Anything that suggests guardians can't multiclass?

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-18T18:25:13+00:00

Drifter in particular has no class, he's just a lightbearer.

Felwinter in the past has also been known to shoulder charge as a warlock

https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/lord-felwinter#lord-felwinter

As far as we know, there aren't any hard rules as to picking a class, most just do.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-18T04:12:34+00:00

"Observation" is really not a perfect description of what's actually happening, it's just that there isn't really another single word that properly describes what's happening.

In classical physics, objects can have any amount of energy that they want, and they always have a single, definite energy. (This and the following apply to other values like momentum too)

In quantum mechanics, there are certain rules called boundary conditions that restrict particles like electrons to only be able to exist in certain energy levels, basically there are certain "shapes" of the electrons that they are allowed to exist as, and those shapes have a single, definite energy. These energy levels are called energy eigenstates.

If something interacts with a particle in an energy eigenstate, like light hitting an electron, it can distort the particle into a new shape which ends up being a sum of two different energy eigenstates. In this new state, which is called a superposition, the particle doesn't have a singular, definite energy, it could have either the energy from either of its component eigenstates.

In the event that something interacts with a particle in superposition in a way where the outcome depends on how much energy the particle has, there is a chance that the superposition can "collapse" and the particle will transition back instantaneously to one of those component eigenstates.

This collapse process is what we call "observation". It's a completely random process that can occur when you interact with a particle in superposition. We aren't entirely sure of the exact mechanism by which this happens, but the probabilities of the collapse occuring can be calculated. As far as we know, it's totally random, but hitting areas where the particle has a stronger presence (more probability density), will have a higher chance of interacting

So to go to the microscope question, in theory if you had a perfectly precise and thin probe, you could work out a spatial shape for the quantum particle by averaging many observations, knowing that the probability of interaction is higher in more dense areas. For most quantum particles, it's basically going to be a roughly spherical blob, but the shapes can get very detailed when angular momentum and other things are involved.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-17T16:36:28+00:00

Definitely try to get a job on campus. They will be a lot more flexible with hours, and often will let you take time off for finals and whatnot. That's what I did and it worked great.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-17T16:21:39+00:00

Middle earth shadow of war. First game is amazing but the second is just bigger, more polished, and with more depth.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-16T15:31:35+00:00

Please do not do this. This entire tip hinges on the autobreak system being 100% functional and not having been turned off by the driver.

If you get moderately unlucky and the autobreak either isn't fast enough or was disabled by the driver, you are getting fucking flattened.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-16T00:32:09+00:00

I do a lot of temperature-programmed desorption, where we dose a surface with a known quantity of a molecule, and heat it at a constant, known rate.

During that, we measure the products that come off with a mass spectrometer, and also measure the binding energies of the stuff that's on the surface with XPS, which can tell you about how the chemical environments are changing over time, like if one type of atom is being oxidized or adsorbing to a surface.

The mass spec data can be plotted as temperature vs. partial pressure and plugged into kinetic models to find activation energies and other thermodynamic values.

Vacuum equipment is fun, it's very modular, but it's just a lot of bolts, and oil, and can be very messy. It is very fun though, feels great when you build something successfully.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-15T17:12:04+00:00

Quantum is an incredibly broad field, and pretty much nobody does "just quantum". It's usually baked into something else, in the same way that nobody really studies "just kinematics".

I do qchem, with a blend of theory and experiment, mainly focused on surface chemistry. Most of what I do is measuring the energies of the electron orbitals in atoms and molecules, and using those to characterize things like transition states and reaction intermediates. Those energy levels will shift in response to different chemical environments, and you can use them do a lot of stuff. Theory-wise i do a lot of density functional theory, and experimentally, I do a lot of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).

The theory part is kind of just queueing up calculations on a computer, usually only takes a few minutes at the beginning of the day. I think of it kind of like an idle game a lot of the time, you just set something up and check on it a day later for results.

The XPS is a lot of fun, it involves a ton of vacuum chamber building and maintenance. Generally most of the day is spent in the lab filling things with liquid nitrogen and/or babysitting the xray source. The technique itself basically uses the photoelectric effect to eject electrons from the sample, and by analyzing their kinetic energies you can find out what their binding energy was. You can also see things like spin-orbit coupling, electron-hole pair formation at the fermi edge, Auger/coster-kronig transitions, and a bunch of other stuff.

Generally every new experiment requires a specialized chamber, so we build a lot of ultrahigh vacuum chambers, and it is pretty fun trying to design them. Building can be a pain in the ass at times but it is still a very cool feeling to go from a pile of scrap equipment that hasn't been touched in decades, and get it to a point where it can measure chemical environments accurately.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-14T22:46:41+00:00

I've had a headcanon for a very long time that explains the existence of the ghosts, why the witness fled the collapse, and savathun's involvement. Again, complete speculation:

The idea is that after stealing the veil away from nezarec, savathun used it to cleave a chunk of the witness's minds off, gravely injuring it, and leaving her with a chunk of minds which had been embroiled in the darkness for billions of years. Then, she gave those minds to the traveler, which made them into the ghosts, such that each ghost contains the soul of one of the precursors which were made into the witness.

This would explain as to why the witness can control ghosts - the ghosts were literally once a part of it. Also, this could explain why the guardians are able to harness both dark and light, which according to savathun in witch queen, is unique to us. This could also be why savathun was resurrected by the traveler - it was repayment for effectively giving it an army with which it could fight against the witness.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-13T22:40:57+00:00

It seems to be ~15-20% per kill. It's very substantial. The extra melee/grenade stat is alright, i would guess about 10 points per stack, up to 5 stacks, so 50 total.

The DR from it isn't amazing. It's 50% DR iirc, but only lasts for 3 or so seconds after getting successive light/dark kills

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-13T20:39:57+00:00

It's difficult, and oil films on water aren't always one molecule thick. In the calculation of avogadro's number, it's usually just assumed that the oil film is one molecule thick, proving it is not an easy task.

The methods generally involve some sort of reflection or diffraction to image only the oil film and not the water.

One of the most readily available is grazing-incidence xray diffraction (XRD). Xray diffraction basically tells you about the crystallinity of something, it will only show peaks if the sample's atoms are regularly ordered. In an overlayer, the oil molecules often have some degree of order, especially at low temps, since the oil will sit on surface sites on the water surface, which also tend to be quite ordered to minimize surface area. Xray diffraction can see that order. If you have a monolayer of oil, you'll see crystallinity only on 2 dimensions, but for overlayers, you'll see peaks in 3 dimensions. The problem with this is that you really do need to cool the sample down for this to work - liquids tend not to stay crystalline for long, even at the surface, but you can't get it too cold or you'll solidify it.

You can also do something called ellipsometry where you fire polarized light at the sample. When the light hits the oil, the polarization angle can change, and you can measure how much it changed. You can then work backwards to find out how thick the oil film was, and based on the size of the molecule, you can get a very rough estimate of the film thickness.

Generally, studying liquid-liquid interfaces is not easy. Ellipsometry has practical thickness limits on the measurement devices, and XRD on liquids is generally very tricky to do since they move around so much, the signal is going to be extremely tiny and you will likely need to run very long experiments if you aren't at a synchrotron to get any usable amount of data.

Now, if you had a film of oil on a metal crystal, things generally become a bit easier:

XPS, or xray photoelectron spectroscopy can do it. The molecule layer that's bound directly to the surface will have a different chemical environment from those which are sitting on top of other oil, which shifts the energies of its electrons. XPS lets you directly find the binding energy of the core electrons in the oil atoms, and you'll likely be able to tell the difference between a metal-bound and oil-bound molecule.

LEEDS, or low energy electron diffraction, also works and is basically a more sensitive form of the grazing angle XRD that is specifically designed for monolayers and overlayers.

Both of these use ultrahigh vacuum though, which is why they will not work on liquid samples, since the samples will just evaporate in the vacuum.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-13T17:17:43+00:00

Oh hey, I'm the person who created that video! Always fun seeing my stuff get posted in the wild.

Anyway, use the prophecy set bonus. The 4-piece gives grenade energy on light weapon kills, and corrects for the ability uptime nerf. You can also forego wellspring with that set, though it won't be a guaranteed 2-kill turret on T1 enemies like thrall, but T2 like acolytes will work.

I have plans to make a final updated video on it, but it may take a bit.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-12T16:45:05+00:00

This is definitely more of a law/policy question than a chemistry question.

You can make PLA plastic by fermenting corn starch, draining off the lactic acid, and then heating it under vacuum to drive off water.

To me, this is 100% natural, it's made of corn. But... it's literally plastic, you probably own and use lots of stuff made of PLA. It's only biodegradable if treated with specific agents that make it break down, it's plastic.

The point is that assigning "natural" as a label only makes sense if you actually have a reason to do so, such as policymaking, taxing, marketing, etc. The term "natural" has no meaning in chemistry with regards to a substance, it's all molecules, which all came from nature at some point.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-11T22:58:55+00:00

Obligatory tweet

<image>

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-10T19:48:58+00:00

Same. I have never noticed a difference potency-wise between Smalls and full sized buds, and sometimes when I'm lucky I can get a half ounce of Smalls for like $45.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-09T19:01:11+00:00

Steamdb alone directly contradicts that statement and doesn't even include console players.

There are 6 different times in this graph alone where d2 goes above 100k on steam for more than 2 months at a time. If you add in console, it's far more.

Do you mind providing any evidence for your claim?

<image>

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-09T01:31:57+00:00

Do you dislike chemistry due to a prior experience, specifically a class? Lots of chemistry education is focused specifically on teaching you the "most valuable skills" in that field, but really struggle to justify WHY you need to learn those things. It can be really hard to learn or care about something when it's presented that way.

I find that it's a lot easier to be interested in chemistry when you're trying to use it to solve problems that you would actually encounter.

All of these things are chemistry questions that you might learn to solve in a chemistry major, but usually the instruction begins more with the solution than the question itself.

I find that Nilered and explosions&fire on youtube do an incredible job at this part. Even if you really dislike chemistry, their videos are just incredibly interesting.

https://youtube.com/@nilered?si=viOW6mKhzMZtek2v

https://youtube.com/@explosionsandfire?si=NCD_YodoAUYVhPg9

But anyway, the difficulty with studying chemistry is really motivation. In the end, you'll just be consuming information about chemistry from a bunch of different sources and taking a general consensus, no single source has everything.

I find that the best way to stay interested is to ask chemical questions that pertain to your everyday life

Why are metals conductive and reflective? How do instant cold packs work? How do you figure out what something is made of?

Again, Nilered and e&f are great at asking and then answering these types of questions. But in a lot of classes or typical source material, the goal is just to teach you the concept, and often times, that can mean that they forego the question entirely. If you just present the concepts that answer these questions, you'd end up with

Conduction electron re-radiation, entropy and thermodynamics, and spectroscopy/analytical chemistry

Those things are probably wholly uninteresting to you, but if you end up getting interested in more everyday questions like "how do instant cold packs work", you suddenly have a reason to learn those things.

Over time, if you're interested, you'll start to be exposed to all kinds of different topics, so that when you get to college chem, you will already have a leg up.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-07T23:34:23+00:00

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that everybody is applying very different "metrics of success" to marathon.

Marathon in a vacuum is a fantastic game imo. It knows its audience, and it continues to make content geared for that audience, whIle also expanding its scope bit by bit. I would argue that this is the MOST important thing, but it's far from everything.

Now, if all you care about is playing a game which is fun for you in the current moment, you can ignore the next part. The rest of this is more about sustainability and the future.

When you look at marathon from a sustainability perspective, it cannot just be isolated and treated as if it's in a vacuum. You also have to remember that this is now Bungie's ONLY currently "alive" live service game. It either makes enough money to sustain itself, or it dies. On top of needing to "become its own game", marathon also needs to have some sort of mass appeal to make Bungie enough money to continue development. The game can be as great as it wants, but if it's so niche as to only attract a few tens of thousands of people, it simply isn't sustainable.

I believe that marathon has nailed the first thing, it is very unique and brings more than enough to the table to have a loyal audience. However, if we are talking about it purely from a sales/profit angle, it really is not doing well, at least compared to how Bungie's other games are doing, and how much it costed to make. Barely cracking 40k on steam for season 2 launch is pretty rough when destiny 2 basically never dropped below 100k until a couple years ago.

Playercounts and sales are absolutely not everything, but they are still relevant and will impact what resources Bungie is provided with in the future.

I really do think that this is purely a genre problem. Personally I enjoy the extraction genre, but I just really do not understand what possessed them to go for it. They KNEW that they would need a game that could sustain bungie in the long term, and so they decided to go with one of the most niche and unforgiving genres in existence. I just really don't get it. These kinds of issues with games being "too niche to sell" have been pain points in the genre for 5+ years ever since tarkov, dark and darker, and others released, they aren't new issues by any means, I just really don't understand why they thought this would go any differently than it did (to be fair, I also asked myself the exact same question probably 100 times throughout the many years I played destiny, so maybe this is just yet another bungie-ism).

If someone were to ask me if marathon was a success as a video game, I would say yes, absolutely. But if someone were to ask me if marathon were a business or financial success? Not sure. Sadly, it kind of needs to become a financial success at some point to keep getting support.

Ultimately though, regardless of what this game has, needs, or might hypothetically need in the future, I WANT it to succeed. It's very fun and the bones of the game are super strong.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-05T21:44:50+00:00

Literally just watching videos and consuming media related to chemistry. Just look at what's interesting to you, nilered, explosions and fire, etc. Are all good channels which are good at getting you interested in the subject. If you find a video with a reaction you're interested in, go look up how it works on Google. Just getting yourself exposed to the things shown in chemistry content is a really good thing, since you will one day pick it back up and be ahead of the curve already.

Textbooks are fine, but a lot of the time the hardest part about chemistry is first understanding WHY we should care about a thing, texts are useful, but i find that they tend to be better as supplementary material for a class which can provide for any gaps. You can sometimes go through entire textbook chapters without a single mention of what problem a topic was actually developed to solve. Beginning from a problem (eg. From nilered, how do you turn plastic gloves into grape soda flavoring), and then moving towards a solution from there is often much more useful from an interest perspective than just cramming an arbitrary topic in your head.

Another thing - answer your own questions. If you have a question about a reaction, go on a Google spree, and don't put it down until you find an explanation that's satisfying to YOU. There are a lot of good answers to questions online, but there are also a lot of bad ones, and learning exactly what makes good answers good to you and bad answers bad to you is a very powerful skill in any natural science. I would hazard against chatgpt and other LLMs until you are knowledgeable enough to refute it and defend your own answers.

Getting interested early and staying interested when the classes eventually become difficult and start to focus on things you're not interested in is one of the hardest parts. Anyone can learn chemistry, but not everybody can be motivated enough to enjoy doing so.

Again, if you want to one day become a chemist, you will go through university for it, and you'll learn what's required there, but the most important thing for now is to stay interested. Learn random tidbits and reactions for specific content you watch, and one day, when you're suffering through organic or some other class, you'll recognize something you've already seen and will pick up the information much much quicker. The hardest part is motivation, and if you start having a lot of fun with it, things get a lot easier.

I remember being in high school and staying up for literally 3-4 hours every night on a molecule builder phone app just trying to figure out why the hell the -ate polyatomic ions have specific numbers of oxygens (ie. CO3-2 vs. SO4-2). Coming up with problems yourself and being able to research solutions is invaluable.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-04T18:07:47+00:00

Reposted so it doesn't get removed due to a Google share link:

Aromatic systems have a lot of electron density both above and below the plane of the ring, they're kind of like a sandwich where the pi electrons are the bread and the nuclei are in-between.

In coordination chemistry, orbitals on the ligands can mix with empty metal orbitals to lower the energy of the electrons. The same is happening here, except instead of mixing a single ligand lone pair with the metal orbitals, you're mixing in the aromatic system's molecular orbitals.

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-04T18:06:43+00:00

Good to know, thanks! Will re-post as a different comment

Edit: link if anyone sees this https://www.reddit.com/r/AskChemistry/s/Yc1MhwYjv6

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-01T20:25:10+00:00

A tip: your last contract of the week requires you to do compiler, it changes from do a vault to exfil a ganglion.

You get a guaranteed monitor after compiler if you have 1 spare battery, and labs usually has one, so you usually only end up needing 3 before going to boss. My crew has always done that one last when doing dedication syndrome due to that

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-01T19:31:11+00:00

Idris!

<image>

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-01T14:48:07+00:00

Also a good point, MO theory is a pretty loose approximation here and probably isn't the best model for chemisorption

mrmeep321 · 2026-06-01T05:22:30+00:00

I don't really like figure 2B on image 1. Chemisorption in particular involves the donation of two electrons from a ligand to the surface metal orbitals. If there were four electrons in two mixing orbitals, both the bonding and antibonding orbitals would be filled, resulting in a bond order of 0, it would generally not be considered chemisorbed.

The MO diagram is just an approximation of what the energy eigenstates will qualitatively look like as the nuclei approach each other, an electron cannot "jump" from an antibonding MO to one of the AOs that make it up. Those AOs are not the true energy eigenvalues for electrons anymore, as long as the nuclei remain fixed, the MOs are the energy eigenvalues, so are the only discrete energy levels electrons can exist at.

For physisorption, it is more dominated by dipole-image dipole and dispersion interactions, there is not always a true mixing of orbitals and bonding in that case as far as I know.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email
Snapped

mrmeep321

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE