#i.e. they do NOT have consistent rules or logic

[imunbreakabledude]

in addition to often thinking way too hard about the ~implications~ of minor details in established media (details which are obviously the way they are for expedience/concision/narrative function), i also think way too hard about the ~implications~ of minor details in my own writing.

for example: from TMDOMS. consider maeve's secret stash of cash, which elena says NOT to use but as soon as they're not fully living together, maeve starts using it for everything, including (ashley's) rent.

TMDOMS AU where maeve gets found out being alive because ashley gets audited, anyone?

[markantonys]

I'm curious how the show is gonna handle Rand's relationship with the Aiel. It should be very interesting. Bookwise he kinda rejects their culture/seeing himself as Aiel cause of him clinging to his old life. They might just frame it differently, maybe he just doesn't feel a right to it cause he wasn't raised Aiel. Overall it seems like the show might be going in the direction of people in general being more receptive to learning about Aiel culture over them just handwaving them away as weird (like Perrin's interactions with Avi when book Perrin wouldn't have done that). Maybe Rand is more willing to learn cause he wants to learn more about his birth parents

yeah i don't know what to expect in this regard! my only particular annoyance with aiel-culture-related stuff in the books is that the books would introduce something as culturally or thematically important, but then shuffle it aside once it became inconvenient to the plot. i.e:

the aiel are introduced as very anxious to tie rand to them so that he doesn't destroy them. but when later plot prevents rand from having aiel hanging around him, they stop hanging around him and aren't overly concerned about him ignoring them (bar complaints here and there, with little attempt to actually Do Anything to make him stop ignoring them).

avirand's relationship is introduced as a crucial binding cord between rand and the aiel and as significant to general aiel-wetland relations, but this is dropped once later plot prevents them from spending time together, and aviendha is never used as a mediator in rand-aiel conflicts when by all logic she should be since that was one of the main narrative purposes of their relationship upon introduction.

the maidens & wise ones are so concerned about keeping avirand together for binding cord reasons that they chase off any wetlander woman who tries to hit on him, but once RJ decided that a) he wanted min to hook up with rand without being obstructed by the aiel surrounding him and b) there would be no opportunity for her to become first-sisters with aviendha before doing so, then suddenly the maidens & wise ones are all about min and becoming top min/rand shippers and aviendha is saying it's totally fine to make an exception to the first-sister rule for min even though she is very adamant about upholding it for elayne. when by all logic, the maidens & wise ones should NOT be happy about another wetlander woman with no connection to aviendha trying to get with rand (they'd have no reason to think min is any different from isendre, cairhienin nobles, etc in this regard) and aviendha should be much more resistant to making exceptions to rules we've been told are hugely culturally significant to her.

so my one wish for all aiel-culture-related stuff in the show is that if the show introduces something as culturally or thematically important, it should commit to that importance for the rest of the series rather than sweeping it aside once it's no longer convenient to the plot. that doesn't mean rand/wetlander-aiel relations needs to be a major theme or plot point of every single season for the rest of the show, because ofc it should naturally fade more into the background as the story goes on and other things come up, but it's gotta be either a) rand is tied securely enough to the aiel by the time he has to go off and do other stuff that it makes sense they're not concerned about things like him ditching them and getting a new wetlander girlfriend, or b) if he's not tied securely enough, then make the aiel react accordingly and actually try to use aviendha to intervene with him on their behalf.

hopefully this ramble makes sense djkjfg and it didn't even end up having much to do with rand's personal attitudes towards aiel culture, so i got off topic a bit! but for me, i am good with whatever show!rand's personal attitude ends up being as long as things remain emotionally consistent throughout the course of the show.

[spewagepipe]

Plumbing the Depths: Aesthetic Goals and Tastes

My post yesterday was a little more, uh... hostile... than was necessary or helpful, so I wanted to circle back and come at it without the weird pretence of sarcasm.

Almost all RPGs – including the RPGs that the folks from the thread claim to enjoy – use attack rolls to automate the blow-by-blow of a fight, but the player is expected to handle the broader tactical decisions. If we were to create analogous gameplay for "solving a mystery", then we'd use investigation rolls to automate finding evidence and interrogating suspects, while leaving the broader task of drawing inferences and following leads to be handled by the player.

For good or ill, that is exactly how mainstream RPGs handle mystery play. But for the folks in that thread, the analogous mechanics were not acceptable: the moment-to-moment clue-finding should also be the responsibility of the player, they argued. And fair enough – why not? But, if we follow that logic, then by analogy, you'd want to do the same for attack rolls, surely. You'd want a system where players describe how their characters are attacking and parrying, and have the GM rule on the effectiveness of those actions according to context.

I can't tell if that sounds like I'm trying to present an absurd case, to show that "these jokers didn't think it through". But in fact, I remain terribly disappointed that there has never been even a single published OSR system that works this way. So much that, a few years back, I personally designed and tested a prototype of this very combat system. The play-testers all thought it was great fun, even.

Next, let's take a look at the opposite idea: what if we automated the higher-level "tactics" through a dice roll? In one fork of that thread where the joke fell apart, one of the authors confessed that they thought the idea of a "tactics" skill was "a ridiculous proposition and not viable at all". But not only is it totally viable – it's been tested, proven, and become an enormous influence on indie RPG design ever since.

Here are some of the tactical "moves" from Apocalypse World. Check the image alt text if you want clarifications about the significance of each.

The saddest thing to me is that one of the thread authors claims to have played Apocalypse World – so that person, at least, knows that this is not some absurd joke.

So here is the point I actually wanted to make yesterday, but didn't: both of these extremes result in fun, internally-consistent designs that are, of course, chasing extremely different aesthetic goals. But the folks who wrote the joke thread were not interested in exploring the possibilities of RPG design. They were reacting to a disagreement over tastes by presenting their personal preference (i.e., for a typical OSR game that inconsistently employs dice without regard for whether they are actually helping to support its focal gameplay) as a kind of objectively superior form of play, while framing folks who might want anything else as delusional (i.e., wanting supposedly non-viable systems), a poseur (i.e., attending RPG sessions just to scroll TikTok instead of play), or both.

Hopefully I've demonstrated, by example, that this presentation is incorrect, and we can skip the boilerplate lectures about gatekeeping and "wrongbadfun".

[radiantmorningstar]

A few technical notes and observations specific to my current Holmes Basic D&D campaign . . .

I’m playing it sandbox style, completely unrailroaded and unscripted. It’s an emergent story, organic to the dice rolls and random oracles; however, I am keeping the mission of Ruvin and Dain in mind as well as my developing sense of who they are as individuals.

I’m taking my time. As a soloist, I have the luxury of setting my own pace, and I enjoy visualizing things in detail. My actual gaming sessions are usually on the weekends, but I spend the rest of the week with the events in the back of my mind, going over them and vividly “seeing” what happened in my imagination. This is one of the many creative aspects of solo gaming that I really enjoy.

I also enjoy writing up my summaries and finding art or illustrations that reflect the scenes. Sometimes, I’ll ask AI to draw for me, but since AI often makes my skin crawl, I don’t resort to it all the time. I’d rather find a painting or a stock photo. I may post the logos from the games I’m playing because I think that’s a quick and interesting way to let people know what I’m doing.

I love using supplements, weird resources, oracles, endless tables and funky dice. I also like cobbling systems together or using adventures (or parts of them) from one system and rules from another. Right now, my central rule set is Blueholme, a 20-level conjectural extension of the Holmes Basic D&D rules.

I believe that Original D&D (aka “OD&D”) and Basic D&D, up through BECMI and the Rules Cyclopedia, are inherently more compelling than the later editions because they’re simpler, less influenced by corporate meddling, and offer more space for player creativity. Blueholme, which is to say, the restatement of the original Dungeons and Dragons rules by J. Eric Holmes in 1977, subsequently reorganized and logically extended by Michael Thomas in 2017, is now my favorite fantasy RPG. There are many others I like, but this one is very special.

Sometimes, I make “DM Notes” [in brackets], which are asides from the POV of me being my own Dungeon Master, but I don’t record many of my rolls or game mechanics in my summaries. I don’t want to slow my summaries down with numbers that would be largely meaningless to a reader. Two consistent exceptions to this are combat rolls and attribute checks. Otherwise, I will note anything critical but will usually avoid things like wandering monster rolls, weather generation, navigation rolls, etc. I’m doing most of those things as a soloist, just not writing about them unless they manifest in the story.

Sessions will often be “quiet.” Think of this like “quiet moments” in screenwriting (i.e. scenes in which things are not catching on fire and people are not screaming). Quiet moments perform many important functions in a story. And this is a story, even if most of it is conveyed through narrative summary. Since it’s emergent and not scripted, I will summarize the times when nothing much happens as well as the action. Because I’m letting the story pretty much do what it wants, I never know exactly what’s going to happen.

If you’ve been following the episodes of my Holmes Basic Rebirth campaign thus far (look at my Tumblr “Archive” to read them from the beginning), I thank you for accompanying Ruvin and Dain on this journey. Who knows what their fate will be? Only time and gaming sessions will tell.

Earendil

[phvle]

Functions in Socionics — Introverted Logic

Introverted Logic according to Aushra Augustinavichiute

The feelings that arise when two objects are being compared based on some objective property, e.g. a sense of distance, weight, volume, value, strength or quality, we classify as logical. These are the feelings of objective evaluation; in certain cases this evaluation contributes to either activation or passivation of the person experiencing said feelings.

One perceives direct information that is obtained through the first signal system as a sense of proportionality or disproportionality of the objects, a sense of balance or imbalance between them, and a sense of understanding or not understanding the advantages one object has over the other. This includes all feelings that arise from objects and phenomena being known or unknown: curiosity, respect, fear, a sense of something being logical or illogical, a sense of power or powerlessness over a certain object.

All of these feelings we will call “logical”. Together they form an individual’s sense of logic. The degree of development of this sense of logic varies from person to person.

Logical feelings convey information related to whether or not the objects are known, whether or not they are in equilibrium, and whether or not they are comparable. They also carry information about the space and the position of the object within it.

Logical feelings are objective because they only take into account the ratio of objective properties rather than one’s own interests and needs. This aspect of perception determines one’s ability or inability to see objective, logical relations between the objects or their components.

When this aspect of perception is in the leading position, the individual is notably logical in their assessment of the interrelations in the objective static world, or world of objects. They have an ability to alter the relations between the properties of different objects, changing these relations in a desired direction. By doing this they are also able to impact the objects possessing said properties. Their accurate assessment of their own relations with other objects lets them know which objects should be avoided and which can be “hunted”.

An individual with this type of IM has an ability to set their logic (i.e. their cognition of the objective world and of its regularities and proportions) in opposition to the knowledge of others. They can shape and improve their own and other people’s cognition of the objective world. This gives them a sense of power when faced with the logic or illogicality of others.

Introverted Logic according to WSS

Aspect: Structures and axioms. Any data set can be found to have underlying norms and rules that seem fundamental to it. Distinct elements of a set can be shown to have qualities in common, which based on membership to a set, can be generalised categorically. Furthermore, all propositions in a system must be consistent to all be true. Consequently, structures can be formulated to reduce complex data to a finite set of rules, making sense of the available information, with fundamental axioms necessitating or negating contingent propositions.

Metabolism: The individual identifies regularities and norms in their data, formulating models with finite rules to explain what is necessitated and what is not permitted. Such systems are designed with consistency, accounting for what fits together without contradiction. Similarly, order is brought to chaotic situations through the imposition of rules with consequences, communicating the parameters by which certain actions are unlawful or obligated, and classifying available data into different kinds and varieties so as to aid comprehension of what things are and how they differ.

Strength: The person is good at making sense of their thoughts and of the things around them, being able to formulate a clear rationale for their positions. Similarly, they will be able to disperse confusion by creating categories that best divide up the available data. The person will be associated with refined precision and clarity of thought, quickly spotting what is consistent with what they already know and highlighting any contradictions. In this way, they may come across as highly logical, easily spotting breaches of rules and subtle distinctions between two points of view.

Value: The person seeks to understand the world around them in a consistent, coherent manner. Desiring clarity and for things to make perfect sense, they look for signal in the noise of data, arranging them in a way that fits together neatly, providing them with a framework to account for new scenarios. The person will appreciate rules that can apply without exception, reducing chaos and confusion. As such, they will tend to create or follow a particular ideology or theory through which events are interpreted to fit together, and will much prefer when things align well under that lens.

Introverted Logic according to SHS

Creating schemes, constructing, analysing; following laws, instructions, plans; keeping composure, emotional control; skeleton, bones.

Intellectually: The L-state means the construction of schemes, structures, and classifications. This kind of logic aims not at efficiency or profitability, but at the correctness and conformity to proportions. While thinking in the L-state, a person compares one object with another according to one or another criterion and places the object in a corresponding box on the classification table. L-thinking manifests as a short, extremely concise formulation and definition. The law of structural and logical thinking is to use minimum vocabulary (meaningful words) and maximum grammar (service words such as prepositions, conjunctions, particles, introductory turns).

Socially: The long-held L-state leads to an informal role in a team that is called a systematizer or an expert. They make objective, disinterested judgments on any issues of life. A person in the L-state is prone to isolation within a group, so that they could act according to the written and unwritten norms and rules that exist within the group. The second side of the L-role is to be a judge. Such a person is valued for their maximum non-involvement, so that they could soberly rule on various controversial cases.

Psychologically: A person in the L-state is characterised by coolness and indifference. In this state, there are no feelings shown or subjective preferences given. Figuratively, this state can be likened to a block of cold ice or a geometric regularity of a crystal or some mineral. This is the least psychological state, since it has absolutely no soul, no human warmth. But, on the other hand, it is the most balanced and stable state. This is a state of obedience, diligence, and discipline.

Physically: A person in the L-state is characterised by an almost complete absence of manifestations of “life.” Their facial expression is still like a statue, the body is straight and fixed, the eyes are dull and expressionless. Body movements are kept to a minimum. The rule “one body part–one function” is observed, that is, they only pick up objects with their hands, walk on their feet, and eat with their mouths. Operations are performed pointedly and discretely, with a noticeable pause at the beginning and the end of the motion.

Source: PDB Wiki

[catnift]

My Writing Setup (ft Zettelkasten)

My writing journey so far has been an endless road of pushbacks and trying to conform to the conventions, without much luck. So (only very recently) I've decided to just throw all of my previous knowledge out of the window and try to figure out what actually feels good to do, because I get snagged on the smallest of stuff, i.e. "it's 5 min past a whole hour, ergo too late to start"-type of things.

After a whirlwind of experimenting with various ideas and methods, I have landed on the Zettelkasten side of the internet. If you've never heard of it before, then I urge you to check it out here: https://zettelkasten.de/ . The Zettelkasten community is surprisingly active and is (at least partly) lead by some German guy, who does a lot of his podcasts and vlogs with a bare upper body. I choose to believe that this is optional, but it might be crucial for especially intense work. The original method was used to more effectively put together scientific articles, after all.

Anyway, the purebred Zettelkasten method, much like the purebred Bullet Journal method, is kind of intense for casuals. I've tried both in their full glory and it got messy real quick, so my advice is to start off with the bare minimum and work up to a level that feels comfortable to you. Always stop and think about your needs the moment you feel the slightest mental or physical resistance at any point - in the end, all of these 'second brain' methods are suggestions and the only true good method is the one you regularly use. Also, only you yourself need to understand it, so no need to cater to 'conventional logic'.

So the Zettelkasten method, at its core, is basically a personal Wiki, which connects snips of knowledge together on an even playing field (i.e. there is no "History" or "Maths" notebook, but a single monster book of "stuff"). The glroy of it is that you have these base notes that you can then link and connect to others and make up very complex thoughts. The original method was implemented purely on paper, so it's very versatile, once you understand the basic. For me however, paper is a fire hazard, so I use Obsidian, which again can go as hardcore as you want, but I use very basic functions. But maybe more on that in a separate post.

There have been talks on the Zettelkasten formus of some people trying to write creative fiction with it, but I'm not quite sure how they do it. For me, I have dumbed the system down significantly. Various scenes and worldbuilding facts in my stories are separate notes. My brain doesn't necessarily know everything about my WIPs in advance, but I know the general order of events, general "rules" and I have vivid scenes in my mind. So I just .. write them :) In any order at any time I'm inclined to write. I have a series of master notes that links to various topics and everything links to each other. "Editing" is going to a random note and checking both the text and links. If something no longer works, then it's a separate note and doesn't need to go anywhere - it can just stay there for future linking and/or reference. Once I'm ready to put some chapter together, then the scenes are already there and it's just a matter of putting them in some cohesive order and connecting them, which is a challenge, but way easier than figuring them out outright. If I need to check some descriptions for consistency, then 'stable' things link to the same note (for example some specific character), so it's way easier to check the details. If I really like some setting, I can describe it to my hearts content - it may not be used in my current WIP, but maybe it'll be perfect for some other future WIP.

Anyway, this is a whole lifestyle, to be sure, and I'm basically at the beginning of it. So this will definitely be a repeated topic on this blog :)

[areadersquoteslibrary]

When someone tells you in the general anti-intellectual scene of these end days of the world that college is a bad investment or indoctrinating kids etc etc, just agree with them and give them some version of this quote from Schopenhauer lamenting that college-level education was too focused on his personal nemesis Hegel instead of more worthy minds like Kant.

"Now if it is said that ‘Sound reason teaches this’, or that ‘Reason should rein in the passions’ and the like, then in no way does this mean that reason produces material knowledge from its own means; rather, this points to the results of rational reflection, to logical inferences from principles that abstract knowledge, enriched by experience, has gradually gained, and by virtue of which we can clearly and readily survey not merely that which is empirically necessary and hence to be foreseen, should the occasion arise, but the grounds and consequences of our own deeds as well. ‘Rational’ or ‘reasonable’ is everywhere synonymous with ‘consistent’ or ‘logical’, and the opposite is also true. For indeed, logic is just the natural method of reason itself expressed as a system of rules: these expressions (rational and logical) are related to one another as are practice and theory. A rational way of acting is understood in just this sense as a way of acting that is quite consistent, proceeds from universal concepts, and is intentionally led by abstract thoughts, but not determined by momentary, fleeting impressions; however, nothing is said about the morality of such a way of acting; on the contrary, it could be bad as well as good. Detailed explanations of this can be found in my ‘Critique of  [117] Kantian Philosophy’ 2nd edn, p. 576 ff.,b as well as in The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics, p. 152 ff.c Finally knowledge from pure reason (knowledge that we can bring to consciousness a priori, i.e., without the aid of experience) is such that its origins lie in the formal part of our cognitive faculty, be it thinking or intuiting. This sort of knowledge is always based on propositions that have transcendental or even metalogical truth.

In contrast, the idea of reason through its own means providing original material knowledge, knowledge therefore beyond all possibility of experience, positively enlightening us – the idea of reason as something that must contain innate ideas – is a pure fiction of philosophy professors, resulting from the anxiety evoked in them by the Critique of Pure Reason. – Are these gentlemen acquainted with a certain Locke, and have they read him? Perhaps once, a long time ago, superficially, in passages, in a poor, hackneyed German translation, looking down on the great man with conscious superiority – for I do not see an increase in knowledge of modern languages in proportion to the decrease in knowledge of ancient languages, no matter how much it is lamented. Of course they have had no time to waste on such old curmudgeons; in fact, even a real and fundamental knowledge of Kantian philosophy is at most to be found in some – very few – old fellows. For the youth of the generation now in manhood must have been expended on the works of that ‘giant intellect, Hegel’, of the ‘great Schleiermacher’ and the ‘discerning Herbart’. Alas! Alas! Alas! For this is just what is pernicious about such university celebrities and about what comes out of the mouths of decent colleagues in office and aspirants hoping to rise to the heroic heights of a university chair: that mere products of the factory of nature are praised as great minds, as the exceptions and ornaments of humankind, to good, faithful, youth of mediocre minds, lacking in judgement, so that these students dedicate themselves, with all their youthful energy, to the sterile study of such people's endless and mindless scribbling and squander the short and valuable time granted to their higher education, instead of devoting their youthful energy to real instruction, offered  [118] by the works of rare, genuine thinkers, the true exceptions among humankind, ‘scattered swimmers in the vast abyss’,a who across the centuries have only now and then emerged, since even nature only occasionally produces their sort and then ‘breaks the mould’. These genuine thinkers would also have been alive for today's youth, had they not been cheated out of their share of these genuine thinkers by the exceeding perniciousness of those who praise the bad, those members of the great fellowship of sponsors of mediocre thinking, who always flourish and hoist their banners high as the regular enemies of the great and genuine, who humble them. Just because of these and their activities, the age has so declined that Kantian philosophy, which our fathers understood only after years of serious study and through great effort, has now become unknown to the current generation, before whom Kant's philosophy is like pearls before swinea and who try to attack it in a kind of crude, awkward, doltish way – as barbarians throw stones at statues of Greek gods unfamiliar to them. Because this is the way it is nowadays, it is incumbent upon me to recommend something new to the advocates of that reason that knows immediately – that comprehends, that intuits, in short, that reason that produces material knowledge from its own means – to recommend the first book of the world-famous, 150-year-old work of Locke, which is expressly directed against all innate knowledge, and especially to recommend the 3rd chapter, §§ 21–26.b For although Locke goes too far in his denial of all innate truths, insofar as he extends that denial to formal knowledge (for which Kant most brilliantly corrected him later), nonetheless he was perfectly and undeniably correct about all material knowledge, i.e., substantial knowledge."

-Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

[luxurybrandswatches]

How To Choose a Watch

A short guide to considering and selecting a timepiece

Choosing a watch can be a long and complicated journey involving months of research; or it can be an impulsive decision made in seconds. Different people enjoy different watches, and there is no perfect equation that can determine the best watch for you. However, it may still be useful to distill the process of selecting a timepiece into a simple procedure so long as it accounts for the subjectivity inherent in our attraction to certain watches. The following framework can help guide your thinking behind watch consideration and selection.

While there are countless features to consider when searching for a new watch, they can be summarized by four categories: price, quality, brand, and fit. Quality broadly consists of three subparts: finishing, design, and technical specifications.

Price and quality are usually modeled with a linear relationship: as price increases, quality does too. In other words, there is a "fair-value" line, and some products may fall below that line while others may be above it. Luxury goods command a price premium largely due to features unrelated to the physical product attributes which constitute quality. The most important of these additional features is brand. Some brands are more exclusive and prestigious than others. While many buyers outwardly shun brand in favor of product quality alone, most cannot escape the value that certain labels offer.

Price

In watchmaking, there is value to be found at every price range. It is important to have both an upper and lower bound in mind to guide your search. Often, this range is not clearly delineated, and many buyers find themselves exceeding their original budget constraint when confronted with the attractiveness of a pricier piece. As a rule, it is inadvisable to prioritize watches over necessities or take out debt to fund a watch purchase.

Resale is also an important consideration. It is easy to fall out of love with a timepiece, and you will want to be able to sell it when you do. Popular watches from the most prestigious brands like Rolex and Patek Philippe hold their value far better than others. Logically, there is also higher demand for popular models, making them much easier to liquidate.

Quality

Quality may be objective, as in the case of water resistance, or subjective, as in the case of design. How much value to assign to a given feature is up to you; all else equal, you may perceive a watch with 200m of water resistance to be just as good as a watch rated to 300m. Having a set of general criteria in mind (i.e., determining your minimum requirements and deal breakers) can be useful in making your choices.

When evaluating all determinants of quality, it is important to consider whether you think a watch offers fair value for money. For example, a crude, off-the-shelf, machine-finished movement may be fine in a $1,000 watch but completely unacceptable in a timepiece worth $10,000.

Design

When examining the quality of a given design, consider whether it is both well thought out and well executed. Although design quality is ultimately subjective, elements like superfluous text, mismatched fonts, and disruptive date windows all can make or break a watch. Poor case construction, including overly bulky cases and awkwardly long lugs, can drastically worsen the wearing experience. Other features like micro-adjustable clasps can significantly enhance it. The best watchmakers will give considerable attention to details like font, proportions, and wearability. Execution is equally as important. Misaligned markers and bracelets which fit poorly into the case can ruin a watch regardless of the strength of the design concept.

Technical Specifications

Case

Excluding dimensions, the most important case specifications are material and water resistance. For the former, simply consider the material used; gold may be 10, 14, or 18K, steel can be 316L or 904L, and titanium is either grade 2 or 5. The importance of water resistance depends on your needs. If you would like a dress watch for formal occasions, you may care very little about waterproofness. The opposite is true if you intend to go diving with your watch.

Crystal

The crystal is also important. Sapphire is nearly impossible to scratch while mineral and acrylic are far more prone to wear. The application of anti-reflective (AR) coating can make a watch more legible, though the quality of coatings will likely vary by brand.

Movement

When considering the movement, it is crucial to ask several questions. Has it been regulated for accuracy, and if so, is it accurate enough for you? Is the power reserve sufficiently large for your needs? Is the movement protected from magnetism, either through a soft-iron cage or the use of anti-magnetic materials like silicon? Does the seconds hand "hack" (stop while the movement is being set)?

Lume

Lume quality is determined by the luminescent material itself and the quantity applied. More layers and higher grades of Super-LumiNova, the most common lume in luxury watches, are preferred. Several brands have developed proprietary luminescent formulas. As reviewers will often test and evaluate lume, it is easy to find information regarding the strength and duration of the lume in a particular watch.

Finishing

Finishing is one of the most important parts of watchmaking. Beautiful movement finishing is highly prized by collectors. In off-the-shelf movements from Miyota and Sellita, look for the finishing class (standard vs. refined) and degree of customization taken by the brand. For all calibers, consider the variety of finishing techniques employed (Geneva stripes, anglage, perlage, black polishing, heat bluing, etc.), how they are employed (by hand or machine), and the actual results.

Case finishing is generally less complex. The most common techniques are brushing, sandblasting, and polishing. It is best to observe these in person. If this is impossible, seek the evaluation of a trusted reviewer. When considering pre-owned watches, it is important to look for scratches, blemishes, and any repolishing attempts.

Lastly, dial finishing includes pattern and more conventional finishes. Guilloché patterns and nature-inspired textures can provide a significant amount of visual interest. The most common dial finishes are sunburst (referring to a sunray-like brushed pattern), glossy, and grainy. Different materials like enamel, lacquer, and German silver may yield different effects. How well hands and markers are finished, whether through polishing or brushing, is also important.

Brand

Do not attempt to deceive yourself by saying that brand does not matter at all. Prestigious brand names are not just an outward display of wealth; a good brand provides quality assurance, an opportunity for self-expression, and an enjoyable customer experience. Companies that have values which align with your own, significant expertise, and a reputation for quality are logically worth more to you. You might also want to consider whether the company from which you are buying will exist for years to come, as this may be important for servicing and resale. Lastly, do not overpay just for a brand. A name on the dial can only do so much, and if the rest of the watch is poorly made, you are likely to regret the purchase.

Fit

No matter how well finished, accurate, or prestigious a watch may be, you should only buy watches that fit you. Most obviously, this principle refers to how well a watch literally fits on your wrist. Some cases will simply be too large or small in diameter or thickness. For example, if you would like a watch to fit under your cuff at work, you should look for thinner timepieces. If your wrist is around six inches in diameter, then watches over 40mm may be too large for you. The best and only certain way to ensure that a watch fits is to try it on in person.

Evaluating a watch's fit also involves the superficial question of whether you like how it looks. Stylistic features to consider include dial color, dial layout, the style of markers, and case shape. Another way of considering style is by using existing watch categories. Common styles include dress, field, aviation, sports, and dive. That said, being too adamant about buying one style may limit your options and exposure to watches you might like.

Closing Thoughts

There is an inordinate amount of information to consider when searching for a new watch. Sometimes, the sheer quantity of data can be paralyzing. While research is important, buying a watch ultimately comes down to doing what feels right.

[mindrole]

OK this is utterly random but I was digging for references to draw Dita and something about him looks. Off? I don't have the databook so my only references here are the CoM profile image and the in-game sprite in Interlude but then I realized that his eye color is significantly darker than Fragments we're currently aware of?? Even Eigha's are more Fragment red than Dita's. I think I'm losing my mind. Surely he wouldn't wear different contact lenses?

I don't really have a goal here I just don't have anyone else to bother with my brainrot and you're chill so presumably up for someone else's brainrot. Cool if not tho

i got pretty curious, so i decided to see for myself. just to note, theodore has pure #FF0000 red eyes so i didn't include him, none of the others have anything like that. the databook makes sure to make a distinction when talking about hatsutori's eyes too (i.e. saying they're not pure red, that they're dark red. i assume the same applies to the rest too).

if you're curious, there is not really much on ditasword in the databook, there's a paragraph about it on shinano's entry that teases CoM's premise and the nature of the show, what it is, mentions miwa and gives a little information about him etc. i feel like the only thing that isn't mentioned in the interlude or other material is that eigha as a character appears in season 2 and 4 (so he isn't in season 1 or 3). there's a drawing in the databook that can be seen in thumbnail form in miwa's room. i think it's the poster with taka on it. it's a little hard to see tho. the poster with shiyo on it is based on the art on the CoM website with ryuu replaced with eigha. as far as i know there's no HD version of the half with eigha on it.

here is what i ended up with:

it's something like this. (sorry the pic isn't aligned neatly)

i compared in-game sprites. any inconsistency in other pictures, i think i personally rule out as just that, inconsistencies.

looking purely by value, ryuu's eyes are the darkest among the fragments, miwa in second, then izu, hatsutori, misumi. i included hair color too for some reason. i was most surprised that misumi has the lightest eyes. izu is weird because his eyes are more RED than anyone else. overall, there doesn't seem to be any pattern or correlation for why they're all different. my guess is that it's just a design thing. we say "pink" hair, but it's noted to be shades of magenta. so by the logic of design choice, it makes sense that miwa, who is a 60+ year old man who pretends to be 40 years younger and plays an anime boy for a living, has the pinkest hair (since it's cute). ryuu having a sort of muddy, ashy purple. hatsutori having probably the least blemished magenta since he's got an otherworldly cult leader sort of mood going on, etc.

my personal outlook on color variation for a while has been that not unlike a gemstone, there are different degrees of purity and such, and if you consider theodore the "purest", then the other fragments appearance suddenly start to make sense. something like this:

tho, idk if this has any basis in reality. it's just a funny thing i thought of... (yknow since fragments, rocks... etc)

as for eigha... his eyes are darker than ryuu's. i feel like that's consistent with someone wearing contacts over normal dark eyes. i do think this is a factor, because the contacts in miwa's bathroom are noted to be black, not brown. i think red would definitely look weird under brown contacts, since yknow that kind of thing does peek out a bit. someone would have clocked the deception pretty fast if they compared dita in the show and miwa out and about. of course it's a lot of show don't tell. you just find miwa's disguise in his bathroom. it's obvious the implication is "dita's look is what miwa actually looks like" but the vigilant might still consider other avenues. i'm lazy so i just go with the most obvious and probably intended implication. this is just an aside, but i honestly would have snapped, the fragments have lightly colored eyelashes and eyebrows, so on work days miwa would have to tint them to look darker going to the studio or whatever else, wipe it all off and get in dita costume, then put it back on to go back home, then go home and wipe it off again...

we don't know what either person who plays eigha looks like, but since it's the inverse situation... i guess it makes sense. (if shiyo really is actually a real harada, it'd be auburn dark red under there?!?!!?!! <-instant otaku death) he does have a sprite where his eyes are glowing, but since it's a 2.5D show i don't rule out special effects, post processing, etc.

since the game collaboration is based on the movie, i'm fully assuming it's shiyo, but there's really nothing saying it can't be taka...?? i have no idea!!! i think it's definitely shiyo though!!!

overall, i didn't observe anything abnormal about miwa compared to the other fragments, but i also have no idea why izu's eye color is so drastically different from misumi's. i expected them to be the same since it's misumi's fragment after all.

[tuesday7econlive]

Preferences

In the world everyone has their preferences. I experienced this when my friends (Luis and Rudy) and I wanted to go out to eat. For example we had trouble on which place to eat so we ended up with 3 spots to chose from. The three places were Korean BBQ, Ramen Restaurant and Tacos. We took a poll and ended up with this:

This was the end results. But first we need to make sure they are Rational preferences !

Check #1 (Complete):

Preferences are complete when the person can express a preference against any two alternatives that they could possibly face.

In this case, there were 3 options given to the group. According to the picture, Luis preferred Tacos over both Ramen and Korean BBQ. Rudy when given 3 options preferred Tacos over the other 2. And i preferred Korean BBQ over Tacos and Ramen. So according to the rules, all out preferences were complete.

Check #2 (Transitive):

Preferences are transitive when the rank ordering is consistent across successive comparisons, i.e. if x > y and y > z then transitive preferences would say x > z

As shown in the picture, everyones preference is transitive to the point it doesn't ruin the rotation between the foods given. No one went the odd route and chose something that didnt matc what they were saying.

After the preferences were told, the most logical place to go is the Taco spot. This is because this will be the most suitable location that will have the most satisfaction.

There are conditions but not all were met tho for a reasonable social preference relation:

Complete and transitivity - MET

Unanimity - NOT MET

Non-Dictatorship - MET

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives - MET

Unanimity was not met because not everyone prefers Tacos in society which removes the concept of unanimity. So all of society does not prefer tacos over korean bbq and ramen.

As we see throughout our daily lives, Econ is always in our daily lives even when we don't think about it. Hence why it is a Social Study. We study the choices made in society that leads to them to end up doing it.

Even through all this, my friends and I ended up going to all three and ate very good !

Gabriel Reyes

UCI ID: 40616236

greyes7@uci.edu

[vincewillard-1971]

What Is An Algorithm? Definition & Examples?

An algorithm is a set of steps for accomplishing a task or solving a problem. Typically, algorithm are executed by computers, but we also rely on algorithms in our daily lives. Each time we follow a particular step-by-step process, like making coffee in the morning or tying our shoelaces,we are following an algorithm.

In the context of computer science, an algorithm is a mathematical process for solving a problem using a finite numbers of steps

Algorithm are key components of any computer program and are the driving force behind various systems and applications, such as navigation systems, search engines, and music streaming services.

What is an algorithm is a sequence of instructions that a computer must perform to solve a well-defined problem. It is essential defines what the computer needs to perform a calculation, process data , or make a decision.

The best way to understand an algorithm is to think of it as a recipe that guides you through a series of well-defined actions to achieve a specific goal. Just like a recipe produces a replicable result, algorithms ensure consistent and reliable outcomes for a wide range of tasks in the digital realm.

And just like are numerous ways to make, for example, chocolate chip cookies by following different steps or using slightly different ingredients, different algorithms can be distinct approach but achieving the same result.

Algorithms are virtually everywhere around us. Examples include the following:

•Search engines rely on algorithms to find and present relevant results as quickly as possible

•Social media platforms use algorithms to prioritize the content that we see in our feeds, taking into account factors like our past behavior, the popularity of posts, and relevance

•With the help of algorithms, navigation apps determine the most efficient route for us to reach out destination.

Note

It is important to keep in mind that we cannot call a set of instructions an algorithm unless it has all of the following priorities:

•It must be correct. In other words, it should take a given problem and provide the right answer or result, even if it stops working due to an error.

•It must consist of clear, practical steps that can be completed in a limited time, whether by a person or the machine that must execute the algorithms. For example, the instructions in a cookie recipe might be considered sufficiently concrete for a human cook, but they would not be specific enough for programming an automated cook- , making machine.

•There should be no confusion about which step comes, next, even if choices must be made (e.g., when using "if" statements).

•It must have a set number of steps (not an infinite number) that can be managed using loops (statements describing repeated actions or iterations).

•It must eventually reach an endpoint and not get stuck in never-ending loops.

How do algorithms work?

Algorithms use a set initial data or input, process it through a series of logical steps or rules, and produce the output (e.g. the outcome, decision, or result.

If you want to make chocolate chip cookies, for instance, the input would be the ingredients and quantities, the process would be the recipe you choose to follow, and the output would be the cookies .

Algorithms are eventually expressed in a programming language that a computer can process. However, when an algorithm is being created, it will be people, not a computer, who will need to understand it. For this reason, as a first step, algorithms are written as plain instructions.

Examples of Algorithms

Let's consider for example an algorithm that calculates the square of a given number.

•Input: the input data is a single-digit number (e.g. 5).

•Transformation/processing:the algorithm takes the input (number 5) and performs the specific operation (i.e. multiplies the number by itself).

•Output:the result of the calculation is the square of the input number, which, in this case, would be 25 (since 5*5=25)

We could express this as an algorithm in the following way:

Algorithm:, Calculated the square of a number

1. Start

2. Input the number (N) whose square you want to find.

3.Multiply the (N) by itself.

4. Store the result of the multiplication in a variable (result).

5. Output the value of the variable (result), which represents the square of the input number.

6. End

It is important to keep in mind that an algorithm is not the same as a program or code. It is the logic or plan for solving a problem represented as a simple step-by-step description. Code is the implementation of the algorithm in a specific programming language (like C++or Python), while a program is an implementation of code that instructs a computer on how to execute an algorithm and perform a task.

Instead of telling a computer exactly what to do, some algorithms allow computers to learn on their own and improve their performance on a specific task. These machine learning algorithms use data to identify patterns and make predictions or conduct data mining to uncover hidden insights in data that can inform business decisions.

Broadly speaking, there different types of algorithms:

•Linear sequence algorithms follow a specific set of steps, one after the other. Just like following a recipe, each step depends on the success of the previous one.

•Conditional algorithms make a decision between two actions. Instead of executing all steps sequentially, a condition algorithm involves making choices based on specific scenarios or input data. It uses ,"if/then" statements to determine what to do.

•For example, in the context of a cookie recipe, you would include the step "if the dough is took sticky, you might need to refrigerate it."

•Looping algorithms repeat a specific set of instructions multiple types until either a certain condition is met or a prefined number of repetitions has been completed. The purpose of looping algorithms is to efficiently perform repetitive tasks without the need to write the same instructions multiple times.

•For example, a looping algorithm could be used to handle the proof making multiple cookies from a single batch of dough. The algorithm would repeat a specific set of instructions to form and bake cookies until all the dough has been used .

Examples of Algorithms

Algorithms are fundamental tools for problem-solving in both the digital world and many real-life scenarios. Each time we try to solve a problem by breaking it down into smaller, manageable steps, we are in fact using algorithmic thinking.

Examples of Algorithm in everyday life

Daily routines are examples of how we use algorithms without realizing that we are doing so. While it may seem to come naturally to us, for example, deciding what to wear in the morning is a complex decision involving many steps. If you had to write down your process in detail, you would end up with an algorithm, which could look something like this:

1. Identify which clothes are clean

2. Consider the weather forecast for the day

3. Consider the occasion for which you are getting dressed (i. e. work or school etc ).

4. Consider personal preferences (e.g. style or which items match).

All of this be represented with data, either as words (e.g. "casual") or numbers (e.g. the temperature), which can serve as input for your decision. The next step is processing these input qualities. if you had to write this down, it would include statements like "if it's below 50 degrees, pick out a sweater and put it on" or "if it is sunny, grab sunglasses and put them on." After getting dressed, we step out of the house, which is the output of our getting-dressed algorithms.

In mathematics, algorithms are standard methods for performing calculations or salving equations because they are efficient, reliable, and applicable to various situations.

Examples standard algorithms for addition

In mathematics, a standard algorithm refers to a specific, well-defined set of steps or procedures used to solve mathematical problems of a particular type. Different places in the world use different algorithms, so every school system may teach this concept differently. In the United States, schools use a standard algorithm based on place value and the properties of operations for addition, subtract, multiplication, and division.

Suppose you want to add the numbers 345 and 278 . You would follow a set of steps (i. e. the standard algorithm for addition):

1. Write down the numbers so the digits align.

2. Start from the rightmost digits (the ones place) and add them together 5+8=13. Write down the 3 and carry over the 1 to the next column.

3. Move the next column (the tens place) and add the digits along with the carried-over value: 4+7+1=12 write down the 2 and carry over the 1 to the next column.

4. Move to the leftmost column (the hundreds place) and add the digits along with the carried-over value:3+2+1=6. Write down the 6.

The final result 623

Example of algorithm: Navigation Systems

The algorithms used in navigation systems like Google Maps are essentially the brains of these apps. These algorithms use a wealth of data, including detailed maps and live traffic updates, to determine the best way to get where you want to go. They consider factors like how farel or you need to travel or which roads are busy

If there are any unexpected problems, such as accidents on a given route, algorithms quickly recalculate and suggest alternate routes to avoid delays; ensure that you don't waste time in traffic. They also provide you with step-by-step directions so you know exactly where to turn. These algorithms learn from how people use them and therefore keep getting better at finding the quickest routes.

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

I hate to say it, but most frequently "Valyrian supremacy" is used a buzzword so antis can call Targaryens Aryans and Nazis (even though almost everyone in Westeros is white and thus "white surpremacy" does not apply). Mind you HOTD's black Velaryons threw a spanner into that paradigm briefly, but they rallied! Helped, yes, by Aemond doing the Valyrian purity thing (which has its origins in the (faulty?) belief that dragonriders needed Valyrian blood, the purer the better; but note how it continued even after the death of the dragons).

Now, the Doctrine of Exceptionalism was created to propagandize a political narrative of exception to the rules set by the Faith of the Seven. Not exceptional people per se, but a different people with different characteristics (eyes/hair/dragonriders/immunity to common diseases). And that, in addition to their non-Andal origins, meant the Faith's rules did not apply. Again, not exceptional, just exceptions.

Still, have some Targaryens (and Velaryons and Celtigars etc) felt they are better than regular people? Yes, but many have not (other than some standard noblesse oblige). It's not a consistent family paradigm as much as something held by certain individuals in certain generations. And in general, any Targaryen superior feeling is just an expansion of the standard noble's attitude towards smallfolk, i.e. their "lessers". See my strata of society meta: the Targaryen royals are the top stratum, yes, but it's still just classicism and feudalism. Just enhanced classicism and feudalism.

(Also note race is much less of an issue in Westeros classism than xenophobia - which can overlap, such as in the case of Dorne, but even white Dornishmen got the same hate in the pre-union and Blackfyre era, and even in current Westeros among their traditional nemeses in the Reach and Stormlands. Though said Dornish hatred can indeed be very color-based racist as well.)

But anyway. Once a fandom paradigm has settled in, it's very difficult to fight it despite its obvious logical flaws. (e.g. when people call Daemon a supremacist re Rhea Royce - even though the exceptionalism doctrinists Jaehaerys & Alysanne were the ones who married them! And again the “supremacist”/doctrinist paradigm falls apart when you consider Daella's marriage candidates and the would-be ones for Saera and Viserra.) But thank you for trying nevertheless.

I see the term "Valyrian supremacy" thrown around here a lot but what does it mean exactly?

My guess is that this concept stems somewhat from the Doctrine of Exceptionalism and primarily from sentiments espoused by characters like Viserys III (a famously reliable source of information) and, well, show!Aemond:

She had always assumed that she would wed Viserys when she came of age. For centuries the Targaryens had married brother to sister, since Aegon the Conqueror had taken his sisters to bride. The line must be kept pure, Viserys had told her a thousand times; theirs was the kingsblood, the golden blood of old Valyria, the blood of the dragon. Dragons did not mate with the beasts of the field, and Targaryens did not mingle their blood with that of lesser men. (AGOT, Daenerys I)

In Aemond's case there's clearly a lot of subtext here, and Viserys III's idea of Targaryen history elides the fact that plenty of Targaryens have married members of First Men, Andal, and Rhoynar houses (their direct ancestors Betha Blackwood, Dyanna Dayne, and Myriah Martell, to name a few). The emphasis on bloodlines is also not exactly unique to the Valyrian families, and honestly I’ve generally seen accusations of "Valyrian supremacy" directed toward that which are clearly just bog standard Westerosi feudal conventions.

In regard to the Doctrine of Exceptionalism, it’s a provision that Jaehaerys and Alysanne made the Faith of the Seven adopt and which states that Targaryens are allowed to continue their tradition of endogamous marriage because they are Valyrian and have different customs than the rest of Westeros. Bear in mind that they did this after a group of assassins tried to stab Alysanne while she was pregnant because the Faith of the Seven viewed her unborn baby as an “abomination” conceived of incest, and thus the Doctrine serves a very particular political purpose. The same can be said of endogamous marriage itself—a revealing example is that of Queen Rhaena, whom the Lannisters tried to coerce into marrying one of their own, as this would have produced Lannisters who could ride dragons and had access to them since Rhaena’s dragon was known to produce eggs. Jason Lannister clearly had similar designs for Rhaenyra on the show.

[max1461]

One of the frustrating things about discussing philosophical questions is that you will get two different kinds of, uh, non-answer from two very different groups. On the one hand, you will get scientifically-minded people who think they have answered the question by invoking some set of scientific facts, when really they've just pushed it around. You know, you'll say "why do things fall?", and they'll say "gravity", and you'll say "ok, then, why gravity?" and so on and so forth. This is a very blatant example and usually this kind of thing is far more subtle; in particular I see it often in discussions of consciousness.

On the other hand, you'll get humanities people who think they've answered the question by invoking some set of social fact, when in fact they have again just shuffled the question around. You'll ask something like "why is it the case that logic works the way it does (i.e. why are the inference rules of classical logic truth-preserving), as opposed to some other way?" and the person will respond with something like "well, I think classical logic is just one of many valid ways of conceptualizing the world; it's a representation of human reasoning methods and culture, not of nature". And it's like, ok, well sure, but why is it the case that those particular reasoning methods work so well, when all kinds of other ones don't? I mean, modus ponens consistently gets me from true things to true things, where as other potential inference rules I can think up (e.g. "from a set of statements listed sequentially, infer the first one") don't work at all. Why? Why is the world structured in that way?

So people love to rephrase questions and shuffle them around and not really answer them. And I know why—it's because, at least right now, we can't answer them. I think there are almost no important philosophical questions which we presently have the capacity to even phrase in a meaningful way, much less address. And so everybody comforts themselves by shuffling the question around using the jargon of whatever field they know most about, whether it's physics or sociology or philosophy itself, until they feel like they've answered it when they really have not.

Maybe it will always be like this; maybe these questions (especially the "why" questions) can have no satisfying answer even in principle. That would be a shame but I think it's distinctly possible. But I do think it's not too much to ask that people adopt a bit more epistemic humility on these things, that people speak carefully and more importantly think carefully, so that they don't confidently delude themselves into believing they have the answer when it is clear to the careful observer that they do not.

[prokopetz]

More rejected micro-RPG premises:

The players are a group of incompetently programmed ninja sleeper agents. The goal of play is to successfully navigate their ordinary, everyday lives, complicated by the fact that certain common words will unexpectedly flip them into ninja mode. The words that will trigger each player’s ninja programming are randomly chosen, and initially unknown to the affected player; rather, the player to your left is given your list of words, and is responsible for informing you when one of them has been spoken, but is strictly forbidden from telling you what they are. The resulting not-particularly-subtle metaphor for coping with trauma is acknowledged, but is played entirely for laughs.  

An Apocalypse Engine game about funny talking animals that plays with the trope of each animal having a single hyper-specialised talent or set of talents by discarding stats and instead giving each player character a direct rating in one or more basic moves (the number of basic moves per character being dependent on the size of the group). You can only attempt a basic move if you have a rating in it; otherwise, you automatically take the failure/6- result if you try. In essence, the player characters as a group collectively add up to a single reasonably competent character, while individually being defined as much by the gaping holes in their basic toolkits as by their capabilities.  

A sort of Atelier-series-meets-Blades-in-the-Dark setup where the player characters take on the roles of a gang of rogue alchemists peddling basement-brewed magic potions in a kingdom where magic potions are very much illegal. The “War on Drugs” satire isn’t even slightly veiled, with the kingdom’s over the top anti-potion propaganda starkly contrasting with the fact that most of the player characters’ products are relatively benign Dungeons & Dragons style potions that do stuff like heal wounds or make you fireproof. Mostly very rules-light, apart from a set of very detailed mechanics for gathering ingredients, brewing potions, and – of course – potion interactions and side effects.  

Body-swapping transhuman shenanigans by way of magical girl tropes. The setup takes the body horror aspect of Puella Magi Madoka Magica to its logical-yet-absurd conclusion: magical girls voluntarily upload their souls into special crystals which allow them to send teleoperated bodies out on missions while remaining at a safe distance from the action. Each player character would have a selection of bodies customised to their specifications, available in human, fairy, and cute talking animal varieties. (i.e., “mascots” in this setting are just magical girls who happen to currently be operating a fairy or cute talking animal body.) This arrangement is presented as positive and empowering, with no horrifying twist.  

A politics-driven game where the players take on the roles of the few remaining people with jobs in a Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism™ setting. Each player character’s “domain” consists of their sphere of professional responsibility, which serves as both their name and their title. For example, if you’re the Janitor, you’re the only person on your world who’s responsible for cleaning shit up, and you wield unimaginable cleaning powers by virtue of the various automated cleaning systems you’re responsible for directing and maintaining. In practice, it would play like a cross between a god game in the mode of Nobilis or Lords of Gossamer and Shadow and a really high concept office comedy.

[papirouge]

What are your political/life views? I just found your blog, you have so many varying ( yet valid) opinions

uduekzkskejejaldkz I am not a political person (I don't even vote lol) but I beefed with so many people who got so confused by my position because it's impossible to fit me in a box. I know some people are genuinely confused at me not being conservative. Or me orbiting around radfem...while being prolife. I may be Christian, but I'll NEVER be the token Black woman/Christian Candace Owens (lol) (though homegirl can have very stupid views i.e jumping on the Tate white knight bandwagon). Some White Christians are veeeeery transparent with their (cultural, racial) bias and I don't mess with them. I am actually very pro Black (pro Black WOMEN - I am very into "corrective promotion of Black women" Black feminity, hypergamy, etc.) but some Black people might dislike me bc I loathe rap culture, call out the one drop rule and Black women obsession with wearing Asian women hair... 🤫

I think the blueprint behind my mindset is that I am a VERY logical person.. I hate double standards and hypocrisy. I can respect a standpoint totally opposed to mine as long as it's consistent.

Some of my milestones 😹

💥 I beefed with Christians hypocrites seething on homosexuals while being spiritual adulterers themselves (watching witchy shows)

💥 I beefed with Calvinist for saying Once Saved Always Saved wasn't biblical 👀 when I came out as a Christian I called out a big/popular Christian/Calvinist blogger (I didn't realize how popular she was when I called her out lmao) and she freaked out and deactivated and all of followers went off at me lmaooo even today IDK what triggered her to react this way... I think she was mentally ill :/ (?) She came back though but blocked me. If it helps her feeling safer her I'm fine with that tbh. Then a pro OSAS/Calvinist Christian YouTuber challenged me (several times) to a d-d-d-duel but I said "lmao. No." The idea of a Calvinist Christian YouTuber having a one-sided beef with me cracks me up tbh lmao #papirougeexposed 👀

💥 I beefed with Cath trad nv crusaders for making fun of colonialism & slavery à la "it just taught these savages how to behave 😈" while being shook when people look up Communism (bc their grandpa died in a gulag or whatever). So it's ok to make fun of entire countries/civilizations being genocided and enslaved from centuries...but looking up a dead regime that made your family suffer soooooo baaaad is somehow morally corrupt? just choke already - and props to Stalin for keeping your ancestors on check considering how ugly their offspring turned out to be.... ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ see how bad it sounds? now WHY do those ghouls feel comfortable doing so for non Whites/non-Europeans? I HATE these demons.

💥 I regularly beef with pro gun Christians because gun culture is from the devil and unbiblical

💥 I regularly beef with radfem because they hate that I'm pro life (but otherwise love my takes which makes them ever more mad LOL)

💥 I beefed with (Christian) libertarians because they're stupid 🤷🏾‍♀️ Also you can't hate against governments authority (or simply existing) while being Christian. Governments are from God. Their dedication to act like Romans 13 didn't exist is hysterical.

💥 I beefed with kpop stans for saying kpop guys are ugly and were sending people to hell lmao

[squarebracket-trickster]

I feel like it depends on

a) the ratio of total characters deaths to resurrections

b) total word count - I feel like you can get away with more in a longer work

c) is there a pattern/internal logic the reader could pick up on? (ex. does the magic system have consistent rules around when resurrection is and is not possible? do certain characters have access to resurrection methods while others don't? is there a god that can pick who to resurrect, do they only pick certain types of people? does resurrection require an insane amount of love or sacrifice from a still-living person, does every character have someone willing to do that? Is fate involved - like, characters with unfinished business get resurrected or something?)

d) if the characters are faking their deaths (or someone fakes it for them), are their textual clues (before, during, or in the immediate aftermath of their "death") that readers could pick up on?

e) how much time passes between the death and the reader learning the character will be resurrected?

f) do characters come back completely unchanged after a resurrection, or do they come back "wrong" somehow? i.e. does death still have permanent consequences, even if the death itself is temporary?

Idk, just my two cents<3

how many characters can i bring back from the dead across my entire collection of work before my readers stop believing me when i kill someone? 🤔