Stack Exchange
log in

user2357112

 Discussion on answer by ShadowRanger:…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
user2357112
Sep 22, 2024 16:54
I don't think it makes sense to interpret "on the same turn that you take an action" as a strict requirement, as this answer does. For one thing, it would mean that you have to actually take an action on a turn to be eligible for a bonus action. What if you use a bonus action, and then get incapacitated before you can take your regular action? Does your bonus action become retroactively invalid?
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: is th…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user2357112
Mar 26, 2024 11:49
@JeffBrower: If they're using it under a fair use rationale, they don't have to obey your license terms.
 

 Discussion on question by Therac: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...
user2357112
Aug 30, 2023 09:58
"Game consoles picked a 30 fps framerate as standard" - that's not accurate. (Approximately) 60 and (approximately) 50 were far more common than 30. Off the top of my head, I can't actually think of any consoles that ran at 30. NES, SNES, PS1, Genesis, Saturn... before modern high-refresh-rate stuff, everything I can think of ran at very close to 60 for NTSC, and very close to 50 for PAL.
 

 Discussion on question by catsteevens…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
user2357112
Jun 28, 2023 05:45
With the new edit, it's even less plausible that this guy would benefit from this vehicle.
 

 Discussion on answer by Peter Taylor:…

Imported from a comment discussion on mathoverflow.net/questio...
user2357112
May 22, 2023 14:23
@PeterTaylor I think you're on an outdated version of more_itertools. distinct_permutations now attempts to sort the input, ever since the commit that added the r parameter.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: Why w…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user2357112
Jan 21, 2023 23:35
@user253751: So you seriously believe (or seriously believe that the people in power at the time believed) that those in power could not retain their power if people were allowed to go bowling? That seems quite unrealistic.
user2357112
Jan 21, 2023 23:35
Maybe you'll respond with some justification for how they might expect to benefit from banning bowling, but banning bowling because they expect to personally benefit from banning it is very different from "despairing over the recreational activities of working-class people". (Or maybe you really do think people in power operate on cheesy cartoon villain logic instead of self-interest.)
user2357112
Jan 21, 2023 23:35
Even from a cynical perspective, that doesn't hold up. Why would "those in power" be indifferent to crime, but motivated to take a stand against... working-class people having fun? That's not the behavior of someone callous and self-serving. That's the behavior of a cheesy cartoon villain.
 

 Discussion on answer by littleadv: I …

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
user2357112
Jan 6, 2023 11:22
Someone could add "thirty" before "four hundred", but they could add "thirty" before "four thousand" too. What would you consider the proper way to write a check for $34,000?
 

 Discussion on question by Vinicius Br…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
user2357112 supports Monica
Feb 11, 2022 17:55
But it's much harder for someone to accidentally or maliciously turn off the light while you're still inside if the switch is inside with you.
 

 Discussion on answer by Oddthinking: …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
user2357112 supports Monica
Dec 3, 2021 03:22
This seems like a lot more than just a "slightly different" claim or a "nuanced distinction". It's like the difference between "100% of American citizens are dead" and "100% of American citizens will die", or "X% of children age 6 have had sex" vs "X% of children age 6 will eventually have sex".
 

 Discussion on answer by D Stanley: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
user2357112 supports Monica
Oct 21, 2021 10:05
@gerrit: There's an out-of-pocket maximum, which limits how much you can end up paying for covered services, even with the copay. This only applies to covered services, though. Copay isn't the real danger. The real danger is finding out that some of your care was out-of-network, and you have to pay the whole bill for the out-of-network services yourself as if you didn't have insurance at all.
 

 Discussion on answer by Stephen Kitt:…

Imported from a comment discussion on unix.stackexchange.com/q...
user2357112 supports Monica
May 10, 2021 17:38
@Isaac: Because it's rounded to fit into the available floating point precision, as Stephen Kitt said (and contrary to your interpretation), and 1152921503455511264.000000 doesn't fit in double precision, so it rounds to 1152921503455511296.000000.
 

 Discussion on answer by Organic Marbl…

Imported from a comment discussion on space.stackexchange.com/...
user2357112 supports Monica
Apr 19, 2021 12:23
The answer probably ends up being the fairly obvious "hope the astronauts settle it peacefully and evacuate as many people as possible without betrayals or space fights", with a side of "everyone first examines the specifics of the situation at hand to figure out if they can jury rig something useful, and we can't know the details of how that would go without a specific situation happening".
user2357112 supports Monica
Apr 19, 2021 12:23
@Polygnome: Needing to evacuate the ISS would already be outside normal operations. I don't think they've ever gone beyond getting in an escape craft and waiting for the danger to pass. There's significant overlap between the category of situations where the ISS would need to be abruptly evacuated and situations where one of the escape craft can't be used, for example, if a failure of a docking or docked craft damages the ISS.
user2357112 supports Monica
Apr 19, 2021 12:23
"By design that will never happen" is a really hubristic response. Maybe the underlying sentiment is something like "we don't bother planning for that because it's bad for morale, there's not much we could do in such a situation, and the plan would probably be abandoned anyway, so we do our best to avoid the situation, which is much more effective and useful all around", but pretending it's impossible to end up with insufficient evacuation capacity just sounds silly.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user2357112 supports Monica
Feb 22, 2021 14:31
I'm pretty sure this answer is wrong. The IRS has specific instructions for filing a 1099 or other similar forms without the recipient's TIN. Also see Publication 1586, Reasonable Cause Regulations and Requirements for Missing and Incorrect Name/TINs.
user2357112 supports Monica
Feb 22, 2021 14:31
For anyone actually in such a situation, I would recommend speaking to a tax lawyer. Avoiding penalties requires a reasonable attempt to acquire the recipient's TIN (among other requirements), and my googling has not turned up sufficiently clear IRS guidance or case law to be sure what the requirements are for cases where it's clear going into the transaction that you're not going to get the info.
 

 Discussion on answer by InterstellarP…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
user2357112 supports Monica
Jun 30, 2020 14:47
@roger-reject: I would agree, but there's a lot here that feels more like it's about discouraging the players than it is about exploring consequences. It's all about stuff getting worse and making the players "less willing to jump the gun" and "stop you from doing things". Maybe the consequences of the players' quick thinking are that they get a commendation and the local governor invites them to join the task force hunting down the shadowy network that provided the bad guy's funding! Consequences can be good and still drive the plot forward.
user2357112 supports Monica
Jun 30, 2020 14:47
Maybe bad things will happen if the party does something clever, but they shouldn't be automatically worse than the things that happen if the party follows the railroad. The number of problems caused by a victory shouldn't be proportional to how soon it happens or how hard it deviates from the GM plan. There's no reason to expect that killing the bad guy seconds before the superweapon is about to fire should produce a tidier outcome than killing them before they have a working prototype.
user2357112 supports Monica
Jun 30, 2020 14:47
@InterstellarProbe: "Consequences stop you from doing things that if you had stopped to think, you would not have done." - So if the players stopped to think, they wouldn't kill the bad guy? They'd just let him keep, I dunno, harvesting impoverished villages for bioweapon test subjects or whatever the evil plan is? That seems to undercut the point of the adventure.
 

 Discussion on answer by ThoriumBR: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
user2357112 supports Monica
Apr 21, 2020 12:17
@paj28: "Should you" is the right focus for a security site. Almost every decision in security is based on "should you" factors. You physically can give everyone access to your database, or set your password to "swordfish", or hash your passwords with MD5, or build SQL with string interpolation, or generate keys with java.util.Random, or all sorts of other insecure things, but you shouldn't do any of that.
 

 Discussion on question by Samaad: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
user2357112 supports Monica
Mar 21, 2020 15:21
Something being normal doesn't mean it's not a bad thing, and it's not an insult to the people who don't participate. All sorts of good or bad things have been normal throughout history.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ed Heal: Clea…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
user2357112 supports Monica
Jan 13, 2020 03:02
@AaronF: It may literally be fraud rather than theft, but quibbling about the exact details of how the crime is classified is a very weak way to argue that this is a person you should trust inside your house.
 

 Discussion on answer by ObscureOwl: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
user2357112 supports Monica
Dec 5, 2019 22:39
a = 3 / 2 is about as ambiguous in pseudocode, though. You can't just look up division behavior in the official pseudocode documentation. You can explain it in text next to the pseudocode, but you could have done that with real code too.
 

 Discussion on answer by Luis Casillas…

Imported from a comment discussion on crypto.stackexchange.com...
user2357112
Oct 9, 2019 00:04
@Lol4: You're assuming a laughably weak attacker compared to what any modern cryptography is expected to defend against. If the attacker can't even get hold of ciphertext, you might as well not bother with encryption at all.
 

 Discussion on answer by ThoriumBR: "T…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
user2357112
Jul 21, 2019 21:20
I think this answer overestimates the proportion of services that offer TOTP functionality. Of the services I currently have TFA set up on, none of them support TOTP. All of them are strictly SMS. How much of this is due to them wanting my phone number and how much is due to SMS being way more familiar and simple for most end users, I don't know.
user2357112
Jul 21, 2019 21:20
(Wait, no, one of them has email and Google Authenticator - I was mixing it up with a different service.)
 

 Discussion on answer by S J: What if …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
user2357112
Dec 11, 2018 22:09
@DRF: It also has solutions if you just make up your own meaning for all the notation involved, but absent any context that would indicate another interpretation, the default assumption is generally real or complex arithmetic.
user2357112
Dec 11, 2018 22:09
@SJ: I don't think you're as mathematically literate as you think you are, if you think that equation has a solution.
user2357112
Dec 11, 2018 22:09
That's a rather biased article trying to push a specific interpretation of "impossible" to make the laws sound more unreasonable than they are. "Impossible" is a very different thing from "we don't know how to do it yet", especially for laws that say "by the year 20xx, you'll have to be able to meet these requirements to do this thing" instead of "by the year right now, you must meet these requirements to do this thing".
 

 Discussion on answer by kingledion: A…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
user2357112
Aug 20, 2018 16:46
Dumping kinetic energy equivalent to 20 years of sunlight into Earth's atmosphere, over the course of 10 years, shouldn't be anywhere near enough to remove Earth's atmosphere.
 

 Discussion on answer by Jesse: How to…

Imported from a comment discussion on interpersonal.stackexcha...
user2357112
Jan 24, 2018 00:19
@Lou: If you fill your tray with chocolates, aren't people going to think of it as the chocolate tray instead of the ash tray? I wouldn't dispose of my waste in a tray full of chocolate.
 

 Discussion on answer by Martin Argera…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
user2357112
Nov 28, 2017 15:26
@Scott: By "cheat", the answer is referring to attempts to achieve the OP's goal by deceptively violating the rules of the German refugee system, which pretty exactly fits a dictionary definition of cheating.
 

 Discussion on answer by JBH: If the R…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
user2357112
Nov 21, 2017 06:27
"steam ships as the pinnacle of land transportation" - what historical period was that?
 

 Discussion on answer by Oleksandr Kra…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
user2357112
Nov 6, 2017 17:59
The question contains an implicit assumption that a spoofer would have to be visibly distinct from the real network, using a different SSID. This answer points out that they can use the real SSID too.
user2357112
Nov 6, 2017 17:59
@ICanHazUpvotzPleez: Spoofing is pretty much the whole core of the question. The questioner is specifically and explicitly worried about people posing as airport WiFi, capturing his network traffic.
user2357112
Nov 6, 2017 17:59
@ICanHazUpvotzPleez: No, you're making an unwarranted assumption that no one is spoofing the WiFi with the real network's SSID. The question does not ask "how do I identify the official SSID"; the question asks how to identify the official network.
user2357112
Nov 6, 2017 17:59
@ICanHazUpvotzPleez: The airport staff may be able to tell you the name, but they cannot distinguish the real network from a spoofer with the same name. The answer explains this.
 

 Discussion on question by TAM: Quotin…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
user2357112
Aug 14, 2017 13:00
It's way too easy to screw this up. Think of all the people who have "corrected" the "obvious typo" of "iff". Please don't misquote people, even if you're trying to be helpful.
 

 Discussion on answer by nore: Fastest…

Imported from a comment discussion on codegolf.stackexchange.c...
user2357112
Jun 21, 2017 03:19
Huh... I thought we had MathJax here.
user2357112
Jun 21, 2017 03:19
The proof isn't quite complete, since we were also allowed to perform addition and subtraction. I feel like addition and subtraction probably don't help, but I don't see how to prove it. Still, it's a good proof for the multiplication-only case, and the method of reducing a solution for n numbers to a solution for n-1 was a good idea.
user2357112
Jun 21, 2017 03:19
I can get a very slightly closer bound, but I can't put the coefficient of 3 on the linear term.
 

 Discussion on answer by Okx: It's Hip…

Imported from a comment discussion on codegolf.stackexchange.c...
user2357112
Jun 10, 2017 15:24
Once the BigInteger switch happens, will this still work?
 

 Discussion on question by dn3s: Can a…

Imported from a comment discussion on aviation.stackexchange.c...
user2357112
Apr 17, 2017 14:07
@dn3s: You asked what pilot authentication system fighter jets use. People are answering that the pilot authentication system consists of the military forces surrounding the aircraft, rather than anything internal. People are emphasizing the external protections not because they think you didn't realize the external protections exist, but because you weren't aware that the external protections are the answer to your question.
 

 Discussion on question by Anoneemus: …

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
user2357112
Apr 13, 2017 05:05
@user662852: They probably have a way, and that way is probably not sharing passwords.
 

 Discussion on question by Martin: Is …

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
user2357112
Jan 3, 2017 11:25
"check that the data has not been modified in transit" - that's like trying to use tamper-proof envelopes to stop people from mailing you lies. Your whole scheme is flawed beyond repair, and you've chosen an answer that tells you what you want to hear instead of one that promotes actual security.
 

 Discussion on question by Berwyn: A s…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
user2357112
Oct 24, 2016 09:01
What's with the "to die for" wording? Is that a standard description for swims like this? It sounds like a puzzling.stackexchange.com title or a weird, suicidal cry for help. Should we be worried? I know that theoretically, it's supposed to have a nonlethal, idiomatic meaning, but I pretty much only hear that phrase in cheesy supervillain dialogue.
 

 Discussion on question by ksank43: Pu…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
user2357112
Sep 2, 2016 05:58
@SnakeDoc: "you will pay a small amount of interest" - what? Aren't you supposed to get a grace period for that?
 

 Discussion on question by William: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on math.stackexchange.com/q...
user2357112
Jun 13, 2016 05:46
Your edits are changing your question into an entirely different question. If you want to ask a different question, post a new question. Don't transform your existing one.