Meta Mistake - Social Media Is Sucio

[thetruepandagod]

yall really at war with generationally run restaurants with full inheritance ban fr fr.

[Gredival]

yall really at war with generationally run restaurants with full inheritance ban fr fr.

With a few exceptions to massive chains (Porto's, In-n-Out), restaurants aren't a big enough deal to need to be targetted imo.

It probably needs to be a scaling estate tax above like 500k for liquid and assets worth under maybe 750k should be immune.

[thetruepandagod]

Tolkien estate is worth 500mil aint it? jk rowling net worth is 1 billion i think

[Gredival]

Tolkien estate is worth 500mil aint it? jk rowling net worth is 1 billion i think

I meant K not M.

[Mertron]

i would skin every one of you alive to be able to walk into a time machine and restart ffxi from 2003

late but i was a very nice person before i played ffxi

i would be at least 1 million times more insufferable now

[Mertron]

idon’t think I ever had anything bad to say about anyone until i joined an endgame ffxi shell

[Spicyryan]

And you are biased against it because the system excluded you until Abyssea.

I think everyone else will evaluate that as a positive for 75 cap.

Lol, k.

I do actually. I'm not sure how this could practically be accomplished. I also don't think it solves completely, given that in life people would enjoy the freedom to be able to provide for one's family, including "trivial" things such as paying for elite education and gifting of items that would be major expenses for others (cars, homes, etc.) up to providing seed funding or nepotistic high-ranking positions in companies.

But I think the most important thing for a meritocracy is a neutral starting line.

Except that being for global US hegemony is incompatible with this claim.

[Gredival]

Except that being for global US hegemony is incompatible with this claim.

No? Who do you think is going to collect the estate tax and then redistribute it for nationwide social services?

Ain't the UN.

[Spicyryan]

No? Who do you think is going to collect the estate tax and then redistribute it for nationwide social services?

Ain't the UN.

Ain't the US.

[Andalusian girls]

what about the URGD (u r gay dog)

[Gredival]

Ain't the US.

I don't endorse whimsical end goals that will never happen abstracted from success/failure and consequences.

I imagine policy including hypothetical enforcement through the US federal government. This is the reason design of the specific policy is important.

[thetruepandagod]

i would simply set fire to any money i have over 500K in front of the poors. much as i would let a ridill fall to the floor if there were no buyers

[Spicyryan]

I don't endorse whimsical end goals that will never happen abstracted from success/failure and consequences.

I imagine policy including hypothetical enforcement through the US federal government. This is the reason design of the specific policy is important.

"I support something, but it is just a whimsical end goal that will never happen. This is why policy is important." Do you not see the disconnect between wealth and power to policy? Surely you do.

[Byrthnoth]

Random distribution among ten users is not meaningfully worse than random distribution ten manual claimers. That becomes much less the case among 36 botters

Doesn't matter and you care way more about this than me, but these are where you're wrong tho. The first claim, that 10 network / timing-aware botters are about the same as 10 manual claimers, is not true. The second claim, that the efficacy of networked botting scales so somehow you're way better off with 36 users than 10, shouldn't really be true. I say "shouldn't" about this stuff because I haven't seen the NASA bot source code or anything and there is plenty of room for bad implementations that may explain any personal experiences you had.

In theory you should start to see the benefit of a network / timing-aware bot almost immediately with 2 vs 2. The simplest model is that a monster spawns at time 0 and becomes claimable at time x, where x is uniformly distributed on the interval [Xmin,Xmax]. The first person whose action reaches the server after x is the person who gets claim and each person can only attempt to claim once. Basically "Price is Right" rules. Knowing Xmin and Xmax but not x, we can imagine that the manual strategy is randomly sampling somewhere between Xmin and Xmax twice, which is generous both because users in practice may try to claim outside that window (or fail to try to claim) and also because they're likely to be correlated. A simple strategy for the theoretical bot in that case is just to put one sample right between Xmin and Xmax and the other at Xmax, which beats manual about 60% of the time. That's 50% more claims for the botters.

There should be a sweet spot for a networked bot because it gains some information (knows Xmin and Xmax with more confidence) the more people it has, but eventually its ability to tile time is compromised. FFXI works over UDP, and UDP transit times are fairly variable even in a fair weather scenario, so when (Xmax-Xmin)/jitter becomes close to the number of players you have then you are going to get less efficient in your usage of each marginal character. It would still be better than the correlated process that is manual claiming, but it isn't a neat tiling of time anymore and peoples' PMFs overlap. At an incredibly crowded kings camp, I would expect that a packet bot's main advantage was that it could still extract pretty good information from the laggy mess that was day 7 Aery and could still execute its strategy (without claiming Darters,) unlike a normal player that maybe wouldn't even see the monster spawn. If non-botters weren't hobbled by lag, I think its relative advantages would have likely been diminished compared to day 4 Aery.

[Gredival]

Doesn't matter and you care way more about this than me, but these are where you're wrong tho. The first claim, that 10 network / timing-aware botters are about the same as 10 manual claimers, is not true.

Based on what? This was definitely not my experience, and no one is presenting math to show why.

The second claim, that the efficacy of networked botting scales so somehow you're way better off with 36 users than 10, shouldn't really be true.

In theory you should start to see the benefit of a network / timing-aware bot almost immediately with 2 vs 2. The simplest model is that a monster spawns at time 0 and becomes claimable at time x, where x is uniformly distributed on the interval [Xmin,Xmax]. The first person whose action reaches the server after x is the person who gets claim and each person can only attempt to claim once. Basically "Price is Right" rules. Knowing Xmin and Xmax but not x, we can imagine that the manual strategy is randomly sampling somewhere between Xmin and Xmax twice, which is generous both because users in practice may try to claim outside that window (or fail to try to claim) and also because they're likely to be correlated. A simple strategy for the theoretical bot in that case is just to put one sample right between Xmin and Xmax and the other at Xmax, which beats manual about 60% of the time. That's 50% more claims for the botters.

You are correct up until you say that random sampling may result in trying to claim outside that window. That is wrong. If X is a variable that changes every single spawn, by definition EVERYONE'S attempts fall within Xmin and Xmax (unless you are imagining people who do not try to claim at all as people outside of Xmax; more on that at the next quote block).

Practically speaking we know that X can be extremely low (a fraction of a second), and that the upper limit was probably something like 2-3 seconds. The manual claimers always have a random distribution based on a wide variety of factors (load, ping, etc.) whereas botters will have an even distribution.

At 1 botter vs. 1 manual claimer, the chances to claim are exactly the same so long as X is truly a random variable.

At 2 botters vs. 2 manual claimers, the botters' improved probability is based on the marginal difference between an infinite assortment of 2 random distributions vs. a distribution at any two points (say x25 - x75) where the numbers are percentiles). That is to say, if X is truly a random variable what is the increased probability that any two set points ends up being the singular claim attempt that is closest after X than any two random points.

At 3 botters vs. 3 manual claimers, the botters' improved probability is based on the marginal difference between an infinite assortment of 3 random distributions vs. a distribution at any three points (say x25 - x50 - x75). That is to say, if X is truly a random variable what is the increased probability that any three set points ends up being the singular claim attempt that is closest after X than any three random points.

The more botters, the more the distribution starts to resemble the actual curve of X (where every possible window has an equal chance), thus the more advantage it gives. If you approach the theoretical limit of effective divisions (i.e. one botter for every possible value of X), the advantage would become overwhelming. But in reality, we're talking like groups of 18 competing against other groups of 18. That is not enough samples for the even distribution to be anywhere close to making it "impossible" for non-botters to claim. All botting does is minimize the inefficiency of too many manual claimers getting locked out by trying to claim too early.

unlike a normal player that maybe wouldn't even see the monster spawn. If non-botters weren't hobbled by lag, I think its relative advantages would have likely been diminished compared to day 4 Aery.

You could very much claim without seeing the sprite actually load as long as the mob registered as a valid target. I did it multiple times. This is why clearing darters was important for shells with manual claimers so they can mash Flash/Stun/Provoke off the menu vs having to target the mob.

[TummieGaruda]

Man Elon really is the real life Miles Bron

[Byrthnoth]

I think you're incapable of being taught about this subject, but try to read what I wrote again.

[Tymon]

I WANT PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO OTHERS HOUSES WITH GUNS IN REAL LIFE BECAUSE OF IN GAME DRAMA THAT HAD ZERO IN GAME OUTLET WHATSOEVER, I WANT ZERO SUM COCK BLOCK MONOPOLIES, I WANT THE DAILY CHOICE OF SUCCESS AT FFXI OR REAL LIFE, I WANT COPS BEING CALLED AND PEOPLE BEING RAIDED BECAUSE OF LINKSHELLS SENDING UNDERAGE PICS OF THEIR MEMBERS TO RIVALS TO GET THEM OFF THE GAME CUZ PRISON

[Gredival]

I think you're incapable of being taught about this subject, but try to read what I wrote again.

?

The progression of even distributions as claimers increase:

[--------------X--------------]
[------X---------------X------]
[------X-------X-------X------]
[----X----X----X----X----X----]
[---X---X---X---X---X---X---X---]
[-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-X-]

I think it is quite obvious the more botters you get, the more advantageous the even distribution becomes. More claimers is always better than less, but if possible claim time is a true variable within the range then this shows that the more claimers you have the greater chance that the even distribution will actually do something. Even distribution it maximizes the chance the claim time lands on an X or near one vs. a random distribution where you can have clusters and open spaces. But the less claimers you have, the more open space you have which means a greater chance that some random claimer ends up closer to the sweet spot.

[Mayareira]