Sentience is the little hump that we can at least sort of see some evidence of, judging by how similar regions of brains activate in certain circumstances. Sapience is the real tricky one.
AEsheron
joined 1 year ago
That's because your thermometer is upside-down. Try tur ing it right way round, then see how cold it is.
Kiss the sky.
They are called Mondegreens in English, after Sylvia Wright wrote an essay about how she misheard "laid him on the green," as Lady Mondegreen.
Ranger is perfectly fine mechanically in 5e, it just feels bad to play. It's the opposite of the Monk, that feels fun but performs poorly. The power of the Ranger mostly comes from the chasis being a really strong concept though, a ranged attacker with some spellcasting is just, a really good starting point. Decent utility spell options, OK damage options, fine ranged martial, it gels well. It isn't as good as a Fighter at damage, or a Druid at magic, but it can do enough of both. There's so much power budget used up there, the rest of the features got kind of gutted to make it work.
To be clear, in a cooperative experience like this, I would say the way it feels to play is much more important than the mechanical power. Monk and Ranger are both designed poorly, but the Ranger is probably the worst design. But many people take that to mean the weakest, and that's not true at all. Ranger often outdamages Rogues, it's solidly middlish, of the pack, maybe a little bit on the lower side, compared to the rest of the classes.
I came here to "correct" you to that, yes. But then it's not really IPA anymore, and the other character doesn't make sense now. May as well stick to the more universal system.
Wait, Rocket? Where is Bradley Cooper, is he safe, is he alright?
Bah, I always forget eth is different in IPA than how it was used in Old English.
Yeah, but even if the chance per outing decreases a large increase in outings can still bring the average up. I was an avid skier growing up aND hit the slopes every year, the only surgery I've had was from a skiing accident in my early 20s when I was forced to wipe out or collide with another skier and snapped my ACL.
The only speed that should be relevant is the object's speed relative to the portal. Anything else is a distraction. The physics don't care if you are hurtling at it or it is flying at you, both scenarios are equivalent. The only way to maintain conservation of momentum is to assume your exit speed relative to the exit portal equals your entrance speed relative to the entry portal.
If it did work the other way, well it wouldn't assuming your exit speed is equal to your initial speed, relative to the exit. That means your speed is 0 as you "exit." This leaves us with two possibilities. Either you are smashed into a 2d plane and physics gets very concerned, likely forming a teeeeeny tiny black hole. Or the incoming matter behind the first bits will push the first layers through, which, will just wind up back at the starting point, as they will cascade into each other at a speed defined by the speed of the blue portal, being indistinguishable from the projectile interpretation.
Technically, relative to the ground the object becomes moving infinitely fast as soon as it enters the portal. I think a more intuitive answer can be found by replacing a nice discrete object like a box or group of people with a long pole that enters the portal lengthwise. Obviously, it's going to have to be exiting the other portal at whatever speed the first portal is moving. The out speed should always be the same as the relative speed of the object to the entrance portal, it's the only thing that makes sense, and also the only way to appease conservation of momentum.
What level of abstraction is enough? Training doesn't store or reference the work at all. It derives a set of weights from it automatically. But what if you had a legion of interns manually deriving the weights and entering them in instead? Besides the impracticality of it, if I look at a picture, write down a long list of small adjustments, -2.343, -.02, +5.327, etc etc etc, and adjust the parameters of the algorithm without ever scanning it in, is that legal? If that is, does that mean the automation of that process is the illegal part?