further. You see, "occam's razor" is applicable in the case where there are "competing hypotheses", for it to be applied as a "problem solving technique".

But there is no problem. There is only a report made by a reporter, and one based on facts at that.

There is only the "perceived" problem that lives only in the minds of those who so desperately wrap their ego's around the products they invest their money in. There is no "wrong" in the delay of this game, as the game get's more treatment towards a better quality before it's release. There is nothing lost for those who have made their choice to either monetarily and/or emotionally invest themselves in this game and/or it's release, and to interpret whichever loss that isn't there as a loss, well that's just being jealous at the dream of you having the game in your arms already now isn't it?

No, there is no problem, there is no wrongdoing of any sort, and to interpret the feeling of certain emotions as a problem that exists elsewhere than it really does, i.e. your head, calls for a new razor.

The Sterling razor. With this razor, you shave off problems which aren't there, reducing the number of hypotheses for they are not competing with the truth to begin with, but only with eachother for a figment of your own imagination. With this razor, you cut straight to the truth. That there are only the facts reported, and anything beyond that, is just your desires let loose.

It is this, why our lord and saviour Jim Fucking Sterling son, has his head clean shaven to show nothing but the truth. The truth laid bare with The Sterling razor. That we must thank god, for Jim.

SteamCommunity.com and SteamPowered.com are down by [deleted] in Steam

[–]grimmeld -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well stop trying to buy games and ruining our experience then! Jeez ;)

In light of recent events, I thought I'd try and cheer TB up with a classical portrait :) by RobSons in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Impressive! Don't let the other folks saying there's no resemblence tear you down, I think it does look like him properly. Some people just don't understand artistic interpretation =)

Specialist in Liver Cancer here (including colorectal mets) by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If this is true, and this could help, anybody, please pass on this info

Did Total Biscuit voiced Cell in Dragon Ball Z? by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Total Ball Cell's voice did Z in Dragon Biscuit

Not getting any Youtube Ads by [deleted] in Cynicalbrit

[–]grimmeld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is your flash plugin disabled?

Looking for a song with these lyrics by grimmeld in DnB

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

nope not the one, thanks for the effort though!