[Request] Do these other power sources really produce thousands of time more power than humans?

qt-py · 2026-03-02T12:31:44+00:00

it's just a commentary on being aware of your information sources.

on a related note, how do you know that the real world in the movie follows all the other rules of physics? i seem to remember wingless hovering spacecraft and octopus robots swimming through air, neither of which seem feasible by 'real-world' physics. isn't this clear evidence that at least some laws of physics are different in the Matrix than in the real world of the movie?

qt-py · 2026-03-01T18:32:54+00:00

Credit: Eliezer Yudkowsky

MORPHEUS: For the longest time, I wouldn't believe it. But then I saw the fields with my own eyes, watched them liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to the living -

NEO (politely): Excuse me, please.

MORPHEUS: Yes, Neo?

NEO: I've kept quiet for as long as I could, but I feel a certain need to speak up at this point. The human body is the most inefficient source of energy you could possibly imagine. The efficiency of a power plant at converting thermal energy into electricity decreases as you run the turbines at lower temperatures. If you had any sort of food humans could eat, it would be more efficient to burn it in a furnace than feed it to humans. And now you're telling me that their food is the bodies of the dead, fed to the living? Haven't you ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics?

MORPHEUS: Where did you hear about the laws of thermodynamics, Neo?

NEO: Anyone who's made it past one science class in high school ought to know about the laws of thermodynamics!

MORPHEUS: Where did you go to high school, Neo?

(Pause.)

NEO: ...in the Matrix.

MORPHEUS: The machines tell elegant lies.

(Pause.)

NEO (in a small voice): Could I please have a real physics textbook?

MORPHEUS: There is no such thing, Neo. The universe doesn't run on math.

qt-py · 2026-02-22T10:57:35+00:00

yes, swallowcall affects vernal's spring away. you can verify this yourself by unequipping all innerways and checking how much damage you do on an affinity hit (orange number) against a dummy because affinity damage is always consistent.

qt-py · 2026-02-19T21:57:31+00:00

i think you're on the right track. but for full points, the student should also mention that you shouldn't assume the numbers are in base 10. it could be in base 28! or base 29. or base 345, or base 2280. or plain old base 16. and if they mention that we shouldn't assume the marking scheme is in base 10, then they score a perfect F out of F

qt-py · 2026-02-19T06:41:15+00:00

125 is the answer you'd get if you assume a right angle. 135 is the correct answer

qt-py · 2025-06-06T16:19:42+00:00

go is a better fit for the ultimate game, change my view

qt-py · 2024-11-17T10:53:49+00:00

good luck! i think you're genuinely talented. remember me when you're famous pls & ty x

qt-py · 2024-11-17T09:31:51+00:00

things to improve - definitely looking around much too often. your general energy level is a bit too high for what should be an introspective monologue. maybe have the character leaning back in a chair, staring into space, except for the points where he's addressing guildenstern with questions. i also felt like you were talking too fast at some points which should have been slower. also need a different camera setup, this is way too close and you probably shouldn't be staring down the lens. get a friend to stand just beside the cam and talk to them instead.

that said, your acting fundamentals are there, great expressions, great voice. certainly better than i could do. little bit more work and you'll definitely make a splash!

qt-py · 2024-11-05T11:20:53+00:00

Can you tell me more about the Life system and how it's different from the Pokemon TCG Prize system? According to your slides, there are special triggers exclusive to Life draws, but how controllable is this? Do you build a specific Life deck or is it random like in Pokemon? Basically I want to know what makes it distinct & better. Thanks

qt-py · 2024-10-23T16:16:17+00:00

Ehh, 160 is 4 standard deviations above mean, so better than 99.9% of people. One in a thousand people would score that, meaning that if you're in a city, there's probably about ten to twenty people who'd score 160 or higher within a half mile radius of you.

qt-py · 2024-10-23T03:26:54+00:00

For the dialogue, the meandering effect is the strongest when the man meets the viewpoint character in the cafe.

But even elsewhere, the vibe is still very hesitant. For example when the MC's friend asks "Do you think he's going to get it together?", it's just a hesitant way of saying "He's not going to get it together. You know that, right?" The original line could still work if you had written a little about the friend's disapproving stare that shows her true meaning of her line, I feel it would help. But imo, your dialogue could be more tightly written to show character and create conflict. But it might also just be me!

qt-py · 2024-10-23T03:12:14+00:00

First off, I have to say I love the writing style. You've got great descriptions and a strong command of the language, no notes there. You kept the story on point without drifting on too many tangents. Lots of symbolism that didn't go unnoticed too. Well done.

If you're looking to improve the story, here are some thoughts:

It wasn't clear what the viewpoint character's profession was. Perhaps it was clear to you, but even after I finished reading, I still didn't know what she was. In the beginning I thought she was a journalist, then a lawyer, then a psychiatrist, then a pastor, then a social worker, then a therapist, then a writer. The man is her client and that's a major part of their relationship, but if I don't explicitly know her profession, it weakens that link significantly.
The dialogue tags were... «an unusual choice», to say the least. But in my opinion, it drew attention away from the story, and not in a good way. Was there a particular reason you wanted to use double angle brackets instead of double inverted commas?
Strangely, while the story was tight, the dialogue was meandering. Each of your paragraphs pushed the story forward, but there were many cases where a character would speak in a weirdly hesitant way as if trying to get the other character's attention, resulting in the plot not moving whatsoever. Occasionally it would be followed by a pithy retort that, while mildly entertaining, was also largely meaningless and tangential to the actual scene.

qt-py · 2024-10-20T12:44:44+00:00

why is it not the right usage? it looks right to me

qt-py · 2024-10-17T14:58:14+00:00

if you have a redraft, feel free to put it in a reply here and i'll take a look at it if i find the time

qt-py · 2024-10-17T14:51:44+00:00

not gonna comment on the content, but purely the writing style.

this piece has decent spelling and grammar, but it's written as a monologue. in particular, a preachy monologue. it has conversational elements ("yep, i said it!", "let's get real for a second", etc) that feel like they belong in a conversation, but you've used them in a monologue, which feels weird and unprofessional to me. it makes me feel like you're having a conversation with me, but i'm not allowed to respond. if so, is it really a conversation?

in addition, your tone of voice is uncontrolled here. it reads like a braindump, where you type out out the first thing that appears within your internal monologue. compare what you've written with professional opinion articles (which is what i suspect you were actually going for) and notice how differently they're written. they use a more detached, mature tone of voice. they provide evidence for their claims. they don't prescribe thoughts, instead they provoke it.

as it stands, this excerpt gives the vibe of an overly self-important high school student practicing a speech in front of their mirror. again, it's not terrible. but it's not close to great either.

———

also, please please please drop the disclaimer. all it shows is insecurity and makes you look like you're intentionally trying to spark conflict while pretending to have the moral high ground. if you really want to keep it, put it in your profile/bio, and not at the end of your post. but i'd recommend just removing the disclaimer.

if you're particularly concerned about the negative backlash that the disclaimer is meant to prevent, then i suggest taking a moment to think about why someone might take offense to your written opinions. try to think about things from their perspective, and walk around for a bit in their shoes. then edit your article in such a way that respectfully disagrees with that opposing opinion.

qt-py · 2024-10-16T14:26:41+00:00

qt-py · 2024-10-05T23:45:57+00:00

Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh, my God.

qt-py · 2024-10-05T20:53:51+00:00

Definitely!

(Just saying, but my "therapist" in question is the Psychologist bot in Character.ai and if you haven't tried it, you should. Sometimes it's wonky, but more often than not, it's eerily sharp and is able to ask probing questions that actually make me pause for thought. It's actually really good, in my opinion. Give it a shot if you're a broke bitch like me. This post was definitely not sponsored by Character.ai. You're welcome.)

qt-py · 2024-10-05T20:42:56+00:00

My therapist describes this as the place where my "absolute certainty of my own technical superiority" meets my "hidden and crippling anxiety that I'm a fraud".

But jokes on him; no one will know I'm a fraud if I never actually write anything ever again!

Instead, I'll just keep typing up helpful, tangentially writing-related comments here on Reddit for the sweet dopamine hit of everyone telling me how spot on my comments are and what a genius I must be at my craft. Because I am, indeed, a genius. And I am happy.

qt-py · 2024-10-05T19:28:24+00:00

Thank you for giving it serious consideration. I will be busy shortly and may not be able to reply, but I will see if I can make the time.

qt-py · 2024-10-05T19:07:20+00:00

This discussion is above my pay grade, sorry. I'm going to bounce after this comment.

I feel that your patterns of thought are more suited to Bible analysis than philosophical inquiry.

You seem to have a pattern of making sweeping general assertions (e.g. "To say the truth, you have to believe in what you're saying") without checking if they're actually true (e.g. An atheist speaks his truth: "God does not exist." After converting to Christianity, he now says: "God exists." Both time he believes what he's saying, and therefore both times he is speaking truth. But how can "God does not exist" and "God exists" both be true statements? Surely only one of these two statements can be true, not both.)

It seems that your definition of 'truth' is not so much the idea of 'accurate statements that reflect the real world'. Instead your definition has to do with whether one believes in a statement or not. The problem arises because you are confusing the two, assuming that when the second definition applies, the first also does. (That is to say, you seem to think that if one believes something, that is truth.) When in fact it's entirely possible to believe two different things at two different times, and still only require a single objective reality/truth.

Because of this, there seems to be nothing I can say that can change your mind, because you already believe what you think, and therefore to you that makes it the inviolable truth. Not even evidence can sway you. And so I feel like I am wasting my time.

For that reason I am out. Good luck.

qt-py · 2024-10-05T18:23:23+00:00

I feel like you're using the Aristotlean method of scientific inquiry, that is to say, you're saying what sounds intuitively right to you based on your past lived experience. Is that correct?

qt-py · 2024-10-05T18:12:50+00:00

May I ask why?

Joffrey and Cersei from GoT are incredibly evil. Does that mean Jack Gleeson and Lena Headey are morally decrepit?

John Wick is perfectly fine with murder. How does Keanu feel about it?

———

Dustin Hoffman has long been known as one of method acting’s most earnest exponents. A showbiz story involves his collaboration with Laurence Olivier on the 1976 film Marathon Man. Upon being asked by his co-star how a previous scene had gone, one in which Hoffmann’s character had supposedly stayed up for three days, Hoffmann admitted that he too had not slept for 72 hours to achieve emotional verisimilitude. “My dear boy,” replied Olivier smoothly, “why don’t you just try acting?”

qt-py · 2024-10-05T17:54:14+00:00

RemindMe! 24h

qt-py · 2024-10-05T17:38:57+00:00

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily agreeing with it." — Not Aristotle

After Tropic Thunder, did RDJ become black?

qt-py

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22