JayDee

joined 4 months ago
[–] JayDee 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

"This hole was made for me! This is my hole!"

[–] JayDee 32 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Describing the Stargate Project as successful is really stretching the meaning of that word. The whole thing was an absolute trashfire from the get-go.

[–] JayDee 59 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (12 children)

That's fair, but this issue is solved in European cities, via mass transit lowering the number of cars on the road, ambulances being built smaller to fit down narrow passages, and wide bike lanes which ambulances use in emergencies. If anything, NY might be one of the cities most poised to implement all these, if it can just get its shit together.

[–] JayDee 10 points 1 day ago

They misread and made four people of spaghetti.

[–] JayDee 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So close to salvation

[–] JayDee 64 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

There's precision, complexity, timing, punishment, and resource consumption.

With precision, you have to do things in a certain amount of space. To make something more difficult with precision, you shrink the spaces that the player has to fit through. Think of having a smaller road with for a racing game, having a boss with bigger attack hitboxes so the player has less space to dodge to, or having a smaller keypress window in a rhythm game.

With timing, you have to do things in a certain time window. You make games more difficult timing-wise by shrinking the time window. Think shorter time frames for a race, faster attacks from a boss, or tighter keypress requirements in a rhythm game.

Precision and timing are closely tied to one another so they are often treated as the same thing. In Rhythm games, for example, they are near-inseparable.

With complexity, you have to do a certain number of things. you increase difficulty with complexity by increasing the number of things you have to do. Think More turns back-to-back on a racetrack, more unique attacks you need to memorize from a boss, or longer rhythm game courses.

With punishment, you have to do things while only failing a certain number of times. To increase difficulty with punishment, you shrink the number of times you can fail before losing. Think of racing games where your car degrades from collisions or where there's cliffs on the track sides, where the boss attacks do more damage, or where you get fewer miss allowances in a rhythm game.

With resource consumption, you have to do things with access to a limited amount of time, energy, items, etc. to increase difficulty with resource consumption, you shrink the amount of resources available and/or how long resources last during use. Think giving a player less health, a boss more health so each attack is worth less, giving a player fewer health potions, make the player have to fight more enemies total (not necessarily more per fight).

All games shift difficulty with any number of these. a mechanics game will increase difficulty by demanding better precision and timing, increasing complexity, etc, usually a combination of all methods I mentioned. a numbers game will change difficulty almost exclusively by increasing resource consumption, usually by increasing enemy health pools and nothing else. It's also common for difficulty to increase by just making good items more scarce.

[–] JayDee 16 points 2 days ago

Honestly, we don't know where he was actually aiming. He could've been aiming center mass and just sucked, which might line up with the whole story about him not being allowed into the marksmanship club at his school.

[–] JayDee 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The Azov brigade... Is that different from the Azov Battalion - as in the portion of the Ukrainian military that was raising red flags for being known for only recruiting fascists? I had thought they majority died in Mariupol.

My gut tells me to probably meet criticism from this guy with a healthy dose of skepticism. Obviously should still listen, since these criticisms do matter. I just don't know how much I trust where it's coming from.

Edit: switched 'branch' to 'portion', since 'branch' is a more formal subdivision than I'm meaning.

[–] JayDee 9 points 3 days ago

Oh boy, I can't wait for burialgoods to narrate this one.

[–] JayDee 1 points 3 days ago

Gud Ms Paint skillz

[–] JayDee 23 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't mean to detract from the rapidity of this, but it looks like this was figured out in 2022 after a decade of research.

Still very fast adoption in face of the US's tariff stupidity. I wouldn't be surprised if they had this tech already primed explicitly for this type of scenario.

[–] JayDee 13 points 4 days ago

Agreed. They've been playing interference unimpeded for way too long.

6
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by JayDee to c/science@lemmy.world
 

This is a question regarding atomic and quantum physics, and any academic input would be appreciated. I am wanting some input on what level of trust I should put into this "Quicycle" group. It's a think tank comprised of supposed Doctors from CERN and research groups, and states their names. alot of their stuff raises red flags for me, though.

To preface, I was working on understanding how exactly, in 3d space, electron orbitals affect the magnetic field of their atoms. I'm wanting to better understand why atoms like Iron are more magnetic than others. I am not heavily plugged into the physics community, though - I'm mostly just learning out of personal curiosity.

I stumbled upon this group's periodic table of atomic orbitals, and it seems accurate on its face to a layman like myself. However, I start trying to research some of the terms and they're proposing things I've never heard of like pd-hybridization (where the p and d electron orbitals merge(?) to produce a hybrid orbital(?)).

I decided to look over their site with more rigor and I'm seeing things like Vivian Robinson: The Common Sense Universe (talking about 'common sense' when talking about quantum and "sub-quantum" mechanics seems really screwy) and M.A.R.T. (yet another theory of everything attempt) and I get a sinking feeling that nothing in this website is trustworthy for learning more in-depth physics.

Does any of this stuff look right to any Lemmy physicists?

view more: next ›