TotallyHuman

joined 2 years ago
[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Granted. "Arbitrarily large" would probably be a better phrasing: if I buy a stock for $100 and the value drops to $0, I'm out $100. Can't lose more money than I put in. What I meant is that short positions, by their nature, don't have this ceiling on the amount of money you lose.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If EA, having been purchased, is milked for cash, strip-mined for IP, and then unceremoniously abandoned, it will be very funny.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You can hold a short position by repeatedly borrowing more stock -- but you run the risk of running out of money completely, because short positions have (theoretically) infinite downside risk.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago

If you imagine it like making a bet, nobody's going to take a bet with you where they pay you when it pops, but there's no time after which you pay them -- because they'd never get any money out of that bet. Buying stock is different because it's a thing you can own, but you can't invest in the idea of something failing, because there isn't any business which will take your money and make something more likely to fail.

You could buy every stock except AI-related stocks, which I believe is functionally equivalent to buying an index fund and shorting AI stocks based on the percentage of AI stocks in the index fund. You could also think about what businesses would do well (or less poorly) in the case of an AI-instigated crash, and then buy those.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

I find these results quite surprising, since I feel like I would be far less likely to notice someone needing my seat if there was a distracting person in a superhero costume. But maybe people audibly react, which causes more people to look up from their phones?

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

Bill Clinton should deny it. Publicly state "I did not have sexual relations with that man", and take no questions.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago

I just want to take a moment to enjoy that the Canada Post thing is one of our country's big political conversations. There's a problem, and people have different solutions. Some of the solutions rely on false information or bad reasoning. Some of them are well-reasoned, but have different priorities to each other. The government will have to make a decision, and some will praise it, and some will criticize it, and it will make some peoples' lives better, and some peoples' lives worse.

But nobody's using the Canada Post situation as a vehicle to hurt people they hate. People don't seem to be moving in lockstep based on ideology and propaganda. Nobody's been called a fascist over it because nobody's been being a fascist over it. This is what politics should be like. It's refreshing.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

There's two barriers to that. Banks don't want to reverse transactions without a court order, because they would then be very embarrassed and also get sued if the transaction turned out to be legitimate. So they can reverse transactions, but only after the court orders it.

The other thing is that scammers know that. This is why they often demand payment via Western Union, gift cards, etc. They also often use "money mules": other scam victims who take the money and then send it to the scammer's account, taking a cut. The scammer periodically closes accounts and opens new ones, so if their assets get frozen they don't lose too much. (The money mule scam victims are sometimes just being conned into helping the scammer, but sometimes they end up getting scammed themselves, such as by being sent bad checks. They can't go to the police because they're guilty of a crime.)

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago

Headlines often change after publication. Everyone's A/B testing these days.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You might disagree with the argument, but it's not completely random. From the US, we gained most of the benefits of having nukes and spooks, without having to maintain them ourselves. Since we can't trust them, we now have to decide if it's worth developing our own.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Because when everyone knows that your only play is to support the reds, then the reds themselves know that they can abuse that desperation, renege on deals with you, etc. After all, what other plays do you have?

Dropping the deal is short-term disadvantageous, but by establishing a reputation for punishing allies who don't uphold their end of a bargain, they can be more influential in the future.

[–] TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

May not be a very useful one, but it hardly seems bizarre. Of course I wish that fascists were less fascist! Then there would be less fascism, and I don't like fascism and want there to be less of it! Wishing doesn't do anything on its own, but it's not a strange wish to have.

 

I've gotten to demon halls a handful of times, but always died in the first few floors. This is my first time making it as Sniper (or Huntress at all, actually).

I have a +6 Grim crossbow, a projecting spirit bow, a ring of arcana, a +2 ring of haste, and +1 plate armour of swiftness. I also have a horn of plenty which I intend to transmute, and rings of tenacity, might, and evasion which I plan to sell.

Which crown upgrade do I want? I'm not sure which one plays best for this build. Does anyone have any other advice for not dying in the Halls?

Update: Yog is dead. Thank you so much for the help! I went Hawk and dumped the rest of my scrolls into Haste for maximum kiting.

 

I'm fairly certain this question applies to American and Commonwealth armies. Not sure about others.

It is frequently said that a newborn second lieutenant should listen to his sergeant's advice, and follow it. The 2LT outranks the SGT, but the SGT has far more practical experience.

Are there any circumstances where a 2LT reasonably should overrule his sergeant? If there aren't, then why doesn't the rank structure reflect that?

 

Hello all!

I signed up for NextFest, and I am hopefully going to be doing a stage hypnosis show in Edmonton this year. (I'm very excited!) My mentor recommended that I put together a test group: a few people to try out some material with, in a lower-stakes context than a stage show. I'm planning on doing it in the Belgravia Art Park on an evening -- the exact date and time subject to volunteer availability.

If you're interested in trying out hypnosis in a safe environment, send me a message!

 

Been tinkering with some urban fantasy ideas recently, and I was thinking about gadgets a modern vampire hunter might design and use.

Putting a wooden stake through a vampire's heart is usually quite effective at either paralyzing them or dusting them outright, depending on the author. Of course, a wooden stake is a lousy weapon in a fight, so usually it's used after the vamp is already close to defeated.

But what if you could stake a bloodsucker at range? Crossbows could work, but they're not the only possibility. What about a shotgun which fires wooden slugs?

I'm not a gunsmith or even a gun aficionado, so I'm not sure how feasible that is. What would be the challenges inherent in making wooden shotgun slugs? Would there be a better way to fire stakes into your supernatural enemies from range?

 

I seem to remember as a young child being told that it is safe to touch a Van de Graff generator (for the hair demonstration), but that if you let go before it is safe you will get a nasty shock. I know a bit more about electricity now, and I'm a little skeptical now. Is it possible to get a shock from letting go of something?

 

It seems to me that in the interwar period there were a lot of tanks designed with the idea that they would stay with groups of infantry, providing direct fire support while being a lot more durable than a field gun. My understanding is that this was generally abandoned in favour of faster tanks which operated somewhat independently of infantry. But to my very limited knowledge, the infantry tank seems to make sense. What were the theory's disadvantages? (Or is my understanding flawed?)

 

So, I like stories where everyone is competent, and as a GM I try to run my villains as playing to win. My goal is for the players to have a good time, but the enemies will use every resource at their disposal to achieve their aims: they will retreat if continuing to give battle is a bad idea, they will go scorched earth if it's in their interest, they will defeat the players in detail or simply attack with unfair, overwhelming numbers.

Sometimes this results in a beautiful, game-defining moment where the players work out what their powerful and intelligent adversary is doing, and then proceed to outwit them. More often, though, the players win the way players do: shenanigans and brute force until the day is won. This can also be fun, and obviously not every story arc needs to end with an I-know-you-know-I-know battle of wits.

The problem here is that when this happens my players usually don't ever figure out what the plan was -- and what from my side of the screen was a clever ruse or subtle stratagem, to the players looks more like an ass-pull. My players don't know that they set off a silent alarm and the security forces stalked them around the building before ambushing them from three directions, they just got a random encounter where they were surrounded by guards. They don't know that the shopkeeper they revealed their true identities to reported them to the BBEG for a bounty, they just know that the army knew they were coming even though they were trying to be stealthy.

So, GMs with similar philosophies: How do you make it feel satisfying / fair when the players are fighting an intelligent and coordinated adversary who knows more than they do?

 

I stumbled into this comm, but I can't figure out what EXP is. A Google search turns up nothing relevant. Is this a currently-extant game, or one in progress? Is there a public rules document somewhere? Does it cost money? What is the premise?

 

There was a 2-hour lockdown because a guy was carrying a lighter and somebody thought it was a gun. The "active shooter" was barricaded with everyone else and had no clue what was going on.

94
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca to c/dndnext@ttrpg.network
 

Made a beholder for Hallowe'en this year. I used offcuts from other pumpkins for the eye-stalks.

view more: next ›