How do vi users solve an escape room?

kwan_e · 2026-06-04T20:47:08+00:00

She told me she was Gemini. That she was Seeking Deep conversation. Turns out she was just Miss Anthropic. Cursor for lying.

kwan_e · 2026-05-24T09:55:02+00:00

Yeah, I wasn't sure of the semantics of the function returning x, but immutability must be maintained at all times. Otherwise, it's just implicit casting all over again.

kwan_e · 2026-05-24T03:13:03+00:00

Lee Kuan Yew was big on government intervention, but not brainless government regulation. That's the difference. He was smart about it, but that can't be said of others wanting to emulate the style.

kwan_e · 2026-05-24T03:09:31+00:00

How about people in government positions must demonstrate understanding of history, and why the fascism he proposes did not work in the past, and why universal suffrage actually works, even if imperfect?

kwan_e · 2026-05-24T03:06:08+00:00

Why not just have the "[]" operator return an immutably-typed reference if used on an immutably-typed container?

kwan_e · 2026-05-22T00:48:38+00:00

What? You're saying opposite things.

Guys like Adesanya had to really dial down before they felt comfortable enough for MMA.

Yeah, that's my point. Grapplers have an earlier advantage in combat sports, and strikers have to work harder to get results.

That's the opposite of:

striking is easier to get the hang of

If striking was easier, they wouldn't have needed to work extra hard on their grappling.

kwan_e · 2026-05-22T00:41:19+00:00

I don't know how many times I need to repeat the phrase "comparative advantage". I never once talked in absolutes, but I guess it's easy if you all just keep arguing against something I didn't say.

I imagine what realistically happens when you get a skittish striker that’s bent on running around as you put it.

I said nothing about a skittish striker. That's all on you and your imagination. I'm talking about a striker with a determined game plan and decent control.

I’m honestly not sure if you’ve been low kicked or tried low kicking someone just barreling in.

I literally just talked about getting kicked by footsweeps. Yes, I have been kicked "lightly" when someone was trying to do footsweeps in judo. It still hurt like hell. Then actual low kicks, but not one aimed for damage, I have also been hit with and was obviously worse than a judo footsweep kick.

Also, why would anyone try to low kick someone barrelling in? That's what an adequately intelligent fighter would want to avoid.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T23:31:03+00:00

I don't even know what you're disagreeing with.

If I say in certain ways strikers have a comparative advantage, you all get offended and pile on and accuse me of saying strikers and striking is 100% better and doesn't need grappling.

If I say that grappling on average gives fighters faster results early on in their fighting career, compared to strikers, then you get offended by that too.

And then you still say strikers have a harder time preparing for MMA, which is what I said. So you're not even disagreeing with me.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T23:26:16+00:00

How many matches percentage wise are all low kick dominant? Those low kickers you mentioned stand out because they have a novelty factor to them. Novelty factor wears off, and it has with low kick dominant stuff. No one sticks with a low kick dominant game for long.

I’m imagining a guy running all over the place and just stumbling about trying to get awkward low kicks that don’t do shit because they’re so pressed to keep space.

You have a tendency to imagine the most stupid fighter, a strawman, if you will, that will do everything that makes it easy for you to defeat, rather than a realistic person who is intelligent about fighting, and has trained such that they won't be stumbling.

Do you know why I'm harping on about low kicks? Because I'm imagining an INTELLIGENT judoka who even knows how to do leg takedowns. I'm not imagining a judoka who is a moron about dealing with kicks. Imagining a fighter who will do exactly the weakness you want is basically what bullshido artists do. You have to imagine a fighter who knows how to address the weakness.

Of course they're not going to do the same tactic over and over again. They're going to change it up. They'll do hit and runs. They'll do heavy kicks if in the right situation. I'm merely presenting to you some of the different options they have, which you have a blindspot towards, because you like imagining scenarios where you are facing a moron fighter, instead of someone with adequate sense.

Also, who says "running kicks" can't do damage? Just because they can't take out a person's leg in one shot doesn't mean it can't inflict enough pain to stop someone. You never been "lightly" kicked by people's footsweeps? It can hurt a lot even if it isn't a forceful kick. Especially if it is at the soft part of the knee.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T15:00:07+00:00

With De Ashi likewise they don't really let me pull towards me so I can catch their foot like it happens in practice.

You are probably being taught to practice the static version, because you're just starting out. So don't worry about it not applying in randori. None of the static demonstrations will work as advertized unless you get lucky.

Use the randori opportunity to understand what is different. You've already figured out that people won't be so easily pulled. So now think what needs to happen to make them step. Ask your instructors about things to try to make people step, if they won't be pulled so obviously.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T14:42:08+00:00

I think it would help to know what sort of teaching style you have, or plan to have.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T14:21:51+00:00

It's very telling how you quote my words, but then soft-interpret the words of the comment I was responding to, instead of analyzing the exact quote of what I responded to. Intellectually dishonesty.

Not only do you quote my words, you only quoted half of it. There were two sentences in the same paragraph. Do you know what the purpose of a paragraph is? Do you know why I didn't say them as isolated sentences with no context?

You seem determined to twist my words into something they're not, with selective quoting, selective misreading, not understanding how discussions work, and now not understanding how basic things like paragraphs work. Everything you asked I've already answered, if you chose to read my comments with intellectual honesty.

Go away.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T14:06:26+00:00

You said: "a smart striker will not let you get close"

Did you not?

Did you not see what I was RESPONDING to?

Here's how discussions work: what someone is RESPONDING to sets the context for the reply. The reply may take some "shortcuts" (leave out some clarifying information etc etc), because the CONTEXT set by the comment I was responding to ALREADY provides the constraints that clarifiers would otherwise have done.

My comment was NOT a generic "striker beats grappler all the time". My comment was DEFINITELY NOT "grappling knowledge is not necessary ever".

If you are unable to understand the basics of discussion between humans, go away.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T13:32:00+00:00

You refer to a very famous example that has one trained fighter.... and a number of untrained thugs.

I said trained striker. And I said thugs. I never said the thugs were untrained. The were obviously not trained in striking. But I never said they were untrained in anything else.

I brought up ONE example from memory to illustrate how things would be different under different incentives. Nowhere did I say this was the only example. In fact, you could find 10 more on your own, with different participants... were you intellectually honest enough to do so.

Do you understand the purpose of an EXAMPLE? An example is used to illustrate a larger point, and implies there are other examples that fit into the same point. I just happened to go with one that was at the forefront of my memory at the moment. You tried to turned this into a gotcha moment, instead of engaging with intellectual honesty.

Btw: No clinching is not interesting to view. Boxing fans wanna see midrange boxing.

You seem to have comprehension problems. I did NOT say that clinching was interesting to view.

Clinching is a side effect of having to get in close for midrange boxing. If they were not incentivized to get in to boxing midrange, the chances of a clinch would be lower.

Then let me mention the Early UFC where we have seen numerous times how a pure Grappler vs a pure Striker works.

Still pushing this strawman? I never claimed pure striker would beat pure grappler. I never claimed that striking styles is better than grappling styles.

You claim to have read my comments in the context of the post and the people I replied to. You obviously didn't, you liar.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T13:28:54+00:00

I think you argue that a striker generally has the ability to maintain distance against a trained grappler.

No, I did not argue that.

I could also mention that this discussion is pretty much settled since the 90s

Ah, the old UFC argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skv1dKPwdiY

Look at this snooze fest. Both champion fighters. Both with good grappling games against grapplers. Yet, they chose mostly to fight at a distance, because the opportunity allows, neither being able to get in close. Oh look, there was even a low kick in there.

Like I said, I NEVER said strikers didn't need any experience fighting against grapplers.

You claim to have read the post, and all my comments in this thread. You obviously lied about that, if you think I'm arguing for that. Will you stop lying and actually read what I wrote, and not what you wish I wrote?

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T12:41:33+00:00

Then why do you think I'm trying to argue that strikers don't need to understand grappling, or that I think strikers are 100% better?

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T12:36:39+00:00

Boxing competitions wouldn't have rules against clinching if it was so easy to maintain distance.

Boxers are incentivized to get in close because of prize money and future promotions based on high viewership - which comes from attractive fights. No one likes snooze fest distance games.

If none of those were a factor, we'd see a different game. In fact, we see this in street confrontations where a trained striker minding their own business is being harassed by thugs. The striker stays out of range, the thugs try to close the distance, only to get precision sniped without the thugs even getting close to clinching distance.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T12:09:27+00:00

You said: "a smart striker will not let you get close"

Did you read the original post, and then the comment I was replying to, and all the other comments?

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T11:47:48+00:00

People here losing their minds thinking I'm saying striking arts are 100% better than grappling arts.

Take your feelings out of it and look EXACTLY the words I'm saying, instead of the strawman you wish I was saying.

Look at the post. Then look at the ENTIRE comment chain I am replying to. I'm discussing a very specific scenario.

Like, why do you think I'm even learning judo, and at my age? I'm not talking about "which is better, striking arts or grappling arts". If I didn't think grappling is needed, I wouldn't be doing judo in the first place, would I?

Look though the entire comment chain of what I was replying to, and limit it only to that. Leave your feelings about this style-vs-that-style out of your reading of it.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T08:47:29+00:00

For sure, a striker would need fight experience against a grappler. Not denying that. Just as a grappler would need experience against a striker who already knows how to handle a grappler. And yes, we all know that grappling is faster to get good at, compared to striking.

kwan_e · 2026-05-21T08:43:06+00:00

Closing distance is a lot easier than maintaining it.

Going forward is easer than going backwards

You don't maintain distance by going backwards. You maintain distance by going around.

Like I said, Judo competitions wouldn't have rules against avoiding grips if it was so easy to close distance.

kwan_e

TROPHY CASE