RationalMadman

Truer for the player who goes second than the one who goes first but yes that's a good rule to follow.

Okay, let's have tie after tie if that's a game you enjoy.

I wasn't really tryharding, I meant vs DD. For instance when I put 5 onto your zone 2, it's only justifiable (still suboptimal) because of how much you put into your zone 5. Really I never had to do that, you'd lost from turn 1 if I played properly but I wanted to give you a chance and somehow you kept doing well enough to have a chance. It's your turn btw. Waiting for round 8 to show.

boring, start in the middle, do the second move correctly and you never lose. Alternatively, do the second and third moves correctly as a second player and you also never lose.

I said I'm tryharding this, which I was anyway just this time no nonsense in the middle.

When our game is over (you vs me), I'll vs you 100% hardcore, 0 room for error. Then I will reveal the strategy's foundation/pillars.

If I lose vs you, you played perfect. I won't do a risky gambit at all, I'd prefer if we can both be online though for it start-to-end rapid, I pay attention better under some pressure. 

If he guessed the 2-1 correctly and cut out my 2 +2s this is still a win of 4-3

I was bored and wanted to gamble here so I did what I did, it's still possible I win, it depends what he does now. No matter what it's tied at worst.

If you are curious the way i'd have forced a win on round 7 if I wasn't playing for fun and instead for money or whatever is this:

0,2,0,2,0,0,0,0,0

this way I always end up with 5 and he can't end up with more than 4 (potentially ends with only 3, depends on luck) based on the fact that the next round I do a random 2-1 split across the tied spots.

I knew a more secure way to force the win in Round 7 but I never thought he'd put 3 on that spot. That was an insane prediction by him especially as he put 3 instead of 4 which is perplexing.

it's fun but because it requires the host and all players to be simultaneously online, active and there's no real strict limit on thinking time, the turns stretching out can get annoying.

I think it can be fun though and the visuals do help to keep it entertaining for others watching but ultimately, I think I have 'cracked' the game. For instance, Pie made significant errors on both his first turn and the turn that just happened right now (round 5). It's the same error I made in a round or 2 of my game with Oromagi but I honestly did the error on purpose because I was bored and hoped he'd attack me on multiple angles instead of his playstyle. 

It's obvious what the error is now that I mentioned the Round but it's too late for him to fix, he will need to get lucky every single turn from now on, if he is to tie with me whereas I can absolutey guarantee that I don't lose.

before we all realise the secrets/rules-to-not-gamethrow etc do you want to vs me with someone else hosting?

Do you do this on paint or what?

do you want to vs me on this? 

I will vs pie right now if he wants, I know how to win every time almost, assuming I properly understand how my opponent thinks if they haven't screwed up by turn 6-7

If this counts as a loss one my record here, I want a rematch vs him.

I know what I did wrong now and know that I was not wrong to avoid aiming for a forced tie. What I did wrong was to deny the natural luck that comes fromt he extra 5 in the 55 that each of us have. I didn't properly force it naturally, i artificially assumed he'd attack me and made +6's for no reason.

can we rematch soon? I know how to beat Oromagi's strategy, even if he alters his earlier moves. I know how he approaches the game now and know a fatal flaw in it. I also know what I did wrong with my 9, not just 8 and 7. I also know a better variant to start with 10 even if I'm going aggressive.

If I had done anything more correctly in the round where we had 8 and 7, Oromagi would have forced a tie. This is what I knew.

if both players are smart it's entirely luck-based depending on the last few moves.

The only reason Oromagi and I haven't done identical moves so far is because I reversed the game theory to make it interesting aiming for a backwards tie at worst.

I don't think he's gonna realise what you're saying is true.

I don't agree with you on being pro-abstinence because most people don't enjoy masturbation enough to long-term last like that until they want children and even after that.

I do agree with you on why orgasms and sexual-based love relationships evolved especially in our species.

They don't. It's significantly difficult to get guns in places like the UK, South Korea, Japan and other places less so, such as Germany and Australia (though, that guy attacking in NZ got his guns in Aus and recently UK had a gun-based attack).

The most important step in the sting operations and overall removal of guns succeeding is that the people themselves need to culturally grow to loathe gun violence more than cops taking said guns away. A healthy step in that direction is to promise the populace that once guns are securely removed from them, the police will default to be gunless and only have special units trained in gun-based conflict for a select few criminals who somehow still have it after the 'purge'.

how so?

Also I didn't know 0 was a possibility, the Wikipedia page definitely didn't support 0 being a possibility.

but isn't 222222222... just the consistent broken strategy here? Are you going to set some kind of rule to stop that? 

I got no clue how the positions work, I only understood when the wikipedia gave an example of 2,2,2 for the 6 total.

so we all PM you our combo of numbers that add up to the total? What's the range, 1-5 or 1-9 or what?

This kind of stats bores me but alright, I will try it just because this forum is overloaded with mafia which honestly is quite a crap game in my opinion.

Mafia is one of those scenarios where being too smart or too dumb both make it agonising to experience, it is much more enjoyable if you think on the level of the other players and 'vibe with them'. I believe I am too smart for it but I accept others saying otherwise about me.

I have consistently forced out the mafia or gambited hard to nearly carry my whole team as mafia myself enough times on other sites to know I am good at the game itself. It's a chore to cope with people who either don't understand anything close to game theory or alternatively who think they know it all.

For instance if the immediately obvious thing to do is force a claim, first ask yourself why that's the norm of that setup and why that's scummy or towny in the mind of the enemy to do or not do.

Another thing people don't understand is how to fake reads. I have rarely met another player who pretends to have reads, not to troll but to gauge reactions and then read based on the reactions. There's so many levels to mafia that most barely understand. In this website they add on the other layer of themes where if you take the theme too seriously it actually backfires more often than not. The one time theme genuinely mattered, I hardcarried one of my first games on this site (DART) and drafterman who had been fighting me the whole time got destroyed by my forcing of a dynamic in the theme that I believed was true and lost a cc vs 'thehammer' who had been AFK all game purely because of who each claimed and what I believed made sense to be the investigative role given what other characters appeared to be vs their role.

He tried his level best but unfortunately for him the godfather got eliminated or whatever it was and basically the one hope they had. I may have remembered this wrong, it's possible drafterman didn't do the cc but anyway, in that game Danielle went harsh af on me and it became hostile and toxic and was a reason I quit. I even townread her hostility correctly but it still reminded me that mafia is less about logic and more about blending in with the crowd. 

You can't be a weird genius and thrive in mafia unless you enjoy toxic verbal spars. I don't enjoy them, I just endure them.

you should run a comedy skit

We know you're a resident of China, no need to brag about how proud you are of having zero privacy.

Many Americans would rather be free to rot in poverty than to be slightly less free in a nation that keeps them protected from the brutality of not being able to have their cancer treated without going bankrupt.

Do you not know how natural selection and evolution work?

The drive we have towards orgasm is in fact more than any other species except perhaps dolphins and that is linked also to why our species took over the planet, intelligence-aside.

Due to the sex drive and experience of humans being so pleasurable and addictive, we not only reproduced on the higher end of the spectrum vs our death rate but we had a selfish reason to be genuinely loyal and attached to the one we regularly had sex with.

The reason why we transitioned towards monogamy wasn't just logical, it was biochemical, that feeling of 'love' when you are experiencing euphoria from being in love with someone is linked inextricably to how unique you find (even potential) sex that leads to reproduction with them. This sounds extremely superficial and ridiculous at first because some fall in love long before they have sex but I am talking about potential to reproduce, not sex alone.

When someone has many traits, not just looks, that you see as something that you'd want to mix with your genes and produce a being with this is actually the core subsconsious drive that leads us to find people who appear, act, move, talk, listen etc a certain way as far sexier than others. There's no universal scale but generally speaking females who are heterosexual seek taller, mentally-stimulating men who are passionate as their intial general thing to go for (then factors that separate the long-term from the short-term come into play) and males who are heterosexual generally seek out females who are built whatever 'medium' is, who are entertained by them and appreciate them when they (the men) are very passionate about something (and again, then factors that are long-term to short-term come into play). 

Obviously I just was generic, people have types that deviate from the norm. Some like very dominant bossy women who are built this way or that, some like very passive, patient men who listen and reassure well, often an extremely bad experience with a certain type can strongly lead to one's type altering slightly.

The core drive to have sex with someone though, is rooted entirely in a relentless need to feel euphoria. You will literally orgasm at the peak/hardest with someone who is truly your type and who you feel 100% appreciate by as well (though to be appreciated itself is part of the type for both genders, generally).

In the past, those who were less driven to sex had their gene pool deteriorate over time.

This is a good thing from a cop's perspective. Not only does lethality not necessarily occur, though severe injury does, but catching criminals with melee weapons is much more of an easy task for forensics. To begin with, even if they successfully didn't drop any DNA or fingerprints, they had to be very near to the victim at the time of damage, meaning purely by who wasn't there at that time out of reasonable suspects, you can start to narrow down who was.

Guns can be shot from afar, they can also be wielded just as effectively by a novice as an expert, the only difference is accuracy and speed of wield-to-shot. There's essentially nothing about gun warfare that lets you narrow down suspects nearly as efficiently as with melee weapons, it's often not even obvious which is the stronger hand of the shooter because (especially thugs) tend to just hold the gun in front of them, as opposed to a side-stance with strict ways of telling.

The other issue with guns is that it's very difficult for criminals themselves to keep gun violence contained. If things get heated with melee weapons, generally the more experienced fighters (who are often wiser too, as they're experienced with such situations and know how bad it can get) will defuse things and restrain the hotheads. With guns, this entire process becomes infinitely more difficult because it takes just one slip and a kill has happened that will make the allies of the dead wield their guns etc.

You are actually asking 3 different questions here and the most pertinent to your confusion is that you think genetics are absolute.

A classic example to clear up some of your confusion regarding dominant vs recessive alleles is specifically ginger-haired people. Ginger hair gene is recessive, meaning it only can be present in the child if both parents have the gene and both parents can have no ginger hair but both must have the gene either dominant or recessive. More interestingly, Ginger hair is the only hair colour where both parents can have it and the child won't.

Being homosexual is not at all down to one gene, making the situation more complex on top of what you already didn't understand about alleles being dominant or recessive. Homosexuality, in the genetic component, is to do with a few things. Firstly the apex of a homosexual male is probably one who is both very feminine and very attracted to masculine-looking people (these are entirely separate genes, which is the core issue with assuming all gays must act femme and all lesbians must act macho).

The genes that lead to your masculinity or femininity are more to do with behaviour of you as a person and what you're driven to than your actual sexuality but in terms of the personality, not looks, you'll be attracted to there is influence here. The 'dominant' (not always the top) in a male gay relationship (if this dynamic is present) is actually quite often masculine in significant ways and the 'submissive' (if this dynamic is present) in a lesbian relationship is quite often feminine in significant ways. This isn't sexist, it's a reality of what masculinity and feminity are. Masculine personalities, whether they have a penis or vagina, are driven to compete and assert themselves (not necessarily lead), while feminine personality are driven to nurture and support others (nurturing is helping them grow, supporting is encouraging them). In this age of 2021 we are reaching a stage where it's becoming taboo to admit what separates the masculine from the feminine but I don't agree that's a positive thing to do.

You see, instead of doing that, we need to begin to fully appreciate and understand that there are masculine women and feminine men and that this is a separate set of genes and environmental factors than what leads to which body-type and appearance they're drawn to sexually.

What I am trying to tell you is that the reason you are confused is firstly you think genes are absolute in what's passed down and secondly that different genes and environmental factors are involved in determining which gender one ends up more sexually drawn to on top of personality-wise drawn to. 

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic but thanks.

Obviously making them have opportunities in education and funding their healthcare so they don't end up in crippling debt just to fix an injury or health concern are factors as well. Then comes weaning them off drugs.

Unfortunately, nothing can be done while the average American is pro-gun-rights.

The real way to handle this is to leave the thugs with only baseball bats and knives, that step alone drastically reduces their capacity to be lethal on anything above a small scale without them getting caught.

Guns change everything about an environment and no, I don't mean that 'citizens can fight back'. This idea is nice in theory but in reality against a trained criminal who is 100% willing to die if need be, your hesitation and/or sloppiness with the weapon in the heat of the situation is fairly inevitable. Unlike with a knife or hand-to-hand combat, training with a gun is the less important part than just staying cool-headed and being genuinely calm in a life-and-death one-shot-equals-death scenario.

Cultures that have grown to loathe guns then vote in candidates who push the cops to do many sting operations and the people themselves readily snitch on arms dealers, helping the process.

This then leaves the 'thugs' realising that they're not some amazing group that can instantly kill, they instead need to slowly beat someone to death and/or stab them. The later has more gruesome elements and starts itself deterring less sociopathic types from the lifestyle. Killing with a gun is easier because the amount of expressed agony your victim gives is minimal. This then scars your brain less. I am not saying no traum is involved by if you did the same thing with a baseball bat, crowbar, knife and/or your own limbs, you will find that the whole experience requires much more sadism if you are to enjoy or even cope with it.

The second step aside from eliminating the weapons of instant-death is to start any program possible that can better integrate the 'ghetto' kids and adolescents into the community. Even the 'tough guy' parents often enjoy it, only a select few actually want a gangster street life for their own offspring. If they really believe there's a shot at success in life without the violence and crime for their children, they often will push them into it willingly and help the integration happen even just 1 generation later but certainly 2 (their grandchildren will have double pressure away from the life).

If the person is young enough, sometimes dropping out after the first year (as in only 1 year has passed, not more) and applying later on in life (but still in their twenties by the time they finish) is worth it.

I'd agree though that if you're in the second year already, you're absolutely screwed, it's then better to get a minimum pass than waste all those loans at that point. The first-year loan is worth risking to waste just once simply based on what realistically you will end up being able to pay back.

If I understand correctly, the American system has a much more flexible and forgiving first year approach than the style outside of US and Canada.

In Europe, especially in UK, you have to dedicate to a degree. While the 'credits' still exist, you have a preset group of modules you need to do for a degree and only can get a loan for that set, you never ever apply just one by one unless you're on a special kind of course that the equivalent of community college in US offers.

To answer the question in the thread's title, yes it's worth it but I actually think in the US sytem there's more risk because all loans given need to be paid back regardless of how much one earns (unless I'm mistaken). In many other developed nations it's either free via tax-paid grants or it's a loan where you only pay it back once you earn past a certain annual income and you then only pay a set percent of what you're earning above that minimum, there's also a cap on age of what you pay (somewhere around 50s depends on the country).

Is major in the US the same thing as master's degree in UK and Europe?

A corporate entity isn't an entity. Individuals make it up including the founders of the company. The only difference is that LLCs have more direct interaction and codependency between those that invest in it and those that run it. Corporations have a board of directors and then a group of shareholders on the side. The board of directors are elected by the stockholders and generally have long-term profit as the main goal, as you said. The shareholders have say in the company and can use their investment of money and often will either have short-term profit in mind or perhaps a new design or way of going about the product in mind with how they use their influence.

The board of directors can even cut out the apex CEO from the corporation if they perform badly enough, the shareholders merely can influence whenever the CEO holds a vote on something and asks the major shareholders to give input.

Actually firstly yes I do, even the corrupt ones who denied the health effects for so long. 

If they didn't, they'd have instead helped the research to get out just as they switched whatever legal recreational thing they provided (a switch to coffee from tobacco seems very viable).

That said, you intentionally went for tobacco to avoid all the more useful industries.

no, you are wrong and speaking like an ill-informed socialist.

There are owners of even massive corporations who thoroughly and passionately love the good/service they provide and put huge effort into it. If it was just about profit, they'd cut their losses and not hold the risk of running such a massive corporation in the first place and instead just be a shareholder in someone else's business, spreading their funds thin. The actual leaders of corporations don't always only care about profit at all, otherwise all markets would lack 'niche' aspects.

It is Korean Capitalism, not 'white capitalism'.

Who should run it?

I will tell you right now that one day when you are screaming at a border/door begging someone to show mercy and open it, I will ask god to ensure you fuckers get the people chasing you to beat the crap out of you.

That's the motherfucking truth of what you anti-immigration do to people who are escaping a 'shithole' as Trump put it. Feel that fear, know that pain and then come and tell me they're scumbag refugee posers.

It seems the right wing users are all too embarassed to name their sources or explain anything here. Athias for instance deflected the questioning.

Communism is blackmailed equality, you mean to say that socialism may not necessarily be equality but it really is the same idea in practise.

If you blackmail everyone who is capable to work for the profit of all those who immediately need, you end up with a society of repetitive workers and very little room for innovators or creative geniuses.

greyparrot won this debate

Is this thread a question or just an excuse for you to insult other website users?

@Greyparrot

In England it's extremely rare for cops to have a gun on them and they are severely reluctant to use a taser. The entire approach of policing in UK is to apprehend the suspect as willingly as possible.

There is significant respect for the humane treatment of those being arrested and this respect is there throughout the whole of western europe.

Australia is known to also mercifully arrest, so I'm not sure where you got that information from.

Severe protests would break out (and have broken out) if police killings were even the tiniest bit near to the US stats in the UK. 

If I refuse to have sex with someone who could reproduce with me then the egg dying via period and sperm (which regularly die) dying remove the possibility of that combination of DNA ever realistically coming into existence and living.

How is this not killing off a potential life? I am asking because the act of abortion before the brain and such have developed in the foetus is actually no more brutally denying the entity of life than not conceiving it or taking a plan B pill before it became a foetus.

'reversing them' yeah that aint so easy, you completley sever the thing connecting the balls to the body, it can only be reversed if it was done incomplete to begin with.

You can reverse them to produce a little sperm but there'll still be a huge issue as your balls got used to never releasing sperm that becomes seven over many cycles and so the habit the body has to not bother turning sperm into semen is very hard to undo and lowers the potency of your semen significantly.