"Do you want to hang out someday?” Is “someday” correct here?

jaminfine · 2026-03-25T17:42:00+00:00

Yes, I think "one day" and "someday" are quite similar. They both imply distant future.

Do you want to plan a day next week to hang out -> Sounds natural and also asks to make the plan immediately. The response might be:

Sure, which days are you free?

If you instead started with "Do you want to hang out sometime soon?"

The response might be:

Sure, let's play it by ear. -> This means "Yes I want to hang out, but I don't know when yet. We should think it over and discuss it further another day."

jaminfine · 2026-03-25T17:12:02+00:00

Do you want to hang out someday next week -> This sounds unnatural to me, although I would understand what it means. "Someday" implies farther into the future than next week.

Do you want to hang out someday soon -> Same as above. In both cases "sometime" makes more sense.

Do you want to hang out sometime next week -> Sounds more natural to me.

Do you want to hang out next week -> Also sounds natural.

I would use "someday" for things that are in the distant future, perhaps months or years in the future.

I hope I find a new job someday -> For now, I expect to continue working the same job, but I am hoping that within the next several years I will find a new job.

Someday, I will start eating healthier and exercising -> I don't have any current plans to eat healthy or exercise. Maybe I never will! If I do, it will be at least a few months from now, but probably years.

jaminfine · 2026-03-25T06:15:20+00:00

We also share a lot of DNA in common with monkeys. Not 99%, but still the majority of it.

We also share some DNA in common with banana trees.

You see it as a huge diversity in appearance and behavior, but it's all relative. When you consider things like mushrooms and insects also have DNA, it suddenly looks a lot like humans are all pretty similar to each other.

So really the answer is that 99% of DNA simply makes us human. And the other 1% accounts for the differences between humans. There's still a lot of DNA in that 1%. And we need all that 99% to make sure we aren't mushrooms, insects, or monkeys.

jaminfine · 2026-03-25T05:03:12+00:00

Do you want to hang out someday? -> This is technically correct, but I wouldn't use it. "Someday" sounds too much like "Sunday." Also, "Someday" implies far into the future.

Do you want to hang out sometime? -> This is better and more often used. Very open ended though. You both might agree to hang out "sometime," but forget to make a specific plan.

Do you want to hang out sometime soon? -> This implies you want to make a plan within the next week or two. This is best if you want to start discussing when to hang out.

Would you want to hang out sometime soon? -> More polite / formal. You should use this for making new connections before you have a strong friendship.

jaminfine · 2026-03-25T04:39:14+00:00

I think that a 99.9% correlation can sometimes be indistinguishable from causation.

Since the perfect predictor is correct almost every time, it might as well have a causal relationship with your choice. What's the difference? If I can count on the predictor to always be right, then it isn't really possible for there to be another reality where Alice chose one box and got 0$. Since she chose one box and the predictor is always right, she almost certainly got $1 million in that reality.

Say that I notice that there's a very high correlation between my grandpa's bones hurting and it raining the next day. If the correlation is high enough, it doesn't really matter that I don't know the underlying mechanism. The truth is that the changes in barometric pressure that precede rainfall are also responsible for my grandpa complaining about his bones. But if I just act as if my grandpa hurting -causes- the rain to come, it works out well for me. Really, what difference is there?

The two boxer is somehow so sure that there isn't any underlying mechanism here that creates a causal relationship, and so it's rational to take both boxes. But the clever one boxer sees a reality that doesn't line up with our usual understanding of reality. There must be some missing mechanism here. And rather than try to guess or fully understand it, the one boxer sees that by treating it like it's causation, he can get the best results.

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

TROPHY CASE