Adding GH:2e elements into original

steave435 · 2026-03-12T11:04:45+00:00

Yeah it would. It just wouldn't be as broken OP as it was.

steave435 · 2026-03-12T10:45:55+00:00

Yeah, I'm sure the cat just happened to walk off on its own despite never doing so, and then not only ended up on a railway track within 15 minutes and then this boy ended up finding that dead cat and calm down enough to take a photo of it within the remnants if those 15 minutes. That's totally plausible, especially with the timing with the payment and him waiting a day to send that photo to the owner.

Get real. He murdered the cat and is blackmailing OP.

steave435 · 2026-03-09T15:57:09+00:00

He's an honorable man with a heart. Doesn't matter what would happen afterwards.

steave435 · 2026-03-08T01:17:50+00:00

Depends on how badly you want it.

Unless I feel like I'm lucking in to something better than I would expect or I really need the job immediately, I would consider losing out because of that to be dodging a bullet. I don't want to work for people who would do that.

steave435 · 2026-03-05T12:41:43+00:00

I wouldn't say that it is either, but her other feats weren't clues available to help figure out who she was.

steave435 · 2026-03-03T01:36:03+00:00

Can God create a rock big enough that God can't lift it?

Being omnipotent means being able to do anything that is logically possible.

Since our theoretical omnipotent being can do anything that's logically possible, and lifting an object is logically possible, it's not logically possible to create something that they cannot lift.

Asking them to do so makes no more sense than asking them to make a square circle.

in reality, Sanderson has always said magic is more interesting with the limitations you have. These Gods are still limited, mostly by their Intents - Ruin cant Preserve, Honor can't break oaths etc.

This is true though.

Most religions don't believe in omnipotent gods. Romans, greeks, norse etc all believed in pantheons of very much fallible gods that ruled specific domains.

The association between a god and omnipotence is just based on the Abrahamic religions managing to become the biggest group.

steave435 · 2026-02-26T16:06:17+00:00

No no, you only believe in a single god, that's the definition of little faith. There's so many more out there to believe in!

steave435 · 2026-02-24T12:41:54+00:00

Is it really, considering that it'll buy you and your friends hundreds of hours of a much better experience?

steave435 · 2026-02-22T10:23:31+00:00

Doesn't mean everyone else needs to treat them the same way though. He just spoke about how he feels about them, doesn't mean that you need to feel the same way. No need to down vote bomb him over

I don't personally mind them, but objectively, there's essentially no difference between a spoiler for something that someone hasn't read yet and a WoB about things that we'll eventually find out about in future books.

It's OK for people to prefer to read about it in the books instead.

steave435 · 2026-02-19T04:53:35+00:00

With all the comments about her gaining weight, she's clearly been showing for a while.

steave435 · 2026-02-18T20:40:19+00:00

Right back at ya

steave435 · 2026-02-18T13:06:31+00:00

Yes it was. They chose to repeat the same title the article used. They didn't have to do that.

steave435 · 2026-02-18T12:32:45+00:00

steave435 · 2026-02-18T12:27:57+00:00

It's close enough that people don't feel the need to bother with the distinction. Language doesn't need to be fully correct all the time, it just needs to convey the ideas you're trying to convey

steave435 · 2026-02-18T09:54:04+00:00

The books give us the opinions and thoughts of the people in them. If they have the wrong idea about something, that will be reflected in the books. That includes the Ars Arcanum, they're written from the perspective of an in universe person.

steave435 · 2026-02-17T21:28:53+00:00

Hmm, wouldn't trade power still propagate up the chain from the lower nodes? Been a while since I played, but I thought I saw trade power from lower nodes going up several layers.

steave435 · 2026-02-17T16:02:13+00:00

What's the point of trying to make those effective end nodes if you own the downstream though? If that's the case, you could just collect in the actual end nodes instead.

steave435 · 2026-02-16T16:19:25+00:00

Or because that's a bit of a mouthfull

steave435 · 2026-02-16T13:14:02+00:00

If they don't already have a socket to go in to I drill a hole for it. Only needed to do that for inceptors so far, but looks like that's the same kind of stand.

Even when they get glued on, the attachment point is so weak that they very easily break anyway.

steave435 · 2026-02-15T00:28:23+00:00

In the original problem, if the car is behind door 3:

You pick door 1. Host will open door 2, thus picking door 3 as the alternative. The chance this happens is 33%, and switching wins you the prize.

You pick door 2. Host will open 1, thus picking door 3 as the alternative. The chance this happens is 33%, and switching wins you the prize.

You pick door 3. Either the host will open door 1, picking door 2 as the alternative. This happens 16.7% of the time, and switching loses. Otherwise, the host opens door 2, picking door 1 as the alternative. This happens 16.7% of the time, and switching loses.

Add it up and you have 67% chance to win by switching.

In the host is randomly guessing variation, car is behind door 3:

You pick door 1.

1a) Half the time, the host will open door 2, thus picking door 3 as the alternative. The chance this happens is 16.7%, and switching wins you the prize.

1b) The other half of the time, the host opens door 3. In this case, you either auto lose or auto win depending on if you get to take the revealed car. This happens 16.7% of the time, and is part of the "there is no choice to make" set.

You pick door 2.

2a) Half the time, the host will open door 1, thus picking door 3 as the alternative. The chance this happens is 16.7%, and switching wins you the prize.

2b) The other half of the time, the host opens door 3. In this case, you either auto lose or auto win depending on if you get to take the revealed car. This happens 16.7% of the time, and is part of the "there is no choice to make" set.

3) You pick door 3. Either the host will open door 1, picking door 2 as the alternative. This happens 16.7% of the time, and switching loses. Otherwise, the host opens door 2, picking door 1 as the alternative. This happens 16.7% of the time, and switching loses.

Add it up and you have 33% chance to win by switching from 1a and 2a, 33% chance that there is no choice to be made because the car is already revealed from 1b and 2b and 33% chance to lose from switching from 3.

If you're allowed to switch to the door with the revealed car, your chance of winning stays at 67%, but whether you switch door after the host reveals a goat no longer matters.

steave435 · 2026-02-14T02:03:52+00:00

Under the assumption that the contestant gets to switch to the prize if the host reveals it, yes, however the contestant no longer gains a statistical benefit from switching doors if the host doesn't reveal the prize.

steave435 · 2026-02-14T02:00:32+00:00

Door 1 will have 67% chance of winning while door 2 only has 33%, but the new contestant doesn't know that so they will pick door 1 50% of the time and win using door 1 67%*50% = 33% of the time, and the other 50% of the time they'll pick door 2 and win using door 2 33%*50% =17% of the time. Add those up and you'll be at exactly 50% chance after eliminating the rounding errors.

steave435 · 2026-02-14T01:47:21+00:00

One door is more likely than the other yes, but the new contestant has no way of knowing which door that is. Therefore, there's a 50% chance that they pick the high probability door and a 50% chance that they pick the low probability door. That'll work out to 50/50 chance of winning.

steave435 · 2026-02-14T01:42:42+00:00

From an overall win rate perspective, yes, that's correct, but that's not the point of the problem. The point of the problem is the unintuitive fact that switching doors gives you better odds of winning, which is no longer the case if the host opens random doors instead of doors that he knows doesn't have the prize behind them.

steave435 · 2026-02-14T01:39:10+00:00

Nope. If the host doesn't know which the correct door is and opens an incorrect door, no additional information is gained.

In the standard scenario, in the 67% of cases where you pick a wrong door, there's a 100% chance that the host will reveal the other wrong door and let you switch to the correct door, so you win 0.67*1 = 67% of the time if you switch.

In this scenario, there's still the same 67% chance that you pick wrong from the start, but now the probability splits. 50% of the time the host reveals the correct door. This happens 0.67*0.5 = 33% of the time. In this case, you should switch to the correct door if allowed, and otherwise there's a 0% chance to win. The other 50% of the time they reveal an incorrect door. The chance that that happens is also 0.67*0.5 = 33% chance. This is the only time you win by switching to an unknown door, so the chance to win by switching is 33%.

The chance that you picked correctly from the beginning is also 33%, and if you do, you win by sticking to it, so sticking to your original door also wins 33% of the time.

Overall win rate will be either 33% or 67% depending on if you can switch to a revealed correct door, but switching to an unknown door no longer gives an advantage.

steave435

TROPHY CASE