enfield
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by enfield
-
-
i think part of you cares about having an interesting blog. but once you think about what that would entail you convince yourself that you don't care (cognitive dissonance), because it wouldn't be feasible for you to make it interesting.
For example, i want to write a book because books are so amazing. but once I realize i can't really write a book, i conclude that wanting to write a book was foolish and I don't actually really want that.
-
does the OP have a quora account?
-
the obsidian mace with a berserker necklace is on par with ss/zs .. but you probably can't afford the necklace.
-
Corrupt is time based, so you can get FAR more uses off it for single hits, disadvantage is lack of spec on swh/vls/throwing weps (Spear is meh)
wow, that's good to know!
-
I do not think they have changed it.
-
when I use it at that OURANIA alter I always take it out in batches of 11 so inevitably there's 1 left in the hood at the end. Should i take the last one out and use it or just keep it in? I know it would more efficient not to, but it's just so tempting to withdraw it!
-
I think you have some good instincts. The painting looks nice :). what do you think about painting people?
-
How fun would RS be if EVERYONE was level 138 maxed
That thought gives me the frights too. it's how i explain why i've stayed 78str/att on my account.
-
^^ that's true for "fun" (i really don't think this variable has any place in efficiency discussion..) but not for effort. That we can quantify fairly well - with actions. While no one will dispute xp/h alone approximates what's most efficient for one to do fairly well (given individual circumstances), including actions/h would allow one to determine what's most efficient for them even more accurately.
of course if no one can agree on how to measure actions/h for various things, or if no one wants to, then that's okay and efficiency will forever be talked about in terms of xp/h. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that in principle measuring actions/h for things could be done (i think) and would benefit efficiency discussion.
-
Personal efficiency needs 2 units to determine while crude efficiency only needs 1 (for example xp/hour and actions/hour for personal efficiency, and xp/hour for crude efficiency).
xp/action is a nice unit. together with time/action it could also be used to determine personal efficiency. I don't really think the concepts can be merged in a satisfactory way..
-
Can we get 2 different definitions.
E.g. for the absolute max exp/time --> Experience Efficiency
And insert subjective factors --> Perceptual Efficiency
It would solve most of these arguments Just use the terms correctly.
I strongly support this effort ^
Now, here is a rather nice article on DISPUTING DEFINITIONS, which highlights how much of everyone's time doing so might save:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
[spoiler=or read it here]
I have watched more than one conversation—even conversations supposedly about cognitive science—go the route of disputing over definitions. Taking the classic example to be "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?", the dispute often follows a course like this:If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Albert: "Of course it does. What kind of silly question is that? Every time I've listened to a tree fall, it made a sound, so I'll guess that other trees falling also make sounds. I don't believe the world changes around when I'm not looking."
Barry: "Wait a minute. If no one hears it, how can it be a sound?"
In this example, Barry is arguing with Albert because of a genuinely different intuition about what constitutes a sound. But there's more than one way the Standard Dispute can start. Barry could have a motive for rejecting Albert's conclusion. Or Barry could be a skeptic who, upon hearing Albert's argument, reflexively scrutinized it for possible logical flaws; and then, on finding a counterargument, automatically accepted it without applying a second layer of search for a counter-counterargument; thereby arguing himself into the opposite position. This doesn't require that Barry's prior intuition—the intuition Barry would have had, if we'd asked him before Albert spoke—have differed from Albert's.
Well, if Barry didn't have a differing intuition before, he sure has one now.
Albert: "What do you mean, there's no sound? The tree's roots snap, the trunk comes crashing down and hits the ground. This generates vibrations that travel through the ground and the air. That's where the energy of the fall goes, into heat and sound. Are you saying that if people leave the forest, the tree violates conservation of energy?"
Barry: "But no one hears anything. If there are no humans in the forest, or, for the sake of argument, anything else with a complex nervous system capable of 'hearing', then no one hears a sound."
Albert and Barry recruit arguments that feel like support for their respective positions, describing in more detail the thoughts that caused their "sound"-detectors to fire or stay silent. But so far the conversation has still focused on the forest, rather than definitions. And note that they don't actually disagree on anything that happens in the forest.
Albert: "This is the dumbest argument I've ever been in. You're a niddlewicking fallumphing pickleplumber."
Barry: "Yeah? Well, you look like your face caught on fire and someone put it out with a shovel."
Insult has been proffered and accepted; now neither party can back down without losing face. Technically, this isn't part of the argument, as rationalists account such things; but it's such an important part of the Standard Dispute that I'm including it anyway.
Albert: "The tree produces acoustic vibrations. By definition, that is a sound."
Barry: "No one hears anything. By definition, that is not a sound."
The argument starts shifting to focus on definitions. Whenever you feel tempted to say the words "by definition" in an argument that is not literally about pure mathematics, remember that anything which is true "by definition" is true in all possible worlds, and so observing its truth can never constrain which world you live in.
Albert: "My computer's microphone can record a sound without anyone being around to hear it, store it as a file, and it's called a 'sound file'. And what's stored in the file is the pattern of vibrations in air, not the pattern of neural firings in anyone's brain. 'Sound' means a pattern of vibrations."
Albert deploys an argument that feels like support for the word "sound" having a particular meaning. This is a different kind of question from whether acoustic vibrations take place in a forest—but the shift usually passes unnoticed.
Barry: "Oh, yeah? Let's just see if the dictionary agrees with you."
There's a lot of things I could be curious about in the falling-tree scenario. I could go into the forest and look at trees, or learn how to derive the wave equation for changes of air pressure, or examine the anatomy of an ear, or study the neuroanatomy of the auditory cortex. Instead of doing any of these things, I am to consult a dictionary, apparently. Why? Are the editors of the dictionary expert botanists, expert physicists, expert neuroscientists? Looking in an encyclopedia might make sense, but why a dictionary?
Albert: "Hah! Definition 2c in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: Mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air).'"
Barry: "Hah! Definition 2b in Merriam-Webster: 'Sound: The sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.'"
Albert and Barry, chorus: "Consarned dictionary! This doesn't help at all!"
Dictionary editors are historians of usage, not legislators of language. Dictionary editors find words in current usage, then write down the words next to (a small part of) what people seem to mean by them. If there's more than one usage, the editors write down more than one definition.
Albert: "Look, suppose that I left a microphone in the forest and recorded the pattern of the acoustic vibrations of the tree falling. If I played that back to someone, they'd call it a 'sound'! That's the common usage! Don't go around making up your own wacky definitions!"
Barry: "One, I can define a word any way I like so long as I use it consistently. Two, the meaning I gave was in the dictionary. Three, who gave you the right to decide what is or isn't common usage?"
There's quite a lot of rationality errors in the Standard Dispute. Some of them I've already covered, and some of them I've yet to cover; likewise the remedies.
But for now, I would just like to point out—in a mournful sort of way—that Albert and Barry seem to agree on virtually every question of what is actually going on inside the forest, and yet it doesn't seem to generate any feeling of agreement.
Arguing about definitions is a garden path; people wouldn't go down the path if they saw at the outset where it led. If you asked Albert (Barry) why he's still arguing, he'd probably say something like: "Barry (Albert) is trying to sneak in his own definition of 'sound', the scurvey scoundrel, to support his ridiculous point; and I'm here to defend the standard definition."
But suppose I went back in time to before the start of the argument:
(Eliezer appears from nowhere in a peculiar conveyance that looks just like the time machine from the original 'The Time Machine' movie.)
Barry: "Gosh! A time traveler!"
Eliezer: "I am a traveler from the future! Hear my words! I have traveled far into the past—around fifteen minutes—"
Albert: "Fifteen minutes?"
Eliezer: "—to bring you this message!"
(There is a pause of mixed confusion and expectancy.)
Eliezer: "Do you think that 'sound' should be defined to require both acoustic vibrations (pressure waves in air) and also auditory experiences (someone to listen to the sound), or should 'sound' be defined as meaning only acoustic vibrations, or only auditory experience?"
Barry: "You went back in time to ask us that?"
Eliezer: "My purposes are my own! Answer!"
Albert: "Well... I don't see why it would matter. You can pick any definition so long as you use it consistently."
Barry: "Flip a coin. Er, flip a coin twice."
Eliezer: "Personally I'd say that if the issue arises, both sides should switch to describing the event in unambiguous lower-level constituents, like acoustic vibrations or auditory experiences. Or each side could designate a new word, like 'alberzle' and 'bargulum', to use for what they respectively used to call 'sound'; and then both sides could use the new words consistently. That way neither side has to back down or lose face, but they can still communicate. And of course you should try to keep track, at all times, of some testable proposition that the argument is actually about. Does that sound right to you?"
Albert: "I guess..."
Barry: "Why are we talking about this?"
Eliezer: "To preserve your friendship against a contingency you will, now, never know. For the future has already changed!"
(Eliezer and the machine vanish in a puff of smoke.)
Barry: "Where were we again?"
Albert: "Oh, yeah: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"
Barry: "It makes an alberzle but not a bargulum. What's the next question?"
This remedy doesn't destroy every dispute over categorizations. But it destroys a substantial fraction.
-
wow so many people here are welcoming to paleo/keto ways of eating :).
-
i tested with swifts for 1k+ shots but lost the data. if i recall it was close to 2/45.
For spell caster gloves I would say it is similar..
-
wow i don't see the impetus for that nerf..
hm rs wiki still says its 5 speed (5 ticks per attack) on rapid.
-
keeping public chat off avoids those sorts of things.. that way i don't have to feel bad for not answering randoms because i don't see their questions in the first place.
-
if your maging anything which magic leech works on, and which has significant magic defense, then leeches are better (the last i heard was they also start at 10% and cap at 15%, unlike what the interfaces say).
-
aw, i was just meaning that my statement- your attack was uncalled for - might not have sounded too good to you, and it might have been the truth, as truth is defined.
I'm glad you've formed your own understanding of what it means to be a terrible person. For you it may be as simple as that.
-
a zaryte bow is good, especially if you're cannoning tasks - are you?
-
can i use magic?
-
stating an attack like a fact doesn't make it a "point". how terrible someone is is completely subjective. different people have different notions of what it means to be a terrible person. For example, I don't see how someone can be "terrible" if they are not harming someone, which "Correct" was not.
Sometimes the truth doesn't sound good.you would know ;)
-
keto says you should eat some meat, some vegetables, some good sources of fat, and restrict the carbs. And that if you do all that, you'll return to an optimal body weight for yourself soon enough. If you don't know what vegetables or meat you like, or how to cook them, then i think you can find plenty of recipes on r/keto.
most people find a simply seasoned steak and a vegetable with some butter to be really satisfying.
I'm not sure what clarification you're seeking..maybe it has to do with transitioning to choosing what you eat more consciously, instead of someone choosing for you. that understandably takes some time.
-
What an edgy worldview you're got there. If you are unfazed by tens of thousands of children dying in the most heinous of circumstances, which would be in all reality quite easy to prevent, with the end result being a better world for your offspring, then you are a terrible person from an objective standpoint.
I really do not like reading something like that on these forums. . That attack was completely uncalled for.
-
Oh dear god. You people are ridiculous, this is not only a fad, but it is a hipster fad. All these 16-20 getting behind this shit are mostly comprised of hipsters who have nothing better to do than try to change shit for their liking.
Evil is all over the world. Just because one man is famous now doesn't mean there aren't 20+ people like him in the world. When he is gone another will claim his spot and so on and so forth. Evil cannot be stopped no matter how many of you people try to stop it. Everyone who has jumped on this bandwagon is trying to change something that won't change. You can sure as hell try but don't try to guilt-trip me into doing something I do not want to do. This idea is a stupid manifestation of the whole "everyone is equal and blah blah blah garbage". Why the hell do we care about fixing some poor, starving, probably aids infected children in Uganda, meanwhile we have hundreds of thousands of starving children in our own countries.
My opinion may not be a majority but I would rather voice my opinion than follow a fad.
This is the same opinion I have as natural disasters. Why should we give our money that we need for some broke ass Haitians/Other places that have been hit by earthquakes and shit recently that are not of First World Country status. The people who give their time, money and food to those people are idiots. WHY WOULD WE AS A COUNTRY GIVE OUR TIME AND MONEY TO A COUNTRY THAT IN THE CASE WE GET HIT BY SOME FREAK DISASTER WOULD NOT RETURN THE FAVOR. It is absolutely ridiculous. Save our country before even giving a shit about other people.
Thank you for voicing your opinion even if it is not popular! nice post! I think along the same lines as you.
-
M
in BlogScape (Ongoing Progress Reports and Goals)
Posted
from a psychological perspective the tone of this blog is intriguing.