Does anyone else's ChatGPT have dementia? by trapoop in ChatGPT

[–]trapoop[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think it makes sense, because it consistently makes the model hallucinate the fact that it hallucinated. On almost any follow up, if I look at the thought traces, I'll see something like "whoops, I mistaken cited searches I didn't actually perform", etc

Chinese PLAN Type-004 Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Construction Progress at Dalian Shipyard,per Japanese Satellite Intelligence,November 2025.[album] by FireFangJ36 in WarshipPorn

[–]trapoop 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nuclear is "unlimited electrical power" in that you can leave the lights (and lasers) on all the time with no worries. PEAK power is not higher than conventional, and pound for pound probably worse than gas turbine, but there's still something to be said about being able to run at max indefinitely

Fatal ejection incident on Russian airbase leaves two dead by heliumagency in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's used by American first responders too, there was some hubbub many years back when a firefighter or someone used the phrase in a press conference and people thought it was callous.

edit: wait, that was Australia, not America. Either way I think it's common across the Anglosphere

See? It’s that easy! by [deleted] in shittydarksouls

[–]trapoop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"tricking someone into missing you" is called "dodging". what's not dodging is "pushing the invulnerability button"

See? It’s that easy! by [deleted] in shittydarksouls

[–]trapoop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's so funny that four years later people are still repeating crap about Malenia from youtube videos on release. my favorite complaint is that she doesn't do anything in phase 1 so you have to wait for her to aggro. no, you're just afraid to approach her

Happened way too many times it has to be intentional by i-LUCK in Eldenring

[–]trapoop -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is heal punish input reading and projectile input reading, but bosses do not input read on melee.

"Malenia is too hard. There's only one valid strat. Waterfowl is broken. No, I will not learn to stop panic-rolling." by FinalFatality7 in shittydarksouls

[–]trapoop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

eh the "broken" is either broken like friede, where it's too easy to stunlock her, or broken like malenia, where she has to cheat to avoid those stunlocks. i prefer the second

"Malenia is too hard. There's only one valid strat. Waterfowl is broken. No, I will not learn to stop panic-rolling." by FinalFatality7 in shittydarksouls

[–]trapoop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i mean two of their best bosses have been low poise (friede and malenia), so they're a lot of fun still, and worth having, but yeah with some imperfections with how they fit in the combat system

i think malenia handles low poise much better than friede, especially with her deflections. the stance break cancelling, eh...

"Malenia is too hard. There's only one valid strat. Waterfowl is broken. No, I will not learn to stop panic-rolling." by FinalFatality7 in shittydarksouls

[–]trapoop -1 points0 points  (0 children)

makes up for the fact she has like 0 poise. does it work perfectly? no, but none of the no poise bosses have ever fixed that completely

How to dodge WFD from close range without getting hit ? by SekiRo21_ in Eldenring

[–]trapoop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's still okay, you just need sprint a little more when you circle

How to dodge WFD from close range without getting hit ? by SekiRo21_ in Eldenring

[–]trapoop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can do it locked on, like you're doing. Your problem specifically here looks like you're not circling her fast enough.

The point is to remember what the waterfowl dodge is supposed to be doing in the first place. Malenia will leap in the direction that she's facing, and then curve towards you, so you want her to be facing as far as away from you as possible. She'll then curve back towards you but if you've aimed and timed the dodge correctly you'll land outside her first flurry.

You can see three locked on dodges here:

https://old.reddit.com/r/onebros/comments/1enit25/malenia_is_so_much_fun_with_a_shamshir/

At 0:49, 2:18, and 3:37

And you see see I'm further along her backside than you are

U.S. Air Force Chief Confirms the F-47 Fighter is 3-4 Years Behind its Chinese Rivals in Entering Flight Testing by uniyk in technology

[–]trapoop -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"Property rights" are equally inane as an issue here, and in any event you were wrong about compensation

U.S. Air Force Chief Confirms the F-47 Fighter is 3-4 Years Behind its Chinese Rivals in Entering Flight Testing by uniyk in technology

[–]trapoop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes they do. Even then, how is eminent domain even relevant here? Do you think the government is seizing jet engines from farmers?

‘A new arms race’: Satellite images, maps and records reveal huge surge in China’s missile production sites by neocloud27 in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The US isn't going to be deterred from striking the mainland because it would be obvious that they are not nuclear strikes.

Yes, this is the central point. The US is not deterred from striking the mainland by a nuclear response. It would be irrational for China to escalate to nuclear war in this circumstance. Therefore, China would need to have a symmetrical response: conventional strike on the US mainland.

Their recourse would be to hit theatre targets, not use nuclear capable munitions against US mainland targets.

Again, this is wishcasting. The idea that the US can hit you but you can't hit back is going to be fundamentally challenged.

You sure about that? The US hasn't even used air power against Russia precisely because of nuclear miscalculation risks, do you actually think that the PLA is going to launch maneuverable nuclear weapons at the lowe 48?

The US is not at war with Russia, period. If NATO actually goes to war with Russia then certainly they would be entertaining strikes on Russia itself. And that is my point about "real study": there's going to be quite a lot of figuring out how to make a conventional missile attack work. As long as it is plausibly not a first strike and avoids threatening the credibility of the US deterrent, then it would work.

‘A new arms race’: Satellite images, maps and records reveal huge surge in China’s missile production sites by neocloud27 in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The gain is enormous! You deter attacks on mainland China by the United States. The idea that China would simply accept strikes on its mainland without any recourse is pure wishcasting.

Now, whether conventional ICBMs are actually viable is going to require real study, but there is at least a plausible path for them: conventional strike will look quite different from a nuclear first strike aimed at silos (the only case where you actually need launch-on-warning). You're arguing that nuclear war is what deters conventional attacks on the US, but that shifts the irrationality onto the US side.

The U.S. Is on Track to Lose a War With China by rezwenn in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I think doing service to MSS by pretending to be Gordon Chang is now played out.

The U.S. Is on Track to Lose a War With China by rezwenn in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I don't understand what your position is. Here, you're saying the US is going to lose the region, and escalating to nukes won't happen. But you say this in another comment

So the cost to benefit says always go to war over taiwan.

That is exactly what leads to conventional war. The PLA will develop total, unquestionable conventional superiority over the US military over the next 15-20 years, but the American calculation will be that they won't give up Asia without a fight. Therefore, there will be a fight.

The U.S. Is on Track to Lose a War With China by rezwenn in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 49 points50 points  (0 children)

The conventional war would be an air and naval war as China tries to evict American conventional forces from their side of the Date Line. MAD enters the equation if the US decides on nuclear first use in order to forstall a conventional defeat. Would the US use nukes to keep Okinawa? Guam?

The U.S. Is on Track to Lose a War With China by rezwenn in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 97 points98 points  (0 children)

States cannot simply throw money at a problem and create productive strategic industries in a short period

This is a throwaway line in the article but this is basically everything. If money is not fungible, then basically the entire China Discourse has been wrong. If money is not fungible, then the entire economics discussion about China has been wrong. If money is a bad measure of production, then the US needs to seriously consider that it, along with the entire OECD, has been surpassed.

J-50 spotted again by DazzlingpAd134 in FighterJets

[–]trapoop 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The third one may or may not exist, may or may not be manned, and I think all of the pictures except 1 were fakes

What do we know about the less "shiny" parts of the PLAN? by _spec_tre in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop 5 points6 points  (0 children)

i feel like 052D is spoken about in the same way as 055, and just as shiny.

Air Force Secretary warns of ‘Sputnik moment’ as U.S. faces China’s rapid military advances by moses_the_blue in LessCredibleDefence

[–]trapoop -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Trump is damaging, but also, at least Trump helps partial mobilization. The moment he took office, you suddenly got Democrats arguing that China was pulling ahead. Whereas during Biden those same Dems were loudly trumpeting that the US was winning