Jump to content
Eternal

An idea about construct vs construct

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Forodrim said:

no, show me where I said that. You seem to have serious problems to understand what I said. 

 

nope

source:
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/

 

Where are your sources? 

When you claimed a=a in a recursive function (which means you take a new iteration everytime you are nesting the function). That's when you failed. You either don't know or understand what a function is, or you didn't understand my wording of it. I was very clear from the start, but I guess, people just don't read close enough. Hatesr gotta hate after all.

Also, take the effort and read what you link to, don't grab the first thing on google search.

The thing you linked to only says "you will inflate after you die, as the released oxygen out of your blood will cause deoxygenated blood to go to the brain and unconsciousness to follow immediately", in other words "you'll die in your sleep if you find yourself in vacuum" - which is a good way to go in general they say -  and the majority of the article (which is a good read fyi, you SHOUILD read it) refers to all the known syndromes that astronauts suffer after prolonged exposure to microgravity and how it can affect space-farring in the futur if it ever becomes a reality for humans to bounce between Mars and Erath for example, as our physiology is not meant for space, we are REALLY not welcome in space.

So, what you digging at Skip?

 

12 minutes ago, Takao said:

I have two problem with the "constructs levelling up" mechanic:

  1. It make no sense at all. Even if each construct would have an AI, then the AI itself would "level up", not the construct. You could then copy the AI to other constructs and they would be as equally good (when those constructs are equal).
  2. It's an additional "My character's stats / values are better than your's so I win" mechanic. What matters should be the skill of the individual player, not his characters stats.

The second one here is my main concern.

And I really hope that the levelling mechanic for the character, they are planning won't do exactly that...

 

 

Oh boy, I think Twerky interpreted the energy preservation law slightly wrong -.-

Half I agree that grinding is - in general -- stupid. Mining is enough of a grind.

As WoW proved, once you put Gearscore in the game, it all becomes about Gearscore. "I got +1 GS, I am better".

What are you referring to as "not doing exactly that?" Cause NQ have said they want EVE's style of progression (linear with timers).. Unleess you mean "no XP grinding for 12 hours to gain 1 level" , cause I did play Albion Online...it's a grindfest if I ever seen one.

Yes, that was a like on your constructive post. Unlike others, I am not biased against people, I can disagree, debate, argue and agree with them. It's the benefit of not carrying any ego. I'm pure id.

Also, that's what you've been doing all this time >.> ? Scouring le webs to find a new spin on "Trying to prove Einstein wrong"? Cause you did try that already. Didn't work. Just saying.

Also, conservation of energy is a byproduct of what I speak of. I am only validating the part about EVE's formula that says "the faster a ship goes, the less damage it takes, if the attacker can't track you to "lead" a shot in the equation and mitigate your speed by making the buillet hit you directly, at a 90deg angle". The part about the consservation of momentum in a close system is a whole other herd of goats to even approach - so let's not, we got a cluster-F at this point here, let's not expand it even more, it will benefit none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elite: Dangerous has something called "engineers".  For anyone who doesn't play it's basically an NPC that you seek out because they are able to make specific upgrades to specific parts of your ship.

 

Now obviously DU isn't going to have NPCs.  But it would be interesting if after building a ship you might be able to go find certain players with certain skill sets.  And they would be able to upgrade aspects of your ship, or specific elements.

 

That way a player who might specialize in warp engines would have a way of earning a profit besides actually building and selling them brand new.

 

And it brings some life and individuality to ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

When you claimed a=a in a recursive function (which means you take a new iteration everytime you are nesting the function)

your equations make no sense at all. the thing is relativistic acceleration. the faster you go, the harder it becomes to further accelerate you, however this effect become only relevant if go close to c as the mass gain for slow speeds is negligible. I linked you the wiki article that describes this including the proper equations. Can I see some sources for your equations? 

 

7 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

The thing you linked to only says "you will inflate after you die, as the released oxygen out of your blood will cause deoxygenated blood to go to the brain and unconsciousness to follow immediately", in other words "you'll die in your sleep if you find yourself in vacuum"

it says " you won’t freeze (or explode)" which is exactly what you claimed. 
It also says: "This leads to a condition called hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation. Within 15 seconds, deoxygenated blood begins to be delivered to the brain, whereupon unconsciousness results. Data from animal experiments and training accidents suggest that an individual could survive at least another minute in a vacuum while unconscious, but not much longer" 
So you will die from oxygen deprivation or, suffocation, which is exactly what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

Elements are going to vary in power already right?  Different sized thrusters, fuel tanks ect.

Yes. See the tutorial videos for more details.

 

16 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I'm assuming that a more skilled player will be able to create better or more powerful elements already in some way.

That mechanics will most likely be implemented in the game, that you need to train a skill to use specific modules or "Tier 2" variants of them (I'm really not sure about the second part).

 

16 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I just like the idea of incentivising keeping your ship in one piece.  It seems fun.

[Looking first in a dictionary what incentivise means in German]

How about the money / resources that where needed to build your ship? How about the time you needed to move to the location where you currently are? The expensive loot you have in your cargo?

Or just the knowledge that this is YOUR (first) ship (of that type) that you build / bought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

Elite: Dangerous has something called "engineers".  For anyone who doesn't play it's basically an NPC that you seek out because they are able to make specific upgrades to specific parts of your ship.

 

Now obviously DU isn't going to have NPCs.  But it would be interesting if after building a ship you might be able to go find certain players with certain skill sets.  And they would be able to upgrade aspects of your ship, or specific elements.

 

That way a player who might specialize in warp engines would have a way of earning a profit besides actually building and selling them brand new.

 

And it brings some life and individuality to ships.

Okay, here's the thing.

That idea is falling under the "Avatar specialisation".

i.e. in EVE (I know, stay with me, it's relevant) there are "rigs" you can mount on your ship. Tthey act like a modified PC rig would, with a custom cooler for example.

Rigs can overrclock your Ship, amp its repair systems, or amp its damage and / or tracking speeds.

That's actually a good thing for SPECIALISATION for engineers, like "Jury Rigger", people who can make a modification to a machine to "enchant it" if you prefer that term from tradition.

But you know, instead of "you gain +10 STR", it's more like "you gain more fire rate on your turret that's modded, but it also loses HP faster, thus needing repair more often".

Same logic on the bottomline. But still, that's a profession, a Jury Rigger, a guy who can enchant a ship's modules. And depending on the bonuses to the Engineer, it may actually be possible to use it for example as a "combat repair" for AvA as well.

That kind of thing gives players more professions in-game, more roles ,and a gameplay aspect to master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Forodrim said:

your equations make no sense at all. the thing is relativistic acceleration. the faster you go, the harder it becomes to further accelerate you, however this effect become only relevant if go close to c as the mass gain for slow speeds is negligible. I linked you the wiki article that describes this including the proper equations. Can I see some sources for your equations? 

 

it says " you won’t freeze (or explode)" which is exactly what you claimed. 
It also says: "This leads to a condition called hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation. Within 15 seconds, deoxygenated blood begins to be delivered to the brain, whereupon unconsciousness results. Data from animal experiments and training accidents suggest that an individual could survive at least another minute in a vacuum while unconscious, but not much longer" 
So you will die from oxygen deprivation or, suffocation, which is exactly what I said.

You just repeated what I said. Hypoxia is lack of oxygen to the brain. Literally, take a plastic bag, brathe into it continuously for a minute or two, you'll start tripping (making sure it's sealed of course). That's going to cause mild hypoxai, ince you don't breathe in oxygne, but your own CO2 emissions. it's just the full effect of this will happen in vqacuum cause your internal pressure on your lungs will just force the oxygen out of the lungs, instead of them getting into the bloodstream. You just had to "correct me", by copypasting the text you didn't even udnerstanmd what the words in it meant.

Also, are words hard? Cause you do fail to understand the so called "relativistic acceleration", is a function with a recursive value.

At this point I can't even bother with you anymore, you just copy paste things you thin kare "righT" off of Google search. You said something about "ignoring you"? Do that? It's totally optional, I am not your mother to tell you what to do. You clearly ae a person who values his time and how he spends it. You will come to the right decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:


Also, are words hard? Cause you do fail to understand the so called "relativistic acceleration", is a function with a recursive value.

so no source for your stuff, i guess that is an answer too. 

Also you wrote quote: "human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop." 

This is plain wrong, now you try to wriggle out of this. this is weak and dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Forodrim said:

so no source for your stuff, i guess that is an answer too. 

Also you wrote quote: "human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop." 

This is plain wrong, now you try to wriggle out of this. this is weak and dishonest.

I didn't need you need to source 5th grade math and physics. Apaprently, these intense F=m*A calcualtions need clearly MIT approved papers on them.

 

Also, why you make it sound as if this whole thing is an honor duel and I pulled a pistol >.> ????

"You sir, art one ruffian and a scoundrel,, thou hath no dignitas on the manner on which you carry your duty".

If your beef is on what will kill you in vacuum, I mean, sure, I am wrong - and glad I'm wrong - for the inflation to happen after I kick the bucket from hypoxia induced brain-death - which means it'll be over witohut me knowing it. If you gonna sleep better at night and you don't feel like the gods have wronged you on this holiest of duels or somethimg, sure, here, have it.

"I, Twerkmotor, of sound (mostly) mind, at this present day, I accept the burden of the fact that Hypoxia induced brain-death is the lead cause of death in exposure of a human being, of average dimensions and weight, when exposed to the lack of elements of the vacuum of space and not flash-freezing or bloating like a baloon - which will eventually happen, just not  before one's death in vacuum".

Print it, put a portrait on it, personal suggestion, add RGB around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

 It's a(2) = F(1)/m(2) and it's m(2) = F(1)/a(1).

I just came back to this to see if I understand you correctly.

you start with 

 

 F(1)/m(1) to get a(1)

then you take that a(1)

and do

m(2) = F(1)/a(1)

?

 

Or how do you start? I want to do this with some starting numbers. What is given at the start ?
Lets do a few iterations manually ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Forodrim said:

I just came back to this to see if I understand you correctly.

you start with 

 

 F(1)/m(1) to get a(1)

then you take that a(1)

and do

m(2) = F(1)/a(1)

?

 

Or how do you start? I want to do this with some starting numbers. What is given at the start ?
Lets do a few iterations manually ...

The () part represents iteration - the version of which function you are solving 

For F(0) - call it inertial force or how much resistance an object will output to being moved - you get the classical F = m * a, where F is a vector and acceleration is a vector. And since microgravity exists - there is no such thing as 0 G, not when when the Gravitational Constant exsits.

For this, we will be expressing a(0) as a minium value of 0.1 m/s2 (cause otherwise we go into divide by zero territories, which is why mathematical bounadries exist, to explain things like this work and when they work).


On every iteration, of every function below for finding the left side, we assume an increment constantly on accelration, Force over acceleration and .Force over Mass.
 

i=1 (default iteration) :           F(1) = m(0) * a(0)                      |               m(1) =  F(0) / a(0)             |            a(1) = F(0) / m(0)  

i=2 (first iteration) :                F(2) = m(1) * a(1)                       |               m(2) = F(1) / a(1)             |             a(2) = F(1) / m(1)
i=3 (second iteration) :          F(3) = m(2) * a(2)                       |               m(3) = F(2) / a(2)             |             a(3) = F(2) / m(2)

 

*this does not go to infinity, cause that's not actually practical for computations.

 

But let's assume the Function is of a thruster on a ship, constantly pushing towards one direction, with no more push put into it, essentially locking F into F(1) for the every next iteration.

This would cause a recursion - a single value reappearing within later iterations.

a(2) = F(1)/m(2).
then after we do the aforementioned methods but keeping FORCE the same.
a(3)= F(1)/m(3) 

As you can tell, that's a diminishing return on acceleration.

And so on.

This means that, for x Newtons, their coefficient drops as the ship reaches a point where the force applied to it has no effect, the ship;'s mass (inertial mass at this point) EVENS out the push of the thruster, but keeps the velocity due to the laws of conservation of energy.

You may say "but I think if I can hit the pedal to the metal, I can accelerate with like 500 Gs of pure awesomeness". Yes, that's true, you COULD do that and for a long-ass time on top of that. But eventually ,as the curvatuire on the graph starts dropping, it would even out at 0 NET Force on your ship, essentially, your acceleration becoming 0, and maintaing a constant velocity.

A fellow member of the forums once told me "you can fart your way to Lightspeed, if you can maintain the acceleration it provides". It's a fun idea to ponder over. If you CAN maintain a less accelration, but for a prolonged period, you save both fuel ( engines don't burn as much ) and you  gain more mileage out of your spaceship's fuel tank. Problem with farting to lightspeed, you'll end up shitting yourself to maintain the constant acceleration xD

 

F= m*a assumes mass is a constant, and not subject to change. That's called "static" and Newtonian physics are called "classic model", Einstein proved "there is a relation between mass and how much it's accelerated changing its value". The part about "this works only near c" applies to the point of nearing one's Swarzschild Radius (flak austrian names are hard to write), where your mass will start affecting how you perceive time and space. Notice, NOT under your Swarzschild Radius, that's a black hole, and given a ship is not a colalpsing star, if a ship wa to hit full speed of light - assuming tachyons do not exist -  the ship would literally atomise and disperrse, lieka dying black hole running out of mass to power its intense gravity.

In fact, Newton is falsely associated with F = m * a, he only did F = m * V, which is true but is ultiamately, not representing, but not actually representing. Newton assumed Gravitational Attraction is not a squared value. There is a story on Émilie du Châtelet and how she proved that F = m * V^2. Yes, v^2 is not acceleration, but once you run it in a timeframe it producess the "a" in F=m*a. 


I hope this clears things up. 

This is the reason EVE Online's formula assumes that if you go fast, you'll take less damag,e unless the enmy can hit you right on the bullsye with a lot of tracking.

Your ship's NET FORCE pushes away bullets on contact, emulated by taking less damage in a gamified abstract quantity of "damage".

And that's why NQ wants EVE's way of dealing with cobmat damage. In EVE, you can't target idividual parts. In DU, you cabn trick a person to hit your reinforced bow on your ship, by pretending to "go slow", thus tricking them to unload an entire volley or two onto your armored bow and shields and since they need to slow down to hit you better (more damage as theirr speed doesn't reduce their tracking), they are open for an attack by your guns. In fact, that's also a tactic used in EVE to trick smaller ships to lineup for a good old broadside on the face. Preend to be AFK, they will just hit approach (no angular), when they do light them up. good old Art of Baiting.

In fact, NQ can go one step beyond EVE. Make being hit by projectile weaponry slow down a ship, or change its vector i nspace (since F=m*a is VECTOR-F = m* VECTOR-a). That would be awesome in general, would make lasers' precision lack the literal STOPPING POWER of ballistics and railguns.

But that's just wishful thinking.

So yeah, that's the whole shouting contest about. It came to my attention earlier that the way I expressed a = F / (F/a) migt have been a bit if a clusterfuck, so, for what it's worth, part of the clusterflak's on my lack of temerity when writing out formulas. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

F= m*a assumes mass is a constant, and not subject to change. That's called "static" and Newtonian physics are called "classic model", Einstein proved "there is a relation between mass and how much it's accelerated changing its value".

Einstein proved there is a relation between mass and Energy. So for a moving object you have to take speed and mass into account in relation to c. Your mass changes when you move faster, that is called relativistic mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity). I have never seem this been calculated with the recursive approach you did, that why I ask for sources. 

 

I still feel that you recursive approach is missing some important parts and does not take this into account. So lets do numbers, take a ship

m(0)=1000kg, thruster put out a force if F(0)=100N, which will result in an acceleration of a(0)=10m/s^2 

How does the first two or three  iteration of your approach look like? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Forodrim said:

Einstein proved there is a relation between mass and Energy. So for a moving object you have to take speed and mass into account in relation to c. Your mass changes when you move faster, that is called relativistic mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity). I have never seem this been calculated with the recursive approach you did, that why I ask for sources. 

 

I still feel that you recursive approach is missing some important parts and does not take this into account. So lets do numbers, take a ship m(0)=1000kg, lets accelerate with a(0)=10m/s^2 

How does the first two or three  iteration of your approach look like? 

That's the fault there.

F= m *a is written as such cause Principia Mathematica and the fact mathematicians are very picky on how equatiosn are portrayed.

You don't solve for F, you solve for acceleration.

And I did say a(0) is the inert state where only microgravity adds any if any acceleration. You can look back through it if you want.

So, for F(0) = m(0) * a(0) = 1000kg * 0.1 m/s2 (assumed microgravity of such a value) 
F(0) = 100 Newtons. Any force greater than that will push the object foward.

Now, where's the issue. ENGINES, produce force, G is procurred by how efficiently the engiens push. That's the msitake you made, you approach this recursion backwards - which is a fault ,as we solve TOWARDS G, not given it.

If F(1) = 1000 Newtons (1 KN)

a(1) = F(1) / m(0) = 1 G.

But m(1) = F(1) / a(1) which as you can see, clearly is 1000kg... right? 

 

But this is a SIGMA-notation. This is a summation of iterations and F(1) is a recursion and thus a non-variable. The "missing part", is what I amsaying that from the start. This is an iteration based system. You guys either didn't read that, didn't understand that, or thought Sigma notation is a code word or something :P

m(2) = m(1) + [ F(1) / (a(1) + a(2)) ] which is then nested in another sigmal Sigma. I won't actaully spell it out, for reasons that will become apparent at the end of the post. 

This is as far as I can go before my serious-Twerk wave-function collapses and I revert back to my cave troll form until the next DevDiary, where I revert to my meme-machine form.

Blame it on my lack of careing to properly spell out an arguement to people who - I am assuming here - have knowledge of math, given how you guys keep insisting this thing is false.

If you can't understand why the above summation works, it's really not my problem beyond this point.

Also, Sigma-notation - if you happen to deal with scripts of any kind or code of any language - is the 

"for i = 1 and i < 10  do"

Which means in Sigma-notation : 

"for every 1 iteration, do this, until you reach 10 iterations"

 

So, no, I won't bother handing people a serious algorithm like "figure out if you can overtake a person on a collision with them, given your speed and their mass". You do it on your own free time.

I did promise to make NQ see the error of having no ship-to-ship collision damage, and I do intent on delivering with the most game-breaking mechanics on this side of the interwebs. Does that make a bad person for thinking like that? Who cares, certainly not I.


The moar you know I guess.


Have a good day. o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what a Sigma-notation is, but again I have never seen the effect of fast velocities calculated that way. So please post a source for that. 

Stop text walling, but simply produce the first two iteration by hand. 

 

m(2) = m(1) + [ F(1) / (a(1) + a(2)) ] 

You add up accelerations? that is the acceleration of the first step + the acceleration of the second step? Where does a(2) come from? should it be a(0) + a (1)?

Again, I need source for that, if this is 5th grade stuff it should be easy for you to link to them.

I don't mean a source for summation, but for an example of how the calculate changing mass that way.

 

I showed how this is usually done, here you can see a bit more of it:

http://wwwex.physik.uni-ulm.de/lehre/gk1-2005-2006/node19.html#SECTION005310000000000000000

sadly in German, but the first graphs show how acceleration works when you get close to c. 

 

Unless you can produce a source for your way, I assume you are wrong.

your claim => you need to provide source. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

...All i'm saying is that once [elements] are created, the individual elements or even the entire construct could have a progression path.  So there is an incentive to keep it in one piece.

 

That progression could be based completely on upgrades that are tied to character progression.  I'm assuming that a more skilled player will be able to create better or more powerful elements already in some way.

 

I just like the idea of incentivising keeping your ship in one piece.  It seems fun.

Why, out of interest? Surely it's incentive enough to not have to repair/rebuild, or to not lose a ship?
Personally I love to tinker; in other voxel games, I'm rarely ever actually finished with a vehicle. Would that not put me at a huge disadvantage to those who buy a complete vehicle and never change a single aspect of it? If I can change a progressed ship, where's the limit? Can I turn my groundcar into a battleship and keep the progress?

Upgrading by swapping out elements for better ones I can live with, as long as those better elements come from crafting via some player's skill tree, at a fixed cost with fixed stats, knowable in advance. The RNG part of ED's 'engineers' was bobbins.
I also really hope I won't be able to buy flat-out upgrades. I don't want to see a purple-con Epic Railgun that's all-round better than a normal one, I'd much rather see -Damage/+FireRate kind of trade-offs. Side-grades are better for games than upgrades, imo.

 

I strongly suspect that progression for a construct is going to be mostly the crew learning it's quirks or redesigning them out. Or maybe better scripts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

All i'm saying is that once they are created.  The individual elements or even the entire construct could have a progression path.  So there is an incentive to keep it in one piece.

 

I would argue that the incentive to keep it in one piece should:

- building a (large) new ship is difficult, as in it takes time and resources

- it works as it is

 

modern ship are also not kept in one piece because they get better over time and I think DU should aim for realism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Forodrim said:

I would argue that the incentive to keep it in one piece should:

- building a (large) new ship is difficult, as in it takes time and resources

- it works as it is

 

modern ship are also not kept in one piece because they get better over time and I think DU should aim for realism. 

Exactly. DU ships probably will end up with "motherboard" and "slots" sort of design for modular ships.

Buy X-type ship, and it can support Y variety of modules on it. Simply spawn via 3D printing the modules and then link the appropriate elemens to other elements.

This will also produce a very nice economy and architectures on ship layouts. Who knows.

The only thing we need from NQ are "expansion cores", cause so far they have only showed Core Units on the DevDiaries.


As of your previous post, you don't understand F in F= m * a is a NET FORCE, so there is no point on explaining you anything else. Yoy didn't knew what a Sigma is, you didn't see the "missing part" EVEN IF I KEPT SAYING IT ON EVERY POST and you don't understand how mathematical analysis works, since you didn't understand you use Force to get acceleration when in the context of a ship, not the other way around, there is no "10 G engine", there is "10 KN engine". But, again, you didn't knew this part of mathemtical analysis on how to prioritise solutions and functions or how to structure them.

So, you either have zero context or clue to google your answers with keywords, or you expect me to show you the whole Sigma here, now. I don't know about you - well I do, you got goaded easily after claiming you would ignore me, which I did try to help you get back to, but you had to double-down on your e-peen, didn't you  - but I don't give into challenges that put me at a loss.

You'll have to burn some brain cells figuring out the Sigma for what I described earlier.

But fear not, BOO ships will be able to pin you down easily by T-Boning your ship.

It's gonna be great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Forodrim said:

again not answer but more ramblings from you. when challenged you got nothing of substance. :D

You were supposed to ignore me. You really can't, can you? Like a rabid dog you keep barking, thinking you will bait someone into thinking you have power. You act like you've been goaded like that, "do this, what are you, a pushy? A sissy?" is not an arguement educated people make, it's an arguement meatheads make - meatheads with a certain lower point on education.

 

You clearly thought I derailed the thread, when Takao was the one who did and I did try many times to get it back into discussion on mechanics, not math, but he kept derailing it. 
 

 You didn't know what the Sigma meant until I linked it to you. And you still don't understand what it means, cause you would have known what a Sigma can procure for F=m*a. 

 

You couldn't see the "missing steps", cause you have zero knowledge of advanced math. You just copy what you find on Google. You just copy paste links - and one link you didn't even read, just thought it was legit, since it had Harvard on it and it came up first on Google, you probably are the kind of person that shares crap on Facebook and spreads misinformation cause it feeds into your bias - usually, those people, are Alt-Right.

 

You act like a conditioned-into bullying person. you know a lot of warheads and have the air of mil-sim enthusiast, you act like an Alt-Right and you got triggered after the Bismarck comment that it's a "SHE", not a "HE". 

 

Hmm, I bet there's no correlation between those things. Totally not even a single one. There's no correlation that only Alt-Right Enthusiasts are the ones referring to the Bismarck as a HE.

 

NOT, A, SINGLE, CORRELATION, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT FACTS.


Now, you can keep up your "tough talk", you can keep trying to goad me into giving you a hint on how to make the script in question, after all, you are the smaller dog here, can't blame a chihuahua for barking at a husky.

 

I won't hit "Ignore" on you, I want you to know I will be reading your threads and actively ignoring your attempts - as I said, anyone has something to teach everyone after all, even a broken clock is right twice a day as they say - unlike your conditioned Alt-Right biased mind, I got the luxury of being educated and have the capability of entertaining ideas that are opposite mine. This is why I can accept that I was wrong on the vacuum's leading cause of death upon exposure of the human physiology to it and why you can't accept you don't accept that your math knowledge is not that great to not be able to understand what Sigma meant until I pointed it out to you.

It's called Critical Thinking what I have. Drones don't have that luxury.

God bless you man, from the sound of it, you might be needing it - badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Bonus , you now understand why the RPG launcher is called Rocket Propelled Grenade.

Not exactly. The russian name is Rutschnoi Protiwotankowy Granatomjot, the english Rocket Propelled Grenade is technically false, as not all RPGs work like that. (Only thing I can contribute to this petty squabble, since I have no clue of physics)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...