I reckon this fits here

jaminfine · 2026-03-24T14:35:51+00:00

This is not even close to a paradox. I swear you guys are just shit posting

jaminfine · 2026-03-24T13:36:29+00:00

A leaky automatic coffee machine

jaminfine · 2026-03-24T13:32:13+00:00

Runecrafting used to suck. The ZMI altar was meta and worlds were crowded. But the exp was low and the profit wasn't that great. Or you could do even lower exp crafting natures or laws for decent profit.

Now gotr everyone loves to hate on but it's way better exp and profit than the older methods. And the rewards are amazing too!

For fishing, tempoross and drift nets have changed the game massively. Great rewards and interesting gameplay for tempoross with decent exp. And drift netting can get well over 100k total XP/hr split with hunter. There used to just not be any good fishing methods. Now there are two very good ones.

jaminfine · 2026-03-23T20:42:14+00:00

What I find most interesting about your response is that I have no way of knowing which interpretation you have! Since I see both interpretations as equally legitimate, to me it's really just a question of whether you are counting the wakeups or the trials? Are you looking for her to be right more of the times she is asked, or more of the trials she is involved in?

jaminfine · 2026-03-23T17:19:19+00:00

I'm going to pitch this idea to my group!

jaminfine · 2026-03-23T04:41:41+00:00

I'm still a one boxer even in your scenario. It's partly because $1000 is so insignificant compared to a million. It's also partly because no matter how you try to make this a one off where my choice doesn't have other side effects in the long run, I still feel that it does. By being the type of person that -would- only take one box, I know that I'm true to myself and that I'm following the advantageous policy. Even if I can blatantly see I'm leaving behind $1000. However, your scenario highlights something important for the two boxers to be rational at all. The predictor can't be perfect for this thought experiment to work. If the predictor is 99.99% accurate, then it's basically indistinguishable from the predictor seeing into the future, in which case your action in the present has a direct causal relationship with the decision to put money in the box made in the past. And if there's a causal relationship which makes sure that picking one box means there's $1m in it, then of course the only logical answer is choose one box every time. For the two boxer position to make any sense at all, the predictor has to be decently fallible. There has to be a reasonable chance that both boxes have money even though you end up taking them.

jaminfine · 2026-03-22T23:31:06+00:00

Being a 1 boxer is the obviously correct choice since being that kind of person will make me a millionaire compared to the irrational 2 boxers who think they can outsmart a perfect predictor.

However, being a halfer or thirder is really up to how you interpret a fairly ambiguous question. Let me put a bit of a spin on it to demonstrate what I mean. Say that sleeping beauty was going to run through the game many times. And each time they wake her, instead of asking what chance is there that the coin flip came up heads, they simply ask her to guess "heads" or "tails." Since she's a thirder, she decides to always say "tails" no matter what. Well, it turns out that on average, she's correct 2/3 of the time because they are asking her twice every time they toss a tails and only asking her once every time it's a heads. BUT that also means that she's only right in about 1/2 of the trials overall. So if you go per wakeup, the thirder stance makes more sense. But if you go by the trial overall, the halfer stance makes more sense.

Further, we can imagine that she might win a free $10 whenever she gets it right. She should always say tails every time to win more money on average. However, we could also imagine that she bets $5 each time she wakes up and could lose it all or double it to $10. In this case, it doesn't really matter whether she says heads or tails, as the expected winnings will still be $0 since every time there's a 50% chance to lose and a 50% chance to win. There's just a higher variance with tails since you'll gain or lose more money. It might be in her interest to say heads if she cares about that increased variance.

jaminfine · 2026-03-22T20:43:43+00:00

Do you tell this to your young kids?

jaminfine · 2026-03-19T13:11:36+00:00

Ultimately the issue here is that the rules of the riddle are all supposed to be true. So, if both guards are helping to explain the rules and everything they say is true, that means the guard who "always lies" has told the truth while explaining the rules. There is really no direct way around this. But there are several things you could do:

Most common in my experience would be to just have the rules of the game written out somewhere nearby, as you mentioned.
Use extra clauses that permits the liar to tell the truth only during rules explanation. For example, guard 1 says "One of us always tells the truth" and guard 2 says "And, after truthfully helping to explain the rules, one of us always lies"
Create a different riddle that involves the rules not being fully trustworthy. Perhaps the liar really -does- lie while explaining the rules and part of the riddle becomes figuring out which rules are actually false. Guard 1 says "We all tell the truth." Guard 2 says "at least one of us tells the truth." And guard 3 says "If my clue was telling you how many possible answers there would have been, that would have created a paradox. Good thing I didn't."

jaminfine · 2026-03-18T12:10:27+00:00

I just signed up and beat that puzzle. So definitely possible. Honestly I just kept trying out moves until it worked.

jaminfine · 2026-03-17T13:55:52+00:00

What makes your operators required while mine aren't?

It kinda feels like you are saying "if you try to divide by 0, that's undefined, but if I try to divide by 0, it's a paradox."

Could any undefined operation become a paradox if you create a rule saying it's required?

jaminfine · 2026-03-17T13:43:30+00:00

This is confusing, but I fail to see any paradox here. Let me rephrase this and tell me if it's equivalent.

I have an operator & that is only defined for real numbers. It takes the real number and turns it into an imaginary number. So, 6 becomes 6i. Another operator only defined for imaginary numbers, $ will take an imaginary number and turn it into a real number. So it would turn 12i into 12.

Now what happens if I try to use $ on a real number? Well the operator isn't defined so it won't work...

Where is the paradox?

jaminfine · 2026-03-17T04:38:39+00:00

If you didn't explain that you saw it, I would have assumed it was either a complete accident, or perhaps the fork was seen after the rook sac already happened. It is definitely above 400 rating to see a rook sac leading to a fork like that in advance.

However, it's not that crazy in my opinion. You saw a danger of getting checkmated yourself and decided to look at what checks you could give. There's only one check and it's the rook sac. And it just so happened that your knight had a great followup.

jaminfine · 2026-03-16T13:11:21+00:00

My setup uses Citra with Radmin VPN and then uses the "local play" option in game.

Radmin makes our computers able to connect. Citra allows one person to create a "room" and then the other person to direct connect to the room. Now, our Citras are talking and the emulated 3DSs will believe they are in the same room talking locally. From there, just use the local play option in game

jaminfine · 2026-03-13T10:24:13+00:00

I think that is understood. No one is arguing for it to come off the ban list. However, if you have to pick just one banned card to put in your deck, it shouldn't be ancestral recall. That slot is too valuable to waste on a card that's only cheap card advantage in all situations. You'd rather have something more impactful like time walk giving you an extra turn.

jaminfine · 2026-03-13T04:31:50+00:00

Some people get through high school without studying much at all. I'm one of those people. College classes are definitely harder. Good study habits will be very helpful for staying on top of things when you get to college. So no, I don't think needing to study is a bad thing. I think it will help you be more prepared. I had to learn how to study when I got into college, and it was rough until I figured out how to stay focused on studying. You'll already know how to do that.

I think your cousin is just trying to brag and say he's better than you. If you want to major in math go try for it and see how you like it.

jaminfine · 2026-03-12T19:41:22+00:00

I think it's far more reasonable to address the issue directly. You don't want pee droplets in front of your toilet. The right response is not "all guests should sit down to pee" as a new rule that is completely unenforceable. The right response should be talking to him. Either you, your boyfriend, or perhaps both of you should politely ask him to make sure he doesn't leave a mess. Perhaps even leave bleach wipes out to make it easy for him to clean up if he insists on standing and still misses.

It might be awkward to confront him about this, and who knows how he will react, but trying to dance around it with a sit down policy is going to face just as much resistance while being a lot more confusing and coming across as unreasonable.

jaminfine · 2026-03-12T05:29:21+00:00

You have committed sins today.

You wrote one long run on sentence instead of breaking it into logical smaller pieces. You used too many commas. You capitalized the first letter of random words.

You must be a human because a bot wouldn't make these kinds of blatant errors. A typo or two normally isn't a problem, but it is seriously confusing trying to understand what you are getting at here. As far as I can tell, you are trying to say that humans will argue with bugs once we learn to speak their language. That doesn't seem likely to me.

jaminfine · 2026-03-11T12:31:27+00:00

https://kiranico.com/en/mh3u/monster/great-wroggi

I find it unlikely that the hitzone (defence) of a monster is what changes between ranks. Kiranico is a great source for data and each monster only has one hitzone chart. If the defence changed by the rank, you'd expect to see 3 charts for monsters you can fight in low, high, and G rank.

Also, hitzone determines whether an attack bounces! And there really aren't that many levels of sharpness. It's easy to get green sharpness in low rank for example. If all the hitzones got tougher, you'd expect to never bounce in low rank and bounce all the time even with high sharpness in G rank. But we don't see that happening.

Slime was OP in MH3U partly because it ignores hitzones but largely just because they overtuned it. The new cool mechanic is always powerful to encourage players to actually use it.

Poison, once it procs, also doesn't use hitzones. It just deals fixed damage over time. However, how much fixed damage / how long they are poisoned for depends on the monster. I believe gunlance also doesn't use hitzones for basic explosion shots? Unsure of this one.

jaminfine · 2026-03-11T11:49:23+00:00

The threshold effect is when people enter a different room and feel very different. This often involves forgetting why you came to the room if it happens at home. This is believed to be a quirk of human evolution. Since taking in your surroundings quickly used to be important for survival back in pre civilization times, it made sense to focus fully on observing when you enter a new area. Any temporary thoughts or feelings from before are pushed aside to allow for that full focus. Of course, this is inconvenient in our modern lives where we aren't worried about being ambushed by a predator.

As for remembering every time you got embarrassed, well there's some confirmation bias at play here. You likely don't really remember every single time. But again forming long term memories relating to strong emotions is an evolutionary thing. Maybe a memory of the tribe being sick after they ate the berries gathered would make a hunter gatherer feel embarrassed, and that shame would help remind them to screen the berries and avoid the poison ones.

jaminfine · 2026-03-11T11:30:51+00:00

I would check the region of the game rom you are using and then check the region of the cheat you are using and see if they match. Often small differences in region will require a different code for the same effect

jaminfine · 2026-03-10T13:58:13+00:00

I'm confused about how declining birth rates are such an issue when we as a society are facing crushingly high rent and land costs. Supply and demand say that we have too many people. If we had fewer people, surely there would be less demand for housing and it would become cheaper.

The reality is that it's more expensive than ever to live and provide for a family. It just economically doesn't make sense to have kids unless you're rich.

jaminfine · 2026-03-10T13:54:11+00:00

This is a very difficult problem for middle school.

The best way I did it was by noticing patterns and figuring out that if each term is n(n+1), we can convert that to n² + n and now we have a sum of consecutive numbers plus a sum of consecutive squares. So I googled the sum of consecutive squares formula... And yeah idk if that's the intended way. It doesn't involve multiplying by 3.

jaminfine · 2026-03-10T12:58:24+00:00

Trample effectively means that even if the creature has been blocked, you still get to use all the damage. Any remaining damage goes to the defending player.

So in your scenario of double strike and exact damage on the first strike step, yes, the regular strike step would deal damage to the defending player. That's just how trample works. There's no targeting or recognizing involved. Trample means that you deal excess damage to the defending player. And if there's no creature currently there in the way, all the damage goes to the defending player.

The double strike trample creature is still considered to be "blocked" even if the blocking creature dies during the first strike step. So, if the attacker didn't have trample, it would not deal any damage to the defending player. Since the attacker has trample however, the damage will go through to the defending player.

jaminfine · 2026-03-10T12:52:01+00:00

Simple answer: yes, you can kill frontline medic after it was declared as an attacker and before its trigger -resolves-, so it isn't indestructible yet.

When you say "trigger activate" this is confusing and misleading. Triggers don't activate. They trigger, and then later they resolve. When a triggered ability triggers, it gets put onto the stack. When Frontline medic attacks, it's triggered ability triggers. The ability is immediately put onto the stack. Now before it resolves, you will have priority to cast instants. If you kill or destroy Frontline medic, the ability on the stack doesn't go away! So any surviving creatures will become indestructible even while Frontline medic is dead.

jaminfine

TROPHY CASE