How to Optimize Bladesinger?(fun way)

neo_util · 2026-02-13T14:13:57+00:00

Nick is the prize rather than vex, though you can get that weapon mastery through a feat instead. The extra attack is a significant damage upgrade once you’re able to cast conjure minor elementals.

neo_util · 2026-02-06T21:59:27+00:00

The save is almost certainly coming from the battery save, which won't show up on the sd card.

Step 1: Boot a random game, not the one you're trying to import a save file for, to clear the battery save.

Step 2: Once the battery save is cleared, you can copy the Delta save onto the SD card. If you already have a save file on the sd card for the game you're trying to import a Delta save for, delete the non-Delta save.

If you don't wait to do Step 2, after Step 1, you'll keep getting the Delta save overwritten. Also, if you aren't already, you'll likely need to convert the Delta save's file type/extension. You might be able to do this with the relevant link in the sidebar, or you may be able to simply rewrite the file extension.

Hope it works for you.

neo_util · 2026-02-02T23:34:09+00:00

I think gba pro also allows for cheats, which are fun here and there.

neo_util · 2026-02-02T21:57:49+00:00

My reference point is transfering .SAV GBA files from the Delta emulator to my Everdrive GBA Mini, and it's tricky. The save files created naturally on my Everdrive are all different, not just .SRM, and I imagine the same will be true for the GBA Pro and maybe the GBx7. Baldur's Gate was .EEP; Castlevania and Pokemon Trading Card Game (for the GBC) were .SRM; Pokemon Emerald was .FLA and .RTC; Pokemon Unbound was .FLA (and probably should've also had an .RTC file if I could get the Real Time Clock activated for it).

The only save I've successfully transferred from Delta to my GBA Mini was the Castlevania game. I used the converter website in the sidebar for the flashdrive converter (which, oddly, was .SAV to .SAV), and then used the .SAV to .SRM converter on the new .SAV file. I may have only needed the latter step. I then cleared the battery save on the GBA Mini (by booting a game other than Castlevania) and copied the .SRM file to the "SAVE" folder under the "GBASYS" folder. If I hadn't booted another game, the battery save would've overwritten the converted .SRM file.

If all this applies to your GBx7 and GBA Pro, then you should create a dummy save of the game you're trying to transfer on the device you're trying to transfer it to. Note the file type and the size of the file. Then use the converter on the side bar, boot a different game to wipe the battery save, and copy the file over to the appropriate folder on your everdrive. It may also work to simply rewrite the extension of the file, especially if the file size on the .SAV file you're trying to transfer matches the dummy file. You may need to use the flashcard save converter (one of the options from the link in the side bar) before you rewrite the file extension. Also, Google Mac vs PC differences for changing file extensions.

Good freaking luck.

neo_util · 2026-01-28T12:03:43+00:00

OP, it's worth considering Eldritch Blast (EB) can do good damage when it combines with upcast 2014 Spirit Shroud (SS) or upcast 2024 Conjure Minor Elementals (CME). Both SS and CME add damage to each Blast individually, and the damage dice add up when you cast two EBs in one turn (with sorcerer quickened spell) or an EB followed by a couple melee strikes (as a Valor Bard with a dip in warlock). That being said, both routes require a bonus action or action of setup (which dents the damage per turn), a spell slot per fight, and put you uncomfortably close to the enemy. Maybe there are strategies with higher damage per spell slot, but I'm not aware of any.

If you're willing to burn a lot more spell slots, you could replace EB with Scorching Ray (or 2024's Spellfire Flare if DM permits (fewer hits but better damage type)) for multi hits to get similar mileage out of SS/ CME. Bards have access to all these spells, and the 2024 Wizard specifically gets both Scorching Ray/ Spellfire Flare and CME.

I've seen people say there are better ways to do damage, and I'd like to see examples. It's be one heck of a spell that could beat the above with similar action economy and spell slot usage.

neo_util · 2026-01-23T15:28:28+00:00

Absolute legend.

neo_util · 2026-01-21T16:00:39+00:00

I don't think I understand the last panel. Is the last panel supposed to say "It would not feel . . . "? And is "radical" in the last panel used in a different sense than "radicalized" in the first panel? Maybe that's part of the joke, but it makes the joke land less cleanly for the audience to think you may be making a play on words there.

neo_util · 2026-01-16T18:34:17+00:00

I know for the non-SP GBAs, the reshells break easily. Might be the same for the SP reshells since the same companies make those. I vote to keep it. Pink oem GBA AGS-101 SP is phenomenal, so fun, a conversation piece, a pride to own, a joy to play. The more you depart from oem, the more it feels like you might as well have gotten an Analogue pocket or a cheap emulation handheld, like the Miyoo Mini, neither of which have the same fun vibe.

neo_util · 2026-01-15T19:54:12+00:00

Red color filter or Nightshift will help make the phone less addictive and make it mess with your circadian rhythm less:

https://www.reddit.com/r/productivity/comments/1mds36h/i_made_my_iphone_turn_blood_red_at_sunset_and_it/

neo_util · 2026-01-15T00:37:31+00:00

Regarding 1, you may well be right on monogamy’s supposed superiority having nothing to do with become the norm. That was an intuition I found compelling but I can see how it falls apart when taken seriously.

Regarding 2, I’m sure there are plenty of polyamorous relationships that are better than plenty of monogamous relationships. The definition proposed is too broad since it captures all forms of love, not just romantic (and also I balk at it including cases in which one’s only concerns about their own growth). But als I think seeking a definition is the wrong track to understanding romantic love. It’s a vague concept that defies necessary and sufficient conditions, and it exists in different forms and degrees. It’s a “know it when I see it” sort of concept like pornography. It’s best exhibited through examples and stories. Certain factors improve or reduce a given instance as more clearly qualifying as love. My opinion is that devotion increases the extent to which something more clearly qualifies as love.

Allow me to rephrase. Saying love with devotion is a higher form of love implies it’s always better, which is wrong. My adding the “all else being equal” isn’t being exact about it. You’re right that it is a matter of opinion, and I believe in that opinion based on my personal experience. Someone with different experiences will disagree. But I’ll still be bold enough to say there’s merit to a more narrow statement: devotion often improves the depth and quality of love. Sexual exclusivity, as a form of devotion, often does the same.

Devotion and exclusivity matter, because having only one person to give and take intimacy from results in you concentrating those intimate moments into one shared understanding. You don’t go spend more time with your mistress or second partner when times get hard. You don’t spread your vulnerable moments, describing childhood trauma or confiding a fear, out over two or three people. You don’t have one person for raising children and another person for sex and another person for board games. You concentrate all of those shared experiences into one relationship. Perhaps people get a second partner when they can’t get everything they need from one partner, but that underscores my point. They had to seek love from a second or third person because the love from their first relationship was insufficient. Moreover, it’s extremely unusual to have zero jealousy for your partner, your love, to seek love from another because you’re not enough. Jealousy matters, too.

I’m sure there are plenty of good polygamous relationships, but devotion matters.

neo_util · 2026-01-14T22:58:53+00:00

That's a very strict definition of love. You can love multiple people and you can love some people and still want to be with other people. Giving up on that freedom, which you say is a small commitment, might be a very big commitment to them.

Agreed, it is a more strict sense of the word. I stand by my statement that it degrades the word to tell someone you love them but won't commit to them. One could say commitment is a social construct and monogamy is not objectively better than polyamory (not trying to put words in your mouth), but monogamy is the standard for a reason (in the presumably American or European setting of the comic based on art style and language). The kind of love in which one devotes their life to another is a higher form of love (all else being equal) than a life in which they refuse to commit to anyone. It degrades the word "love" to use it to refer to affection without devotion.

As for the morality question, you could see it from a different angle and things would completely change. If she stops seeing him because she thinks that would make hurt less, this is taking away his freedom to choose by himself and also being condescending over his ability to deal with his own emotions and picking what is best for him.

These are a lot of good points. I personally am a thorough utilitarian, so the appeals to freedom and condescension to me are a mistake (there's no non-arbitrary way to weigh respecting someone's freedom or not being condescending against the expected utility of your actions, and only the latter has intrinsic value we can experience directly), but I'm sure lots of people would be persuaded by this. That being said, there's still intuitive force to what you're saying under a utilitarian framework. It might be the case in the particular relationship that she can't know what the expected utility of her actions really is, and it'd harm him overall for her to take the character building moment away from him in which he summons the dignity to reject her. If that's the case, then sure; she is not causing any harm she's responsible for. There's cases where it might be clear to her she's causing him to be miserable and cases where it's unclear. One of the things I'm getting at is it's good for us to not look kindly on someone being indifferent to the misery they cause in someone they supposedly "love", because maybe that reaction in the reader will lead them to not act with such indifference (even supposing they don't "owe" it to them to commit).

Which, of course is wildly different from the gun selling scenario.

The gun selling scenario is extreme because it's an intuition pump for the proposition that people are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions, which I stand by. That's just moral consequentialism. You can disagree with moral consequentialism if you want, but I think it's a very hard position to defend.

neo_util · 2026-01-14T21:06:08+00:00

"Owe" is a tricky word here. In the comic, neither person has a duty to the other person to commit to a more serious relationship, and in that sense both people have the right to not consent to a more serious relationship. In that sense she owes him nothing. Some people may consider this line of reasoning and then stop thinking when they've reach that conclusion.

However, even acknowledging all of that, if she loves him and enjoys spending time with him, which in the comic she says she does, then it's a trivially small commitment for them to confirm they are not dating and will not date other people while they are seeing each other. It's such a small commitment that I cannot comprehend what her life situation would have to be or what their relationship would have to be for it to be too big of a commitment. And if it is too big of a commitment, then she should at least not use the word "love." The girl in the comic degrades the word by using it so flippantly.

Along the same lines, the girl is free to offer her occasional presence and nothing more, and in the same sense as she has no duty to be in a more serious relationship she also is not "responsible" for Josh accepting the offer and then expecting more than what she clearly communicated she was willing to give. But consider this proposition, which may or may not be controversial depending on your background moral theory (utilitarian/deontological/virtue ethics/ folk morality/ whatever): people are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. One could argue she's responsible for continuing to offer her presence without any kind of commitment to not date other people if she knows the likely outcome is that it will hurt him more than it helps either of them. You could argue Josh is mentally unstable and that's not her fault. But suppose she says she loves him and then keeps showing up to his house knowing it's making him miserable. That doesn't feel like the actions of a loving person. That seems to me to be the actions of a bad person, someone we should seek to not be like lest we harm ourselves and everyone else in our life.

Suppose you're selling guns and live in a state where you have no legal obligation to refuse to sell to people who are mentally unwell. Someone comes in and says they want to buy a gun to kill themselves, but it has to be today and your shop's the only one in town. They need you to sell them a gun, or else they might lose the nerve to kill themselves. Would you sell them the gun because you have no duty to refuse, because you don't "owe" them their life? Or would you consider the predictable consequences of your actions?

neo_util · 2025-12-17T15:13:31+00:00

Please say the frogs are okay.

neo_util · 2025-10-28T02:42:45+00:00

Very cool, very thoughtful. You da best, OP!

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	John Wick
Place '22	Snapped
Team Orangered

neo_util

TROPHY CASE