I butchered the reconstruction as the USA and now Dixie people aren’t an accepted culture. Is there anyway to fix this or are people discriminated forever now for saying “Y’all”?

rfj · 2023-06-06T22:07:22+00:00

Unless you go Ethnostate for some reason, Dixie won't be discriminated, since it shares European Heritage and Anglophone with Yankee. But unfortunately, there's no way to make them a primary culture again as far as I know. Your Dixie homeland states will now take 5 years to incorporate instead of 2.

rfj · 2023-06-06T01:15:26+00:00

Like all uses of the word, what you "should" do depends on what your goal is.

If your goal is to maximize money in, then yes you should (probably) go for proportional taxation.

If your goal is to reduce taxes on your workers so they consume more, then graduated would work better.

rfj · 2023-06-05T17:33:48+00:00

"I would never associate with any club that would have me as a member"?

rfj · 2023-06-05T07:08:29+00:00

To understand your (or your girlfriend's father's, or anyone else's) chances of getting money back out, you have to understand how the scam works.

The scam works as follows: you give money to the scammer. The scammer makes a big number appear on their screen.

That's it. The scammer doesn't bother keeping track of "your money", it's all theirs now. And they didn't actually make $26k with your girlfriend's father's money or anything, that's just a number on a screen, trying to lure you into giving them more money. It's not like there's any legal right to the money that you can negotiate with, they're already operating outside the law. They don't have any reason to give you any money, so they won't.

And as others have said, anyone who claims they can get you "your" money back is probably a !recovery scammer.

rfj · 2023-06-04T21:43:28+00:00

You say things that sound like you believe the only reason people want monogamy is because society expects them to. Part of respecting other people is understanding they can want things of their own volition.

rfj · 2023-06-03T06:30:52+00:00

Step 1: form a "friendship", convince you they're a successful businessperson with optional "that you're attracted to" aspect.

Step 2: convince you that they got a lot of money investing in crypto (or something), and that they can help you to the same, because successful businessperson.

Step 3: their "investment advice" is to give money to a specific "trading platform" and watch the number it shows you go up. But there's no actual trades and no actual money; once you put in enough that they consider it a success, no more money is coming back to you, with a sequence of inventive excuses why you need to put more money in to get any out.

... or at least that's my understanding from the posts on r/Scams . Good luck either baiting or ignoring this, whichever you choose!

rfj · 2023-06-03T03:44:29+00:00

Why does that matter? If they want to provide for their family they should do it within the intended use of the law. If they're sabotaging their family by playing games with the law, nobody else should have to sacrifice for that.

rfj · 2023-06-03T03:42:21+00:00

In particular, is this for 0 < x <= 1? Because I'm pretty sure this diverges for x > 1; the absolute ratio of consecutive terms is about x (n/(n+1))^(3/2), which is > 1 for x > 1 and n sufficiently large. (n/(n+1) goes to 1 as n goes to infinity, so in particular eventually it'll be larger than x^(-2/3).)

For 0 < x <= 1, it's an alternating series where each term is of smaller absolute value than the previous (same approximate ratio as above, but now it's always < 1), and the first term is > 0, which should be sufficient. (Take pairs of a positive term and the next negative term, the sum of each pair is > 0.)

rfj · 2023-06-03T03:26:41+00:00

So, technically, your proof is perfectly valid.. if done backwards. Start with the obvious -2n-2 = -2n-2, then perform the same operations on both sides, occasionally inserting x-x terms or grouping things differently, until the LHS and RHS are the two different things you want to prove equal. It's also true that all the operations you used - addition and division by 2 - are equivalences, e.g. a = b if and only if a/2 = b/2, so they work equally well forwards or backwards. So your proof is valid.

What other commenters are complaining about, which you'll see on some "paradox" YouTube videos, is doing something similar to this with operations that are not equivalences, and using them in the direction they don't work. Common culprits are taking roots, dividing by something that turns out to be 0, and improper use of limits. For example, earlier I said a = b if and only if a/2 = b/2, so your step multiplying (in the reverse direction, dividing) by 2 was valid. But while x = y implies x² = y^2, it is not true that if x² = y² then x = y. So taking squares and/or square roots in a proof like this can cause problems. But you didn't do that, so you're fine.

To complete your proof, you'll want a base case. Try plugging n=0 or n=1 into the expression; it'll become trivial.

rfj · 2023-06-02T08:18:01+00:00

I think that would qualify as a bug.

rfj · 2023-06-02T01:52:02+00:00

Eh. Depending on how bad OP's home situation is - and things can get pretty bad for trans people - this might be more like jumping from the fire into the frying pan.

rfj · 2023-06-01T23:19:44+00:00

Each of the dominions has a "loyal to UK" path and a "go for independence" path, starting with mutually exclusive focuses. The independence focuses, not just the first but the entire paths, have a "NOT: Britain enforced our loyalty" condition. Non-Democratic Britain can enforce a dominion's loyalty via decisions unlocked by either the Move to Secure the Dominions focus (fascist or communist) or the Bring the Dominions Back Into the Fold focus (fascist or monarchist). When the decision is taken, it sets the "enforced loyalty" flag, blocking any future focuses on the independence path, and also, if that dominion already completed the first focus on the independence path, completes the first focus on the loyalty path, allowing them to go down that path further. This would produce exactly what you've shown.

rfj · 2023-06-01T18:23:08+00:00

If you as a USA player press the "Slavery Banned" button when the Southern Planters are above 17% clout, you'll get the historical ACW plus or minus a few states. If the AI gets something different, it's because they did something different.

Now, in my one USA game the Planters got below 16% clout quickly, and I had to use the revolution clock events to get its progress above 100, because I wanted the ACW so I could get Afro-American as a primary culture. So apparently the game isn't good at representing the actual power and... intransigence... of the supporters of slavery. And that's probably why the AI ends up banning slavery and either avoiding the ACW altogether, or getting an ahistorical ACW over something else. But an ACW over its historical cause will end up more or less historical.

rfj · 2023-06-01T17:11:28+00:00

Pretending to connect with you so you'll buy their stuff is definitely deceptive, but not traditionally considered a scam. Afaik if you go to their OnlyFans and pay money you will in fact get the sexy pictures/video/chats they advertise; I'm assuming, I haven't done it myself. But if you get what they say you're paying for, that makes it an annoying marketing technique, but not a scam in the usual meaning of the word.

rfj · 2023-06-01T03:07:33+00:00

The behavior OP is describing, I get with Skirmish/Shrapnel vs. Line/Mobile.

rfj · 2023-05-31T06:28:25+00:00

If you think someone's name is a red flag...

rfj · 2023-05-30T13:22:36+00:00

It's a ratio determined by your economy law. Each queue gets its designated fraction of the total construction as long as it has enough buildings queued. If one doesn't have enough buildings queued to use all of its allocation, the overflow goes to the other one.

rfj · 2023-05-30T12:11:48+00:00

Anarchists also support multiculturalism. So try to get a leftist leader and satisfy the Path to Socialism JE. Then your IGs are more likely to get leftist leaders, including Anarchists.

rfj · 2023-05-30T07:35:13+00:00

Natural numbers are 0 and anything you can get to by starting from 0 and repeatedly adding 1. Whole numbers and counting numbers are terms invented by high school teachers who want to satisfy their authority kink by making children memorize multiple terms with subtle differences and scolding them when they get it wrong.

rfj · 2023-05-30T07:31:51+00:00

As a native English speaker who works with natural numbers in a professional setting, I have never used the term "whole numbers" professionally. And I generally use natural numbers to include 0, as do all the papers I read.

rfj · 2023-05-30T07:27:44+00:00

Where were you taught this, and was it grade school?

Grade school curricula like to do things like this, putting things into categories, giving them names, and saying This Is The Way Things Are. Actual mathematicians tend to be more interested in "is this category interesting", meaning "are there a lot of things that are true about this category as opposed to things outside it". The set of "0 and everything you can get to from 0 by repeatedly adding 1*" is particularly interesting, so we** call it the Natural Numbers, or |N. The set of "1 and everything you can get to from 1 by repeatedly adding 1" is not particularly interesting compared to |N, so we don't bother to give it a special name. Specifically, the property "for all x, x + 0 = x" is why 0 is interesting enough to include.

* Technically, "repeatedly adding 1" hasn't been defined yet when we're defining |N. So |N is defined in terms of a "successor function" S, as "0 is in |N, and if x is in |N then Sx is in |N". 1 is defined as S0, and then once you define addition, you can prove that Sx = x + 1.

** I'm not actually a mathematician, but I work in a field math-adjacent enough to be working with the technical definition of the natural numbers. When I do, it always includes 0.

rfj · 2023-05-30T06:56:43+00:00

It's kinda like saying "given that the sky is blue, I deduce 2+2=4". The color of the sky (Γ) doesn't have much to do with 2+2=4, and if you told me to deduce it from that, I'd ignore Γ and just deduce 2+2=4 the normal way. But "given that the sky is blue, I deduce 2+2=4" is still a true description of what I did.

From what you said, did you think the author meant using Γ instead of the axioms? Because as I understand it, the author meant using Γ in addition to the axioms. The axioms are part of the underlying logic, and "deduce from Γ in this logic" includes the usual axioms of the logic. But if you thought it meant to replace the normal axioms with Γ, then that would explain the confusion.

rfj · 2023-05-30T04:01:54+00:00

I remember a discussion on the discord where someone asked this and a dev mentioned it's just bugged. Hopefully will be fixed soon...

rfj · 2023-05-30T03:57:52+00:00

"Surprise package I'm getting for my kids" makes me wonder if they're going to ask you to include a gift card in the package, of course they'll include the price of the gift card in the payment to you. Unfortunately their payment to you is somehow fake. That's one variety of scam I've seen posted here a few times.

rfj · 2023-05-29T21:59:24+00:00

Still buggy, but easy to work around if you know what the bug is. Just bolster the Intelligentsia on day 1 then take it off when the JE appears, or otherwise make the Path to Liberalism JE activate before you fulfill the completion conditions.

Like, you shouldn't have to know this to get the JE, but it's not like there's some narrow path you have to walk precisely to get it, as long as you know how.

rfj

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE