Recent posts by einfach on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / [GemCraft chapter 0] Initiation Ceremony for the 1 Trillion Point Club(Eg, my all 228 wave runs)

This looks great, and more reasonable than the previous run. Keep up the good work! I predict the giants will go through 6 times before most of them are killed (that’s good), so the wave itself is probably worth about 800 billion total taking this into account. My GC0 number-crunching is rusty here, and I’m assuming you have 2 million firepower (in tower).

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / [GemCraft chapter 0] Initiation Ceremony for the 1 Trillion Point Club(Eg, my all 228 wave runs)

I’m lucky I saw this. I don’t check often, but today just happened to be the lucky day. This looks great; good luck with everything—this strategy looks solid. I would have made some modifications to your plan: If you’re worried about angering 54, then anger 91 and the later giant waves instead (you’ll get fewer monsters, too, and they’ll be banished fewer times). Perhaps counterintuitively, the waves from 90-150 are actually the best to anger for high score. If I recall correctly, it takes about 10 rounds for giants to make it all around the board, so it will be costing about 985 times the initial banishment cost, which is cutting it a bit close IMHO. You can calculate this for yourself: remember there are ~100 squares in the last level and calculate how long it takes a wave to get through. Don’t do ROC until later—if you do, you’ll be freezing the ordinary monsters, not the giants that you want to be freezing. Replace them with ROL for now so that you can mana pool faster. Wait until the later waves until you start trying to hold the monsters down.

2M fp might not be enough: remember, you want to be able to get smoothly through the last waves because the banishment costs for the giants will start to get insane.

TBH, the start is almost irrelevant in beating all 228 waves: what matters there is firepower and hue. The main purpose of the start is to get a large mana pool for later waves. And remember that you want to use higher grades for the first few angers—so maybe a grade 16 or (if you can stand it) 17 to start with (I posted a formula for this over at my guide over at AG. Play around with it so that you know the score you’ll get before you commit to angering.)

Don’t ease up with your documentation: I like all of it. Keep posting!

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / [GemCraft chapter 0] skills

I recommend
The Beginner Guide
and
The Intermediate guide

There are short sections on each that talk about the important skills to get. They also detail how to get that endurance badge. You can usually figure out what skills do just by playing the game. There is 1 skill you should not get – the increased pool. It is useless and actually counterproductive.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / [GemCraft chapter 0] 228 made easy

Hi fractal,

Saw your video…you might want to see my old start (I used cheatengine for lag, but same principles apply). I had a much different start, and I think my start is better: I get more mana in the beginning, and I angered the first waves much more—this allows leaks to increase the mana flow greatly. I have the next part around here somewhere…it includes maximizing about 10 grade 3s. I had about 3 RO at 222 firing speed (tower) well before wave 6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y9mRy7JhOw

I dunno—compare the two and decide for yourself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / did anyone really win ww2

The axis surrendered to the allies. The allies won. That is it.

Well, winning implies that you’re also better off. Do you think people are better off before or after their cities have been bombed?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the Consitution not good?

If you’re not armed, you need to pay someone who is armed to protect you from armed people. If you can’t afford it, you might have to choose between being a serf (selling labor for protection) or a prostitute under a pimp (selling body for protection). Both are not exactly desirable positions, which means it’s the incentive for someone to buy a gun even if he can’t afford one. If you can afford one, you want to protect against the armed guards everyone’s hiring. Better yet, you want to be an armed guard.

Thank you, Win, for entertaining this justification. But you seem to have slightly misunderstood my question. I was asking – when does it become profitable (that is, you get more utility) to start a war in an-cap? During which circumstances?

Notice that in your situation, there is a huge disincentive for starting wars, seeing as that would turn everyone else against you.

But I kind of got tired of this discussion…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the Consitution not good?

So everyone does whatever’s most useful to them instead of what’s profitable? What does that change?

It was only a technical critique. In a capitalist society, things are driven by their utility to a person rather than their profit – profit is only a means to an end.

That’s probably because lynch mobs are illegal.

Just like copyright law prevents millions of people from singing happy birthday. Something must not be just illegal – it must also be enforced to be effective.
Private industry doesn’t want to do it because it doesn’t make you money. Free schools, for example.

Ahh…but even free schools use limited resources (people, supplies, etc.), and they get this from the government. Who are politicians to decide that this is a better use of resources than letting private industry use these resources?

There’s huge incentive to be armed and dangerous here, that’s not a way to run a flourishing economy.

Please explain. (don’t say it’s obvious)

It’s interesting that this discussion has turned into a discussion about hardcore anarcho-capitalism. Even minarchism may not have these weird questions about “well what if we have armed bands”, so also understand, Win, that your current arguments have a limited scope (that is, they’re only issues if we’re talking about HC an-cap).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should FOX News be destroyed?

If you doubt what I am saying, watch the posts that will arise from my statements. Watch the attacks on my post. Watch the name calling. You will see exactly what I am talking about.

Galileo gambit?

In any case, if FOX is “destroyed” then it could be in two ways:

  • people stop watching it
  • government shuts it down

The problem with the latter is that government will only shut it down if it is politically advantageous to shut it down, and that decision will not be made for “the good of the people”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / America elections and the Fed...

You need to use commas (,) not periods (.) in between the numbers (1,2,3…9). What you are portraying is actually just 9.

Also, the dollar sign ($) goes before the numbers. $9

Actually, this is how some people in certain countries write 9 trillion. Not everyone is from the US, you know!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / If you have children, will you raise them to choose their own religion?

Those are very strong words and seem to have been said in anger. Your children are yours to teach in anyway you think is correct. If you are a Baptist, you will teach your children in your faith. If you are atheist, you will teach them that way. Don’t teach them to disrespect any religion or belief, even yours has merit. Teach them to respect everyone.

This reminds me a little of “there are no absolutes” … “so therefore we should be tolerant of each other”. How do you derive the tolerance part?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you believe in aliens?

The Fermi paradox makes it highly unlikely that there exists other life in our galaxy. In the universe … we cannot know (at least right now).

There are flammable compounds and elements with are not organic, and yet these are food for a fire, which itself meets the criteria we currently have for a life form.

Not to mention that it is capable of reproduction, responding to stimuli, and growing, in a sense. One problem we may run into, though, is the presence of genetic material. Should this be a criterion for life?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the Consitution not good?

Without a government, one economically assumes everyone does what makes them the most money.

Well, not quite. From a utilitarian standpoint, it’s utility that matters and not money (although money could lead to more utility).

Who told you lynch mobs didn’t use force? Were they high? Anyway, there goes the “an-cap would solve Hitler” idea.

I’ve never seen a lynch mob kill a million people.

Anyway, suppose we have something…
Either the public does want it and they’ll do it, democracy or no democracy.
Or the public doesn’t want it and it won’t be done, democracy or no democracy: these are the two easy situations.
Or some want it and you create opportunities for tyranny of the majority.

That’s why I’m pointing out that anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t prevent war: just unprofitable war. And if people waged every war that was profitable, we’d have a hell of a lot more war.

How are wars “profitable” – they are very resource-intensive. I’m a little unclear on your position on this issue.

The point of having a government is so that it will do things that aren’t profitable, but are in society’s interest.

If it’s in society’s interest, then what prevents private industry from doing it? And if it isn’t profitable, doesn’t that mean that people don’t want it sufficiently to spend money on it?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should FOX News be destroyed?

Another option might be, suppose you were to time travel and, as a one time thing, you would prevent it from ever getting started (leave paradoxes aside). Should such a thing be done, if possible?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the Consitution not good?

@einfatch: That’s actually AaronB’s idea: that if everyone does what’s good for themselves, that’s good for everyone. A democratic decision isn’t necessarily good for the whole, but it is exactly what the public wants, which means anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t stop it. If everyone wants to kill Jews, lack of a government wouldn’t stop them.

2 things – you’re misrepresenting an-cap and you’re assuming AaronB is utilitarian (which he may not be – there are many non-utilitarian libertarian / anarcho-capitalists)

A democratic decision isn’t necessarily good for the whole, but it is exactly what the public wants, which means anarcho-capitalism wouldn’t stop it.

If it will happen either way, then you don’t need governments to use force to accomplish it. I’m fine with that!

Dude, what do you think will happen to welfare recipients?

Reminds me a little of this quote. In any case, I wouldn’t mind having a welfare program as long as people could opt out with no restrictions other than that they would only be denied participation in the program.

If all that is true, how is having such a society going to stop war? If it’s profitable, sending in a couple of guys and a tank is every bit as likely as building a highway or sewer.

An an-cap society does not preclude an organized militia, even in the most austere sense. But how is a nonliving, nonthinking government somehow more important than the people who die as a result of war? Why is it that the government should force its citizens to kill other people? That said, can you name a single war fought by the US in the last 200 years that has been necessary? How can war be said to be in the interest of the public at all, when it is the public that loses and only the governments that win? But if you insist, people can voluntarily fund a military.

without government interference, phone companies can start charging $50 for calling 911, because they know you’ll pay it anyway when you need to. food companies will no longer be required to list what ingrediants or what chemicals are in their foods. in fact, without any of that at all, they can just put addictive or even poisonous substances in there and they’ll get away with it.

Only if we really are that stupid to agree to these conditions. What prevents state-sponsored phone companies from doing the same?

you are clearly here trying to miscredit the wrongs of a dictator to democracy, when obviously Hitler shows our democracy was too thin, not too thick.

How does Hitler show that our democracy was too thin? It’s the other way – you’re confusing the wrongs of a government with the lack of “democracy”.

EDIT:

All other things the same a organized group of humans is generally better/more efficient than an unorganized group of humans pursuing the same task. The difference is usually so great that even bad organization is better than no organization.

Government may be better than me stranded on an island, but this is a false dichotomy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the Consitution not good?

Originally posted by InsomniaManiac14:

The Articles of Confederation didn’t go well, so representatives of the 13 states (It was 13 states back then) debated on the best way to run the country, and thus, the Constitution was born. The Judicial branch sees if a bill agrees with the Constitution, and if it doesn’t, it isn’t allowed to become a law.

This is a nice summary of the historical events – but we’re looking more for your take on it. Is the constitution good or bad?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama approves a bill to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial

Not to mention that there is SOPA, which is basically internet censorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / America has become the one thing it is trying to destroy...

Many people don’t realize that the Civil War had about 600,000 deaths, while some have estimated that over one million people have died in the Iraq War. How can the deaths of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of civilians be justified by a war against a few terrorists? Compare that to hostage situations. Do we consider it a victory if we kill all the terrorists after they kill all the hostages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama approves a bill to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial

He probably made it for this post – so you can’t really blame him…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the Consitution not good?

@Winnabago – I think the misconception here is the following non sequitur: That if the majority decide something, then that decision is in everyone’s collective interest. This is not always the case: for example, with the War on Drugs, the people who are most affected by it (police officers, drug users, etc.) are the people who are affected the most negatively by it (people getting shot because of drugs), and the effect on the general population is not as great (we largely don’t see the taxes being allocated to fund it).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Huh. If you follow my line of reasoning you’ll understand without a government there are no government-given rights at all. Maybe I should have expanded a little as well. Everyone can grant you rights. Any rights at all. The problem is that not everyone can protect those rights. I’ve explained the government punishes those who restrict you in your rights. Any authority is most likely capable of punishing those who restrict others in certain rights. But when I give you the right to walk over my neighbour’s grass and he has a shotgun, I’m not able to protect that right of yours, because he’s stronger than I am. It’s likely he disagrees with such a right as well. In fact, there are many people that disagree with many types of rights the government grants you, but they, contradictory with the neighbour, are not strong enough to prevent those rights.

If you are alone, you can even grant yourself some rights. But can you protect them? Probably only against those weaker than yourself. We’ve come to the part where we acknowledge you’re really only capable of protecting your so-called rights through power. And what meaning do rights then have? None. All it means is that you have certain abilities you wish to perform and you protect those abilities by punishing those that restrict you in performing them. There are no innate rights, because having been “given” those rights by nobody means nobody can protect you when you’re restricted in them.

OK – this is more what I was looking for. It is not the “giving” of the rights but the “protecting” of the rights that creates rights. This still seems a little shaky, but it could do.

Taking this, then does it make sense to ask, “Does each gender have certain rights and priviliges?” since that is relative to the society that you are placed in? It seems more like you would be looking for a response along the lines of the policy of a particular government (in this country, these genders have these rights). If there are no innate rights, then the question does not make that much sense.

I’m also still not willing to accept that rights stem from the use of force.


My proposal

Perhaps rights don’t refer to anything but the lack of restriction — the lack of threat. That is, I have all the rights I want, until my rights are taken away. Thus, rights cannot be given, only removed. Governments have no ability to “grant” you rights, they can only prevent themselves from restricting one’s rights. Often times, rights are taken away for the sake of the public good (I’m not saying this is right or wrong here, but it happens, as is the case of water fluoridation).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is the Consitution not good?

The biggest killing sprees of history weren’t recorded. Ever heard of plunder? Anyway, if the public approves mass killing, isn’t that why we have a government? Hitler was a reflection of the populace, that’s the point of democracy.

What would you imagine would be better? People doing whatever they want, until armed mobs kill them, and armed mobs kill those armed mobs?

Whoa! Huge false dichotomy. Either people do whatever they want and armed mobs kill people, or democracy + Hitler?

@Winnabago – you are trying to make AaronB justify minarchism, but how do you justify government in the first place? The need for government is one of these things that is implicitly assumed but rarely justified.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

@karma – How are rights innate? How does that work? Or, that is, in what sense are rights innate? Could you defend your position a little more?

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Are rights things that are given by the government or are they somehow innate?

All rights you have are given to you by the government, your parents, or your partner. Having a certain right basically means “you will not be punished if you perform this, and if somebody restricts you in doing this I might be able to punish them for doing as such”. There are no innate “rights”. By definition it means you are allowed to do something. Allowed by whom? Exactly.

OK, but conversely, suppose we have no government. Does that mean that we now have unlimited rights, because we are “allowed” to do anything? So then a nonexistent government has now “given” us rights? This doesn’t make sense. This seems to lead to a contradiction.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxing SS, Welfare, etc.

Originally posted by Spaghedeity:

Nobody has to justify social security’s existence to discuss whether or not it should be taxed. This isn’t an ethical argument for or against social security and welfare.

We’re asking “should SS be funded this way or this way?” If social security shouldn’t exist, then it shouldn’t be funded either way. Asking the question seems to presuppose that it should be funded a certain way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should FOX News be destroyed?

Another question – should NPR be destroyed? FOX is not funded by the government, but NPR is. If I disagree with NPR, should I still be forced to pay for it (unlike FOX – we’re not forced to pay to support FOX, however much we may disagree with it).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Taxing SS, Welfare, etc.

Why is social security justified in the first place? It seems that, for many issues, there is a clash between the “public good” and “individual rights”. A more fundamental question might be: “Is it justified for governments to place the public good over individual rights?” I am led to believe an affirmative response to that question presupposes a sort of utilitarianism, which leads us to another set of ethical issues.

Furthermore, consider how governments operate. Can someone opt out of social security? Or what if I choose not to pay taxes for a program that I disagree with? The government sends these people to jail. Thus, the government runs with the constant threat of force — people don’t participate in government voluntarily (otherwise, laws concerning tax evasion would not be necessary).
This is related:
Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)

So before we ask how social security or welfare should be taxed, please justify social security in the first place.