Spzi

joined 2 years ago
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

We can plot it on 2 axis as a 2x2 grid:

legal & legitimate   |  illegal & legitimate
----------------------------------------------
legal & illegitimate |  illegal & illegitimate

Definitions:

  • legal: conforms to the law
  • illegal: breaks the law
  • legitimate: the right thing to do
  • illegitimate: the wrong thing to do (not sure if this translation is correct, but this is what I mean)

Examples:

  • legal & legitimate: Doing things which are allowed and fine, both morally and legally. Like crafting things and selling for a fair price.
  • illegal & legitimate: Might be as small as crossing the street when the lights are red (although no one is nearby), or as big as rebelling against systemic injustice // 2nd row of OP picture
  • legal & illegitimate: Exploiting others, benefitting from negative externalities, though under legal protection. Like the 1st row of OP picture, and things like fossil fuel extraction, colonialism, imperialism
  • illegal & illegitimate: Villainous deeds like murder

I learned this idea during a training workshop for social disobedience (climate action, sit-in). Of course we saw ourselves on the legitimate side, partially covered by law, partially breaking it, but ultimately not caring so much about that part due to the perceived legitimateness. Against the fossil fuel industry, which we see as illegitimate, though sadly protected by law.

PS: Not sure if intended, but this sub's image very much reminds me of the movie SMILE, which might be my all time horror favorite.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

The question is wether there was sexual violence.

The claim from your screenshot answers that with a 'no': "It was all fabricated".

Though what you provide to support that claim (I did not open the link) does not support it. On the contrary, it even provides accounts of sexual violence.

There is a 2nd, different claim muddled within: Wether sexual violence can be proven in court.

Of course, that can be difficult for a number of reasons related to sexual violence ("victims were murdered", "not prepared to reveal"). But failure to prove an offense does by no means conclude that the accusations were "all fabricated".

Maybe this is related to people confusing proof and evidence. Evidence (even numerous and strong) can exist although a proof is not possible.

Feel free to clear things up if I missed your point. At the moment, it is not understandable how that guy jumps from "there is evidence, but we will have trouble proving in court" to "it was all fabricated". If you can add something which closes this gap, that would help your point.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It is frequently discussed to ban far-right parties. Decades ago, the NPD could have been banned but it was turned down because they were too insignificant (only getting a few percent in elections, if at all).

With the AfD, it's a different story. They are rather too significant (getting double digit percents). Politicians are worried that if a ban fails, it could give them even more fuel. Some subconscious thought nags me that this wasn't the actual reason, but it's the best I can do right now.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

Makes me happy to hear this important feature is about to become reality! <3

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah, basically the US can decide who gets how much of an advantage in this war by simply dialing up or down their military aid.

Ukraine not willing to negotiate? Dial it down. Russia not willing? Dial it up.

So they can end this war if they are willing to invest accordingly. But not this conflict. Will that lead to a stable peace, or just another war in the near future? Without satisfying answers to these questions, Ukraine is probably better off to keep fighting, even without any US aid, which repeals the first sentence of this paragraph.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 18 points 8 months ago

legitimizing Russian aggression and undermining Western alliances

Yup, sounds like Trump; that russian asset.

So Ukraine needs to get nukes to deter a 3rd invasion in a few years? Just great.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think the most important insight is that you can achieve the same result with far less effort if you stay on Earth.

On Mars, you're basically building survival shelters with no trade network to rely on in a ~~hostile~~ downright deadly environment. In a place where we don't even know how to get there, and how to bring all the stuff we need, and many more unknowns.

It might just be that the same effort can achieve more on Earth. And no matter how bad Earth becomes in terms of climate, toxicity, heck even if atmosphere AND oceans fully turn into dead zones, it's still far more suitable than Mars (you mentioned two important factors), and the transport problem is nonexistent or already solved.

[Edit, emphasis: Even assuming decades of nuclear winter after WW3, it's still far more practical to build a bunker shielded against radioactivity on Earth. On Mars, you'd had to do a similar thing.

Interestingly, this argument becomes stronger the more Earth is made uninhabitable. Because any Mars colony would heavily depend on reliable supplies from Earth for decades, if not longer. Which becomes increasingly harder / more unreliable the worse the situation on Earth becomes. At some point on the scale of how bad things can become, we cannot sustain space travel any longer.]

I hope we colonize Mars some day, but it makes zero sense as a means to escape an ecological catastrophe, since Mars is orders of magnitude worse and orders of magnitude harder.

This extremely high entry barrier might possibly seem as a good thing for people who are super rich and afraid of other humans, since it makes it practically impossible for all the poor and desperate to attempt to raid their luxury bunker. Best moat ever. But again, for the same budget you can easily get an automated army of killer machines which rivals most nations, if you simply stay on Earth.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Ahh, I knew that proc must have some neat potential! That’s incredible lol, definitely have to mess with it more.

I had the same thoughts when I first encountered it (and I think it was the only time I saw it). I guess that explains why it's so rare. The potential is not too obvious. And maybe I have to add, not too easily unlocked. At least my approach resulted in a rather complicated deck with many points of failure. But I guess when you run so many copy spells yourself, you know these situations when you draw only copy spells but nothing to copy :D

For that reason, I currently run only 3 Estrid and only 2 Wingbright. I had Mirrormade in for a while - thought it would be neat to copy opponent enchantments with it, to further replicate them with Estrid, even after Mirrormade has been removed. But after a while I realized I never had a good opportunity to use it.

It’s really really amusing with oddball cards like Haphazard Bombardment

Man, that sounds good! That's 7 mana, right? And you get one of those for free in each upkeep, distributing aim markers on everything ^^

I guess you need to be more careful with the expiration, since that is harder to predict here than with sagas.

Haphazard Bombardment is too far from my current approach, so I won't try myself. But if you do, I'd love to hear about it!

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

Given how much noise exit parties, or generally anti EU sentiments can cause, I'd also prefer a higher bar. Be welcomed if you join, but please be sure about it.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

in any ranked modes, winning is the point, so I feel like there isn’t really any room to complain about fast and efficient decks in ranked play.

I slightly disagree. I mean, mostly you're obviously right; playing to win is foremost at home in ranked. But I think other legit points exist simultaneously.

I want interesting matches. I want the matchmaking to give me an opponent which is neither too hard nor too easy. That's my main reason for playing ranked historic.

I want to test the deck I built, see how it fares against mature decks. I play unranked to check if I got the basics right (like land composition), and ranked to find out how viable certain ideas actually are in the current meta.

But sure, it is perfectly fine to play ranked to win (lol), and I don't blame those who do. I just feel we can and should expect more challenge required and less luck. I lose so often with only having played 1 land, that's just ridiculous. My deck has answers to all these threats, but asking wether I have the fitting solution against an unknown opponent in my first 8 cards puts a lot more weight on luck than on skill.

There's another thought, not sure how to put it. Maybe it's less about the individual match and more about different strategies competing in a shared environment. From that perspective, it's perfectly fine to have deck A which wins versus B, but loses against C and D. Then, player skill sits at the judgement how much B we currently have, and what exactly A is. However, the current client heavily emphasizes looking at individual matches (that's where you see that big VICTORY / DEFEATED), and I think you need 3rd party tools to get any information how good you're doing against certain types of opponents.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

< cash spending >

Aw, that sounds horrible! I had no idea, I don't spend any money on this. WotC got enough from me back when I bought paper cards, and somehow I got along fine in Arena without money.

But I remember having a similar problem when we still played with paper cards. You're forced to keep spending to keep playing with your friends, or drop out at some point. For inhouse paper, at least we could "print" proxies.

Would be nice if they considered how much each player has spent on their current deck for the matchmaking. Like high spenders have to face other high spenders, and budget players are grouped with themselves.

Though of course, in both cases, the economic incentive for WotC is to create unfair situations.


< play patterns >

I don't know what words like Timeless, Standard or Pioneer mean, but yeah, seems we feel the same. Especially this sounds exactly like me: I like puzzles and board state and cards that do pretty much one thing, where through the combination of one-things you can create a complex game.

Take Glissa Sunslayer for example, a black/green creature for 3 mana with first strike and death touch (which alone makes it one of the best blockers imo), it has 3 additional abilities from which you can choose one on impact. Like, what, why? This would be totally playable without these extra abilities. FS DT in itself is an extremely powerful combo, and I think there is currently no other card which has that out of the box. It can even create nasty combos by repeatedly resetting Sagas. Binding of the old Gods for example, destroy one permanent each round for the sole cost of dealing player damage. Though strangely, I don't see it being played too often, so it seems to be fine.

I think the game would be more fun if the overall power level would be toned down a bit, but don't expect that to happen.

Fun fact, I just conceded to a Peddler before my 2nd turn. I tried my luck a dozen times or so against that deck, which rarely succeeded and was never enjoyable. Yeah, skip.


< brawl unplayable >

Yes, Nadu is shameless. Though it has little impact on my matches, I rarely see it. I suffer much more from Persist Reanimators, and Goblin Bombardment with Ajani. Or this silly deck which mills itself, with creatures automagically returning to the battlefield.

Baral ... can lead to hopeless situations, agreed. But I see Baral even less than Nadu. Could it be that counter decks came out of fashion, because aggro got too fast? Many players seem to play almost exclusively cards for 1 or max 2 mana.

Like I just lost after my first round to a Fireblade Charger with Sigarda's Aid and a Colossus Hammer. Arena asked me afterwards wether I had fun. Mhm. Next match: Scholar of the Lost Trove gets Persist in round 3. Cool. After that: Elves swinging lethal in round 3.

Can you elaborate on Rusko, Clockmaker? Admittedly, I've been playing 2 or 3 Ruskos for a year or more. Before, I liked using Underrealm Lich with this frog monster which lets you draw a card whenever a land is put into your graveyard. I like recycling decks and fear Ashiok, guess I'm loss averse.

Imagine managing a popular game where tons of your playerbase hates aspects of it so much that they just concede to take a loss when they see a set of cards you design to be fun. This is the opposite of fun to me, and again I think it non-trivially contributes to negative player mental health.

Well put, I agree. I heard something when learning about game design: A mechanic, which gives something in your game a new ability, should be fun for the player using it, and for the players trying to counter it. Like maybe your warrior can raise his shield to block attacks, bot others have their abilities to penetrate shields, hit your feet or whatever. We should not just make the warrior invulnerable, with no counterplay possible. It might be fun for one player, but you want both to enjoy your game.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4443753

In the past 10 years or so, tech specialists have repeatedly voiced concerns that the progress of computing power will soon hit the wall. Miniaturisation has physical limits, and then what? Have we reached these limits? Is Moore’s law dead? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

  • 00:00 Intro
  • 00:53 Moore’s Law And Its Demise
  • 06:23 Current Strategies
  • 13:14 New Materials
  • 15:50 New Hardware
  • 18:58 Summary

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4443753

In the past 10 years or so, tech specialists have repeatedly voiced concerns that the progress of computing power will soon hit the wall. Miniaturisation has physical limits, and then what? Have we reached these limits? Is Moore’s law dead? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

  • 00:00 Intro
  • 00:53 Moore’s Law And Its Demise
  • 06:23 Current Strategies
  • 13:14 New Materials
  • 15:50 New Hardware
  • 18:58 Summary

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4443753

In the past 10 years or so, tech specialists have repeatedly voiced concerns that the progress of computing power will soon hit the wall. Miniaturisation has physical limits, and then what? Have we reached these limits? Is Moore’s law dead? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

  • 00:00 Intro
  • 00:53 Moore’s Law And Its Demise
  • 06:23 Current Strategies
  • 13:14 New Materials
  • 15:50 New Hardware
  • 18:58 Summary

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4443753

In the past 10 years or so, tech specialists have repeatedly voiced concerns that the progress of computing power will soon hit the wall. Miniaturisation has physical limits, and then what? Have we reached these limits? Is Moore’s law dead? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

  • 00:00 Intro
  • 00:53 Moore’s Law And Its Demise
  • 06:23 Current Strategies
  • 13:14 New Materials
  • 15:50 New Hardware
  • 18:58 Summary

 

In the past 10 years or so, tech specialists have repeatedly voiced concerns that the progress of computing power will soon hit the wall. Miniaturisation has physical limits, and then what? Have we reached these limits? Is Moore’s law dead? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

  • 00:00 Intro
  • 00:53 Moore’s Law And Its Demise
  • 06:23 Current Strategies
  • 13:14 New Materials
  • 15:50 New Hardware
  • 18:58 Summary

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4411464

A very quick overview of nearly every machine you'll see on a construction site.

It takes a lot of big tools to build the roads, dams, sewage lift stations, and every other part of the constructed environment. To me, there’s almost nothing more fun than watching something get built, and that’s made all the better when you know what all those machines do.

The video admits in the end that the title is clickbait ("Every"). There are too many to be exhaustive.

 

A very quick overview of nearly every machine you'll see on a construction site.

It takes a lot of big tools to build the roads, dams, sewage lift stations, and every other part of the constructed environment. To me, there’s almost nothing more fun than watching something get built, and that’s made all the better when you know what all those machines do.

The video admits in the end that the title is clickbait ("Every"). There are too many to be exhaustive.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4333257

Professor Philip Moriarty takes issue with a paper by scientists claiming to achieve room temperature superconductivity.

The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

Key critique points:

  • Team has little to no background in superconductivity
  • Evidence of levitation can be explained without superconductivity
  • Graph showing drop in resistance uses a scale which is orders of magnitude off the scale
  • Graph showing drop in resistance shows it does not drop (close) to zero

Phil regrets this bad publication which received so much attention could have a negative impact on credibility of science as a whole.

The relevancy for 'Science Communication' is: This video claims to focus on why this was bad science, how safety checks failed, and what negative impact this communication failure might have.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4333257

Professor Philip Moriarty takes issue with a paper by scientists claiming to achieve room temperature superconductivity.

The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

Key critique points:

  • Team has little to no background in superconductivity
  • Evidence of levitation can be explained without superconductivity
  • Graph showing drop in resistance uses a scale which is orders of magnitude off the scale
  • Graph showing drop in resistance shows it does not drop (close) to zero

Phil regrets this bad publication which received so much attention could have a negative impact on credibility of science as a whole.

 

Professor Philip Moriarty takes issue with a paper by scientists claiming to achieve room temperature superconductivity.

The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

Key critique points:

  • Team has little to no background in superconductivity
  • Evidence of levitation can be explained without superconductivity
  • Graph showing drop in resistance uses a scale which is orders of magnitude off the scale
  • Graph showing drop in resistance shows it does not drop (close) to zero

Phil regrets this bad publication which received so much attention could have a negative impact on credibility of science as a whole.

 

Topics covered in this informative video: potentiometer, electrical engineering, basic electronics, what is a resistor, resistors in series, variable resistor, power electronics, current limiting, Carbon film, carbon composite, Metal film, Potentiometer, Thermistor, RTD, LDR, Light dependant resistor, SMD, rheostat and much much more.

The video often (not always) describes resistors as coiled wires. Don't they induce magnetic fields and currents in other components? This article answered these questions for me: https://eepower.com/resistor-guide/resistor-fundamentals/resistor-inductance/

TL;DR: Yes, but the effect is often negligible or the application does not care. When it matters, we can minimize the effect with appropriate designs (i.e. without coiled resistors).

 

Esoterik ist wieder cool. Auf TikTok erzählen einem selbsternannte Hexen von magischen Ritualen und einfachen Lösungen für komplexe Probleme. Die Gewänder sind neu, doch die Gefahren sind dieselben.

  • 00:00 - Achad, Shtaim, Shalosh!
  • 02:33 - Was versteht man unter „Esoterik”?
  • 03:40 - Die Kernelemente esoterischen Denkens
  • 06:23 - TikTok-Hexen und moderne esoterische Inhalte
  • 08:51 - „Manifestation”
  • 09:57 - Die Effektivität dieser Inhalte
  • 11:13 - Die Gefahren der Esoterik
  • 14:00 - Der Barnum-Effekt und getarnte Esoterik
  • 15:33 - Fazit

view more: ‹ prev next ›