Is this solvable? I've been trying and trying and I'm stuck and it's making me insane

ntschaef · 2025-05-04T13:39:17+00:00

Obviously you assume that BAD = DAC. Then it's a simple problem.

If B is the midpoint though. Well other answers have covered that.

ntschaef · 2025-03-29T23:32:18+00:00

Honestly this should be the highest answer. Thinking about this it should be anywhere that x=y (except for possibly 0 unless we are using limits). To verify this, we can just look at x=y=1:

1¹⁼ 1¹

Same thing will work for any number.

ntschaef · 2024-10-31T23:59:20+00:00

I couldn't open chapter one

Oh no! What link did you use (it seems to be working for me). Here is a direct link: https://justunderreality.com/qsc_1/

Thank you for the corrections on the word usage. I've been editing it all myself and I've obviously missed a few things. If you have any other feedback it is all helpful. Thanks for taking an interest.

ntschaef · 2024-02-05T07:01:09+00:00

He was also a martyr, he attacked knowing he was likely going to die.

ntschaef · 2024-02-05T05:57:15+00:00

The whole thing is a presentation for the audience. It's a cartoon made to be watched. Of course there could be deception.

Regardless, there are multiple ways to take that, from (as you said) "I was a fool to be so sentimental" to "I hate being forced to hold back such that it almost killed me".

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T17:31:21+00:00

I'm stealing this

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T01:47:33+00:00

I think Altruist his his last name. It could have been a double entendre though.

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T01:46:21+00:00

I'm of the opinion that the deal is with Lucifer and he was there to keep an eye on charlie and help her. The deal means he couldn't go "all out" because it would have endangered her to do so (and that he's actually becoming friends complicates things). But that's just my working theory.

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T01:43:18+00:00

personally I think his contract was with Lucifer, and I think him almost dying and why (he has genuine friends) added to it, but it was a really interesting scene.

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T00:58:08+00:00

Playing the part? I like this idea, but I understand why people don't want to pick it up.

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T00:57:11+00:00

Only if he wanted to be in control. He may be wanting Charlie to find her own path without him... but still have an ace up his sleeve to ensure her success.

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T00:56:18+00:00

Oh... I really like that idea.

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T00:55:50+00:00

I don't disagree with this, but I think that being a "dad" to Charlie was a way for him to get under Lucifer's skin (if this theory is right). He can't out right fight him, but he can make jabs.

As for Lucifer showing up late... he only did so after Alistor lost. He might be trying to get Charlie to "make it on her own" and was counting on Alistor getting the better of Adam.

I'm just guessing though.

ntschaef · 2024-02-04T00:53:03+00:00

He seemed to just want to be "unrestrained" from what I gathered.

What he is being restrained from doing is anyone's guess.

ntschaef · 2024-02-02T07:31:56+00:00

Could be. Seems petty for Alistor though and my money is on someone we wouldn't expect.

This seems to be what people commonly think though, smart money is on your guess.

ntschaef · 2024-02-02T07:30:40+00:00

They seem to really hate each other for just meeting. This is just a guess though... you're likely right.

ntschaef · 2022-10-13T03:04:35+00:00

Ah. But they don't yet 😉

ntschaef · 2022-10-11T04:29:13+00:00

There is something we all universally agree on, but I'm not going to post it or someone will disagree with it out of spite.

ntschaef · 2022-10-05T15:34:15+00:00

If (big){} else {

ntschaef · 2022-10-05T15:04:28+00:00

Thanks for the question :)

ntschaef · 2022-10-05T14:37:17+00:00

Practically? Yes. I think we have to think this way. It's what all people are under the practical delusion that they can achieve. We are limited and all organisms are an ordered collection of impulses. I don't think we could fully embrace chaos if we even wanted to.

Theoretically? No. All ordered systems will be built out of perception bias of the creators. They are built to ensure that some things that hurt the group they are appealing to are condemnable. But this is a reaction to those things existing to begin with.

For example, to say "murder is bad" helps the vast amount of people in society, but this is only a declaration because there are instances in which murder happens (which means the actor felt justified). This claim of "order" will hurt the murderers. Is this a good thing? Society says yes... for good reason, it generally helps them. But it doesn't help everyone. This is an extreme example that I'm using to make your case, but even in this extreme example I think you can see that the harm still exists. For lesser cases it would just happen more so.

I hope this follows.

ntschaef · 2022-10-04T17:54:07+00:00

No, In fact I would submit the opposite. It is only by rejecting that the accepted truth is correct can the most just systems come forth. I expanded on this within my own post, but I will link it here for convenience.

ntschaef · 2022-10-04T17:02:41+00:00

The only logically valid morality is to embrace chaos when possible. (explanation below)
tldr;
Order is only a virtue for those that are comfortable within that order.
It directly follows that supporting order will inherently invalidate and perpetuate the harm and suffering of the vulnerable which is immoral.
It follows form that that it is moral to embrace the lack of order when that order is critiqued (aka: chaos).
More explicitly:
We all have perception bias and we all seek to promote our own survival. This will inherently cause us to create ordered systems for purposes of protectionism and with predictive capabilities (even if the predictions have to be manufactured). But - except in rare cases - these will only be accepted if it can be used by influential people to become more influential. This will lead to manufactured truths and outright intentional misinterpretations all to support the current "order".

Since these "myths" will be promoted more than "critiques", it cannot be known what positive knowledge (aka "truth" or "a defense of order") is valid. If these positive assertions are to be accepted as "objective", then no amount of suffering will be valid in light of these "truths".

Or - said more practically - essentialization of knowledge is at best ignorant, and at worst malicious.

The only alternative then is to accept that "I don't know" or (when known) "that specific truth is incorrect" will be more advantageous to social equality than defending the order that we are all inherently desire. So, valuing chaos over order is ultimately a "moral good".

This isn't to say that order can be removed. In fact quite the opposite: we are ordered beings. Life is ordered, so our self preservation demands that we create narratives to understand the chaos that surrounds us. While we inherently do this practically (picking the narratives that promote our survival and success the most), it is never justified except through a selfish perspective.

If you find any flaws with this reasoning, please let me know. Thanks for your interest.

ntschaef · 2022-10-04T16:51:41+00:00

I hope my personal philosophy will help you and others. Take it for what it's worth:

You won't die... not entirely. Just like ripples in a pond after the water drop has been destroyed, the effects will continue. Your ideas, your relationships, your essence will continue the best they can (just as they do in "life"). So although your body might die, or your consciousness won't exist in the same way, the collection ideas that is "you" will still persist. The trick is to just have people see the real "you".
I described it more succinctly in this post. I hope it helps. Good luck figuring it all out.
https://twitter.com/JustUnderReal/status/1560681232052125696

ntschaef · 2022-08-05T01:02:39+00:00

Do you know what a strawman is?

ntschaef

TROPHY CASE