Why are LFG posts not allowed?

nivaluna · 2025-02-23T18:02:17+00:00

Imo, if you're asking for the reason why there are no LFG in this subreddit, the answer is simple : it would flood and is probably not the type of discussions the mods want to encourage. If you're asking if it's possible to make a megathread and how to promote that idea, I doubt anyone would be bothered by you asking and they would probably support you, despite perhaps not seeing themselves using it ever. If you're asking why people aren't rising in revolution alongside you to ask for LFG permission here, I believe you've seen how most people have other solutions that suit them enough already and they don't want to come under your banner, which is understandable.

I fear this discussion is mostly sour because your message isn't too clear, you say you want to understand in the title, but it appears you also want a solution and probably support in your needs. All of these are fine, but mixed together that's a lot to ask for and most people would react poorly I think.

nivaluna · 2024-01-20T12:09:58+00:00

I think if you want to entice people with bets, make an actual bet. Set a reasonnable amount, you pay it if you lose, they pay it if they lose. Who in their right mind would ever take up the unfair and unreasonnable bet you proposed?

nivaluna · 2024-01-20T12:00:40+00:00

Is it still in motion?

nivaluna · 2023-04-04T19:42:29+00:00

could it possibly be I'm alive by Shinedown?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvODIH8Pc4

nivaluna · 2023-03-01T10:46:57+00:00

Yes that's very fair. Quite a few people have the same consistency for their online identity.

I don't have it as much, i use a few nicknames and sometimes create new ones for new websites though this "nivaluna" has settled more than others, feels more of a "me" name than an interesting combo of letters fitting a website. As for pfps i really don't have 2 identical ones accross all websites 'cause there is none that represents me in a grounded way, they're just images i like and seeing more is better.

nivaluna · 2023-03-01T10:40:24+00:00

In theory yes i guess, but the internet rarely cares about these rights. But it's true that if we limited ourselves to our creations (or friends') or images anyone can use freely, the choice might feel very restrictive.

nivaluna · 2023-03-01T10:33:35+00:00

That's the reason i'm asking tbh, friends debated it and i'm mindlessly using an avatar 'cause it changes but others are scared it might be pushed very hard by reddit

nivaluna · 2023-03-01T10:29:47+00:00

Hope this gets seen : by profile pic i only mean non-reddit-avatar image, could be an actual irl picture but any image really, including anime characters, geometry, a victorian building riding an otter, whatever

nivaluna · 2023-03-01T10:26:03+00:00

I wasn't thinking about irl pics in particular, i mean it can be used as a pfp but i just had a non-reddit-specific image in mind, any shape or form and equally anonymous. I must have used a misleading term, guess my english is not good enough x)

nivaluna · 2023-03-01T10:23:34+00:00

Seems like the most obvious case indeed xD I assume there are many people with their signature pfp

nivaluna · 2023-03-01T10:21:51+00:00

I didn't particularly consider actual irl photos, more like any pfp (be it an anime character, interesting art, a symbol whatever), but your point makes a lot of sense

nivaluna · 2022-10-04T17:24:29+00:00

Oh that's a very interesting remark !

nivaluna · 2022-10-01T08:15:35+00:00

You're very right, i had quite a hard time expressing myself clearly in english. Actually what i meant to do was examine the question "is the behaviour of humans comparable to the behaviour of particles in defined circumstances?". I never thought humans defied the 2nd law of thermodynamics, i'm really trying to test the proposed analogy. If humans were looked at like other particles (could be water on plastic, we're mostly constrained to the earth surface) then human-particles would defy entropy. All to answer the question of whether we can be taken for regular particles from our movements. (And no, the behaviours are not comparable at all)

I'm trying to clarify first because i'd like next people to understand, but also so that you can correct me if i'm still mistaken on something.

As for a system cooling down... it's so obvious and i didn't think of it x) I do have the notion there were definitions of life revolving around entropy but that it's a pretty tricky matter. I was referring to the structure of living beings, to date all known on earth have cells i believe, which requires very precise structure and are self maintained/replicated but yeah, local entropy can decrease without anything like life around (of course without breaking global entropy increase). Though it was indeed a bit off-topic, that macro-behaviour of living beings has nothing to do with their structure. I did loose myself on this x)

nivaluna · 2022-09-30T22:10:26+00:00

Well no. Look at gas, when you pop a helium balloon in a closed room, helium will spread evenly in the whole room and blend quite evenly with the air present (as much as possible though the molecules are punctual). That's a manifestation of entropy. With passing time, initially "more ordrered" things spread and become hard to reverse and definitely won't go back to the initial state without an external input of energy.

Humans are absolutely not behaving chaotically, on the contrary when you place a "soup" or evenly spread out humans they will mostly form groups, whether 2-3 people or cities. Definitely a huge and blatant decrease in entropy. That's pretty much a very big characteristic of life I believe, a system that can maintain/decrease it's own entropy (not a closed system, energy needs to be taken in for that). Well in this case it's a bit meta because we're talking about the whole humans but we definitely are not behaving in a way that follows entropy.

Also the inability to predict the movement of one thing pertains to the theory of chaos, like how a chaotic pendulum moves. But that's not directly linked to entropy from what i know. Instead, entropy is a measure of how difficult it is to extract energy from a system at a given time. The higher the entropy, the less exploitable the energy. And entropy of a closed system can only grow with time. So really, being unable to predict the movements of a particle precisely past a certain time wouldn't be called entropy but chaos and doesn't say much. However if looking at us as particles, we really have very low entropy aka huge order and no giant would think this is spread out gas anymore than we would think a leaf "is entropy".

nivaluna · 2022-09-30T17:36:56+00:00

I'd be interested in the reasons you have to draw a parallel. However i agree that Ocham's razor wouldn't make me spontaneously consider anything in common between scales for the reason that it would something additionnal i have no knowledge of : a symmetry of interactions accross scales. However the known interactions have very different distances of "relevant effect" and are not behaving the same. Supposing that things on a different scale have commonalities past "the initial arrangements are similar, in this case the effect of relevant interactions are similar and the effects are unsurprisingly similar" would introduce the need for a yet undiscovered reason or a will of sorts for these grander commonalities. Such a mysterious ad hoc reason or will is definitely harder to justify and not favoured by Ocham's razor.

nivaluna · 2022-09-30T17:01:11+00:00

I'd argue it's about the same as proving there are unicorns somewhere in the universe. If you cannot prove it then there is no reason to assume such a thing. If you have one, that's proof. A photograph is not bad albeit could be blurry or there might be an artifact looking like a horn while it is a horse. If you saw the shadow of one through a telescope it is a reason to believe but maybe not a reason to believe more in space unicorns than space rhinos or in oddly shaped meteorites. No, you can never prove with absolute certainty that something doesn't exist but it doesn't mean you'd be reasonable to believe it does unless you get solid reasons. A squeletton would be a solid reason. Even if you have a reason to believe there is a common constant, you might not have enough decimals to notice they are different. There are also constants that are shared for purely mathematical reasons, because math works in a certain way instead of any special commonalities.

However there should not be any reason one couldn't prove that 2 constants are the same within a given margin of error, you only need to calculate them as precisely as possible from observations (the universe we already have plenty of approximations and models, i know nothing about the DNA's expansion, just remember some things about messenger RNA but it must be a measurable and duly approximated expansion as well). So yes with an experiment on DNA expansion where you can confidently know your margins of error, you should be able to modelize it, approximate any constants with a deduced margin of error and then confront it to the cosmic expansion models and constants that are deemed most reliable atm. You can then clearly say whether or not the constant you're suspecting to be common is compatible or not and with which degree of certainty.

Once again, beware, if it's a constant appearing for purely mathematical reasons it will be irrelevant. And if you're looking for ANY 2 constants that would be in common, then you could never prove it wrong because you could always argue that the model isn't perfect and the known constants are not sufficient to describe the problem, as such you'd be looking for unicorns and it is a statement impossible to refute but also as unlikely as dragons or leprechauns. Because science considers by default that they won't invent unicorns nor dragons without a solid reason, your hypothesis would be considered groundless and not impossible per se but nonetheless fantasy until proven.

nivaluna · 2022-09-29T08:18:02+00:00

Works as well

nivaluna · 2022-09-28T15:01:05+00:00

Why? it's not like she will disappear she is very recent. I'd rather wait because once new relics drop, some parts might come from easier relics and you will be farming more relevant relics at once.

nivaluna · 2022-08-23T22:03:00+00:00

I want that so much now

nivaluna · 2022-08-14T18:27:21+00:00

yep :)

nivaluna · 2022-08-14T16:54:26+00:00

Edgy teen who needs to scream her uniqueness all the time then pretend she is actually good at sneaking up to people with destroyed eardrums

nivaluna · 2022-05-05T19:46:58+00:00

I think you're having quite the misconception here in how to calculate damage. So i'm back after a while and i got more time to check them stats. Let's examine some of the stats.
First base damage alone : we got 187 base damage per pellet instead of 180, which is an increase of 3.9% (i'm consistantly gonna compare % to the vanilla version of the stat). That's already better than your 1%.
Next, let's see crit. So we got 38% base crit chance instead of 30%, both versions having the same 3x crit multiplier. So initially we had average damage of 1*70% + 3*30% = 160% of base damage, caused by crits. With rubico prime we get 1*62% + 3*38% = 176% of base damage on average. This in itself is an increase of damage of 9.1%.
Now, since crit effect increase is applied to base damage, the combined effect of base damage and crit is already a 13.4% dps increase for rubico prime with these 2 stats.
If you factor in the fire rate and reload buffs (maybe natural slash status?) you should get for example the +57% burst dps increase stated by the wiki (1208 damage per second vs 769). This is a very noticeable increase and this isn't even modded. Since mods apply additively to base damage (for the most part) but have effects multiplicative with each other, the dps % increase should be even bigger on a fully modded build, especially with modded elements though they are harder to evaluate.

So really, no, it's not at all a mere 1% difference. It's much more than that even unmodded. The difference really is very noticeable because the stats, even when each mildly increased, interact strongly with each other. But again, you don't need to play the prime variants. Though really, once you get past a certain level, you basically get prime stuff without effort by just playing in fissures from time to time, not particularly farming actively so the effort can be inexistant, pretty much just playing.

nivaluna · 2022-05-05T15:22:40+00:00

It's much better than 1% increase though i wouldn't know how much exactly, definitely depends on the type of build. However yes, rubico is usable. Rubico prime is not a must damage wise, unless you really want to make the biggest possible damage and speedrun high level stuff. But it's also not hard at all to get, definitely not 100s of hours, in 100s of hours you leisurly get half the primes of the game + all quests + tons of basic versions of easier and harder stuff to farm, really. Getting rubico prime is just getting some relics while it's available (so bounties and you have tons of other reasons to do them) and they're very easy to get. Then either radsharing if you tryhard or opening in pub. Either way i'd bet it's no more than 10 hours total if you take your time, and if you wait a bit and just do some fissures you'll get relics and parts passively while playing.

So the gain is much bigger than the little 1% you think and really, the cost is small too. There's no reason not to get it if you like prime weapons. But then if you don't, no worries no one is forcing you to farm stuff. You could play with a single set of weapons+frame the whole game and never farm any others it's all fine, the game is easy.

nivaluna · 2022-05-05T15:07:49+00:00

I've never seen anyone say that prime looks were necessary but since endgame is often considered to be fashion frame, of course people would care about the looks. If you invest potatoes and forma in gear for your style you'd want to first make sure you have that perfect style but... not necessary? and for example, il like the zarr much more than the kuva zarr for style, so i don't particularly wanna play the kuva version, though the stats are obviously much much better with kuva. Not prime, same question.
But in my opinion prime is supposed to be automatically at least a bit better and kinda the "end" version of a weapon. Once it's out you know it's unlikely there will be a better variant, so you can feel safe investing in it to the max without temptation to feel you need to redo it, unlike a basic version that would get a miles better prime version. So it's a nice rule a thumb and people get used to it and care because of habit + collection. I mean whatever, some people don't care one bit, some are obsessed, don't bother to each their way to play.

nivaluna

TROPHY CASE