battlewraith
-
Posts
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
In the second video I posted above ("PEMDAS is wrong"), she looks at examples from different sources in different fields using PEJMDAS.
In physics, she looked at Richard Feynman's math in his famous lecture series. In the description for that video, she asks:
"When it comes to order of operations (PEMDAS, BODMAS, BEDMAS, BIDMAS), who are you going to believe: your primary school teacher, or Richard Feynman?"
That kind of settles it for me. "1" is the correct answer. The reason being that if we don't accept that answer, due to PEMDAS, then we would have to deem a vast quantity of theory by mathematicians, scientists, etc. that worked, AND was the foundation of subsequent theory, as incorrect. I understand that from a programming perspective PEMDAS is preferable, but maybe that preference shouldn't bleed into other areas.
-
1 hour ago, Rudra said:
How do you do an RP tournament? How would a moderator objectively judge such a thing?
You do not objectively judge such a thing. It's not a math competition. The judging of any artistic endeavor takes a number of criteria into account but ultimately it hinges on someone's subjective appraisal. The judge(s), prior to the actual competition, release a statement about the sorts of things they will be looking for in order to make the event less subjective. If the idea was a success, the event would be run multiple times with different judges to compensate for individual bias.
How do you run it? If the devs are interested in the suggestion, they form a committee of avid RPers to formalize the structure of the actual competition, discuss rewards, etc. It's a general idea, I'm not going to spell it out for you.
-
How is this an RP event?
Here's my counter proposal. You have some sort of scheduled event where you open packages or defeat minions or something. Doing so gives you a tomato. You collect tomatoes.
Then at the scheduled time, there is an actual tournament style RP competition with a gm moderator. At the end of each round, the loser is flagged to be susceptible to the tomatoes, which do light damage and maybe randomly detoggle powers. The loser then has to try to escape the zone before being tomatoed to death. If they make it out, they get a badge. If somebody's tomato defeats them, that person gets a badge. The overall winner of the event gets a special title or badge or something that appeals to people that like ingame rewards.
-
1
-
-
Ok so the plot thickens!
Here's a video explaining this mess:
The people who arrive at the answer of 1 are following PEJMDAS (Parenthesis-exponents-juxtaposition-multiplication-division-addition-subtraction).
As she states in the video, the majority of mathematicians, scientists, researchers, etc. follow this rule. Historically, juxtaposition was widely assumed before PEMDAS became a thing.
So what's the issue? Educators in North America started pushing PEMDAS and it got picked up by calculator manufacturers. So depending on which calculator you were using, the answer to the original equation would be 1 or 9. That is a legitimate problem as she points out in the video.
So I guess the takeaway is this: If you, like me, learned PEJMDAS--make sure that the calculator you're using is doing so as well.
If you are strictly using PEMDAS--you have to make sure that your calculator does the same AND you have to make sure that the equation is properly constructed for PEMDAS. Which is something modern calculators are apparently doing. If you enter a PEJMDAS style of equation, the calculator will add brackets for you. But I guess you should still pay attention to make sure that is still the actual equation you want to solve.
The youtuber I posted above has an earlier video on PEMDAS with more examples if people are interested:
-
2
-
-
So they didn't wait for the rezzes. Why did the rest of the team?
The primadonna wants to burn through mobs quickly. So maybe the team should've just stuck with them rather than worrying about the strays?
And then don't team with this person again?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, huang3721 said:
Maybe this convention is not observed in the western world?
I don't know. That's part of the reason I posted this. I was taught to answer this question the same way you were, but that was decades ago.
I suspect that there has been a push to streamline mathematical conventions to make things simpler and more consistent for programming. But that's just a hunch.
I'm not a mathematician or a programmer.
-
The way you've rewritten it is equal to A. The way you've rewritten it is the way I was taught to solve it in school--resolve the brackets and then solve everything on the right of the division symbol. So 6÷2(3) would be read as "six divided by the product of 2 times 3". If the equation was written 6÷2 x 3, that would be read as "six divided by two times 3" and the answer would be 9. Under the current understanding of PEMDAS these two versions of the equation are considered the same, both with an answer of 9. The way I was taught to do it, the 2(3) implies a grouping that needs to be resolved before the division happens.
If you enter 6÷2(1+2) into Google search, it automatically changes it to (6/2)*(1+2)
-
So I wanted to get people's responses before I posted the video which is actually from 2016. The youtuber studied math and economics from Stanford.
The comment section is interesting because there are people arguing for both interpretations. There is a general consensus that we shouldn't write equations like this.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
Nein.
😁
No, seriously. The actual answer is 9.
.
Yeah apparently what is considered the correct answer is 9.
The mathematical order of operations that I learned in school gave me an answer of 1. And I'm not the only one. The comments section of the video where I saw this issue discussed was full of people who arrived at the same conclusion. So now I'm wondering if the "old" way was some sort of fluke of the American educational system at the time. I'm also wondering if the "new" way is the result of the influence of programmers on the field of mathematics. I read comments to the effect that the order of operations that yields 9 as an answer is more reliable and less ambiguous than the order that gives 1 as a result--thus more preferable from a coding standpoint.
-
6÷2(1+2) = ?
-
1
-
-
The simpler explanation is that the person simply misspoke and said rage when they meant fury.
And please remember that everyone should've protected Diantane--that sweet golden innocent that provoked hilarious ragefests with his honest, hard fought misunderstandings of how this game works.
-
2
-
-
Not a fan of the MCU Doctor Strange. They take this trippy, Steve Ditko fueled iconic character and turn him into a lame, mid-grade superhero who pew pews things. Despite that low expectation, this was horrible. Especially early on, the editing and pacing was really bad and some of the special effects were surprisingly bad. It picks up later when Strange encounters the alternate versions of iconic characters--all of whom are wasted appearances. Based on the previews I thought Strange might face off against a classic villain like Nightmare, but no--the actual situation is really lame and unimaginative and is based on an interpretation of dreams that is utterly stupid.
-
1 hour ago, Rudra said:
I will never respond to this thread again.
Cool, see you in a couple days when you change your mind. Again.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Rudra said:No one made fun of anyone in this thread. Quoting people to highlight their own words as reminder of commentary or to illustrate a point is not imitative action or speech. There was no contempt. There was emphatic disagreement with the thread. There was equally emphatic defense of the thread. There was no derision.
Well I did my best to ignore you, because you don't listen, misrepresent other people, and now are hell bent on defining your way into some sort of semantic victory--but this is just too silly to pass up.
This is particular exchange the happened shortly prior to the mod showing up:
May 12th. Luminara said:
But making other people take a pool power for something they think they need, and previously had but lost because a few players threw temper tantrums about having to follow the same game rules as everyone else, is cool.
Yeah..."Sounds like mockery to me. I said that was exaggerated and judgmental. That didn't go over well, and she responded with this:
The people supporting the idea have said, "I shouldn't have to take a pool power because <REASONS!>", and "Other people should have to take a pool power because <REASONS!>". These comments were made. Not implied, not inferred, outright stated. Pointing out the monumental hypocrisy of bitching because you have to take a pool power to do something, and simultaneously declaring that other people should have to take a pool power to do something just so you don't have to, is not exaggeration or casting aspersion, it's highlighting the arrogance of the tiny minority who made those statements.
If you shouldn't have to take a pool power to do something, then neither should anyone else. If "they can just take a pool power" is sufficient justification for your request to change the tame so you don't have to take a pool power, then your justification is applicable to your own request, you can can just take a pool power. Expecting the game to change to suit your whims, and everyone to meekly submit because it's what you want, is arrogant, entitled and selfish. And that's not judgmental, it's objective observation.
You are not the center of this world. Deal with it.So charges of monumental hypocrisy, arrogance, entitlement, and selfishness. I'm sure you'll go running to your online dictionary to find a way to dismiss this but methinks you have cast too wide a net between ridicule, mockery, contempt, etc. And this sort of language is why the mod came in. Not because people were emphatic, gimme a break.
On 5/14/2022 at 8:13 PM, Rudra said:People can only infer from available information. The way your posts read as compared to the OP, it was inevitable for them to be read as being the same idea. If you want to stand out as a different idea from the OP? Clarify your post with as much information about your intent as possible. (Edit: Something, something, not psychic, something, something....)
Your psychic powers are not in question, it's your ability to read. I went back and looked over the conversation and I make an effort, from the get-go to differentiate myself from the OP. The problem is that posters like you either ignored it or assumed that this was a sneaky, moustache twirling effort to sneak in combat teleport. People quoted things I said and I responded to those quotes. At one point arcane threatened to quote me about something and I told him to this:
1. Quote away if that's your thing. Just only quote me, I'm not responsible for other people's comments. Saying that it would be nice to not dip into a power pool is not the same as saying this change would be good with respect to easing build restrictions. There is a lot more to unpack in the latter.
So about seven posts later, you do the exact opposite. You make a big wall of text that starts with a couple from the OP and then you attach my unrelated posts. You don't read. You don't understand. Or you intentionally lie to try to win an argument. When I complained about the wall of text with the OPs posts, you doubled down on it. So I'm going with lying.
-
1 hour ago, Glacier Peak said:
Ha 'roBUST' I see what you did there 😄
My man of culture👍
-
People just need to start stressing what this robust game engine is actually capable of:
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 5/12/2022 at 10:44 AM, GM Impervium said:
IIRC, Mighty Leap has a PBAoE KD effect when you take off called... uhm, "Take Off", which also increases jump height/speed. Whether that's actually useful or not, I'll leave up for debate.
And also, holy heck guys, it's gotten a bit heated in here, can we cool it down a notch? -
4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
There has been no derision here.
My dude there was so much derision that a mod came in to warn people to chill out. You'd have to have been blind not to notice.
4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:And then there's been you calling people liars. And another poster claiming "no rational arguments", even though rational arguments have been the literal basis of the disagreements in this thread.
I called people liars because they lied. I demonstrated how they lied. Would you like it if I quoted you out of context, pasted your statement with someone else's unrelated one, and then claimed you were arguing for their position? My guess is that you would flip your lid.
4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:Your posts in this thread, and those of the people who agree with you, have been full of little other than emotional pleas and counter-factual information. You're either refusing to argue in good faith, or you honestly lack the wherewithal to discern the difference between disagreement and derision. Please understand that your "No, you!" style of refusing to understand logical arguments isn't going to enable you to win anything, it's only going to convince people to stop talking to you. Both online and IRL.
It's fine if people don't want a proposed change. From my perspective, there are some things here that make the feedback dysfunctional.
1. As in your post above, lumping different people together as if they are saying the exact same thing, ignoring differences or nuance.
2. Moralizing. As in your post above--ascribing a moral character to the person who doesn't agree with you or to a stance you don't like. For example, only a selfish person would want to change a power that someone else likes. Or someone who fails to see my logic is going to ostracize people not only ingame but in REAL LIFE as well (LOL). Keep in mind I've been playing this game since 2004.
3. Hidden assumptions or biases. An example is someone assuming a design principle such as the cottage rule without stating or defending that assumption. Or being against a proposed change for reasons unrelated to the logic of the proposal. Or waving away a proposal based on a previous discussion that is not detailed in the current discussion.
4. Dogpiling. You keep framing this in terms of logical argument. Its not a debate. For one thing, some things hinge on aesthetics or someone's subjective values. More importantly, the people defending the proposal have to respond to random comments from numerous people--often repetitive comments that were already dealt with earlier in the discussion. So sorry if this doesn't conform to your standards of a dissertation defense, I think it's reasonable that people might be somewhat vague given the circumstances.
5 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:I know that you're going to see this post as an attack on you, but it's not. It's actually my attempt to offer good advice. Peace.
Thanks for the attempt. At least you've had a sense of humor in this. Take care.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:
I don't believe you.
And that is specifically why I don't believe you.
The majority of the people here are against and don't want any of the changes proposed considered. So you think that I'm popping in here to troll them in order to--help them undermine this discussion? After spending a considerable amount of time working to defend what I thought was interesting about the proposal. I think you're smarter than that.
-
4 hours ago, arcane said:
People are allowed and even encouraged (“feedback”) to disagree with suggestions. If you’re one of those anti-disagreement types, expect lots of disappointment from life. Constant affirmation isn’t a thing in the real world.
That probably made a lot more sense when there was a full scale development team updating the game. Under the current state of affairs, I have no expectation that this idea is going to be implemented. Even if everyone in this thread thought this idea was amazing, I don't think it would happen. That's true of the vast majority of suggestions that are going to be made here.
Coming here to make a suggestion suggests to me a certain level of investment in the game. My real world concern is that people coming here and getting exposed to various degrees of derision will sour them on the community and further deteriorate the playerbase. In debates that are of no consequence anyway. That's the only practical consequence I see coming out of this. Do I expect people to read this comment and curb their desire to argue, pontificate and moralize? Absolutely not lol. It's just a thought.
edit:typos
-
12 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
These are both rational arguments that have been made in this thread explaining why people are against this. The only people who look silly are the ones who can't see that these rational arguments have been made.
"Hello I'd like to make a suggestion!"
"Suggestions are down the hall. This is argumentation."
"But it says suggestions on the door."
"No it doesn't."
"Yes it does."
"No it doesn't."
"Yes it does!"
"Are you suggesting I can't read?"
"Why yes....yes I am. Because it clearly says suggestions on the door."
"I already told you once-- suggestions are down the hall."
-
-
1 hour ago, Rudra said:
Having a gap closer, you target a mob and use the now taunting combat teleport, will not give you any travel benefits. It will send you to the target. So, yes, I ignored it as being a contrived defense.
Edit: It is an attack set power. Using Confront as the basis. That is a ST mob ability. Not like Shield Charge, Savage Leap, or the other 2 that are AoE attacks you target a location with.
Edit again: As a reminder, in your post, you were the one that said you wanted a power pool slot freed up.
So you make a couple assumptions which is typical of the "against" crowd. You assume that this hypothetical power works a certain way when that hasn't been established. Since you're relentlessly dismissive of the idea, you immediately wave away aesthetic concerns as a contrived defense. Apparently it's not worth something just looking or being cool.
I made all kinds of comments about possibilities. Taken as a whole, or even reasonably in context they don't fit with your lie.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Greycat said:
Currently:
I can stand at range and taunt. I do not end up in the middle of a mob as a result, aggroing the lot of them.
OP's suggestion:
Taunt, wind up teleported (or whatever) there in the middle of a mob I don't want to be in the middle of.
Yes, that is *objectively worse.* Saying "it doesn't affect anybody's build" is a flat out lie and you should be (but I can tell won't be) ashamed, as to get *original, useful* functionality back would require respeccing, dropping that power and going into a power pool - if they can fit that into their build.
Yes, that's "objectively different." So would making Confront into a power that turns your character into a flowerpot for five minutes. Frankly, the second would be more useful, as it would at least be amusing during RP. "Different" is not "better" or even "more interesting."
Also, no.I already commented on the "it doesn't affect anybody's build" statement. The exchange happened on page 9. YOU said that your way "affected nobody's current build." I replied to that statement by saying "it (ie your way) affected nobody's current build. The (proposed) change was aimed at potential builds. In other words, builds that might be possible if you didn't have your way. I didn't lie about anything and have nothing to be ashamed of. Perhaps you should slow down and actually read what has been written.
-
1
-
PVP or where on the doll did the PvPers touch you
in General Discussion
Posted
It could be paranoia if you think there's a perpetual history of griefing related to pvp in general.
Usually when people say something like this they actually mean something very specific, typically along the lines of "mean pvper kepts me from getting a badge" or "toxic pvper insulted me in chat and I'll be damned if someone is going to force me to use ignore."
Would love to hear otherwise though! (pulls up comfy chair)