The Gold Options I fear most

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • playbabe wrote:

      "you write that doesn't matter for this"
      haha welcome to global internet.
      What I meant with "you" was actually "anyone" or something like this. Using "you" when you (same as here) mean basically anyone in the world is something that is normal in German and my intuition of what is right and what is wrong in English told me it was right (you know, sometimes something just sounds wrong), but I'm not sure about this. Are you sure?
    • Jemandanderes wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Actually, yes. You like Kal, are now moving the goalposts, you are no longer comparing F to C, you are comparing F to tenths of C. Simply, F IS more precise than C, dividing C does not change that. It merely changes the argument to F vs tenths of C. You shouldn't need to use digits beyond the decimal Point for weather.
      No, what I want to say with that is, that we want to stick with the way to measure stuff as we are used to it. And since you think that °F is unquestionable better than °C, because it is more precise, I thought of creating a new unit, let me call it °J. And this 1°J is exactly 0,1°C. So °J would obviously be more precise than °F. Would you now switch to °J because it's more precise?
      First of all, I was not saying to stick with F beyond weather, so that pretty much defeats your whole "J" argument. F should not be used for science, in fact C should be scrapped for science too and we should all use K for science. Secondly, simply increasing precision doesn't translate to better usage. Your scale's calibration makes no practical advantage if no one can tell the difference between 517J and 525J, the benefits of precision is lost. But the actual difference in precision between F and C IS meaningful and detectable. Additionally putting temperature into a coordinate system (0,1) doesn't even make any sense. And yes, I will continue to harp this point until you address it.
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Just as an aside: Believe me, I am not stating any of this from an "arrogant american" standpoint. While I will admit guilt to part of the "used to" of Jemandanderes argumentative stance, neither "'merica" nor "used to" is the primary driving factor in my arguments, or I would not have said change to metric for everything else.
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      if no one can tell the difference between 517J and 525J, the benefits of precision is lost.
      Well, whenever I encounter a temperature in °F, that's the same for me. I then open Google and look it up. But with °J, I wouldn't need to, but you would need to. And can you tell the difference between 125,06 °F and 126,5 °F?
    • Jemandanderes wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      if no one can tell the difference between 517J and 525J, the benefits of precision is lost.
      Well, whenever I encounter a temperature in °F, that's the same for me. I then open Google and look it up. But with °J, I wouldn't need to, but you would need to. And can you tell the difference between 125,06 °F and 126,5 °F?
      With F, there is no need to use Dimensional coordinate arrays :) , or even tenths of a degree for weather.
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Well, what I want to say, is that I don't know the difference between 517J and 525J, since these temperatures are very high and I have never felt one of these. But what do you mean with "Dimensional coordinate arrays". I mean, I know that an array is a variable in IT, which basically contains many variables. But that has nothing to do with °C, so please explain what you mean.
    • Jemandanderes wrote:

      ... But what do you mean with "Dimensional coordinate arrays". I mean, I know that an array is a variable in IT, which basically contains many variables. But that has nothing to do with °C, so please explain what you mean.
      It was a joke, since you never addressed my definitive point that using the comma creates confusion that a decimal point does not when you use (0,1) as opposed to (0.1) as to whether you are talking about one tenth or X=0, Y=1

      Typically Dimensional arrays use (x,y,z) format
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Dealer of Death ().

    • Jemandanderes wrote:

      Well, what I want to say, is that I don't know the difference between 517J and 525J, since these temperatures are very high and I have never felt one of these. ...
      OK, my bad for picking these 2 temps, I did not bother to think it thru that you would practically apply them. So, let's approach it practically. Most of all weather will fall into 110F to -20F or roughly 43C to -29C, which means over the "weather" range of temperatures 1 C is approximately equal to 1.8 F or even more roughly double. With 130 F degrees over that range and 72 C degrees over that range. Now with F being roughly doubly precise as C in that range, the difference between 70F and 72F is easily distinguishable. Now let's throw in your J degrees. Since they are 0.1C that means we have 720 degrees of J over the weather range, and 211J and 213J are not as easily discernible as different because they fall out of the human ability to easilydistinguish, so there is a diminishing returns on precision of temperature unit tied to human perception. F's precision advantage is discernible and useful, J's is not.
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Thinking about the topic, I realised, that my versions are probably to old school. People these days would just say "One fifty" or "Nine Ninety-nine", so neither point nor comma.
      However in spoken language I would probably prefer to say: "One point five k" to refer to 1500, because I am a minimalist and one syllabel is more convenient than two syllabels.

      In the hand written version on the other hand I would likely prefer a comma, because it is visually more easily distinguishable than a point.



      Freezing point and boiling point have nothing to do with science. Freezing point is the point where the streets are most likely end up being frozen over night and is therefore important for example driving and boiling point is kind of important for cooking, there is hardly any other more daily task than that.

      "Plus it makes things a lot more relatable with a scale that has over 100 usable degrees to differentiate temp rather than 40."
      No idea in which context outside of science that would even matter. Getting told the water in the pool has currently 10° celsius is for me far more relatable than getting told it has 50° Fahrenheit.
      Once again you move the goalposts here, I am talking about speaking the written 1.5 or 1, 5 dollars as if you had to read the written aloud.
      This is so unbelievable inane, I can't believe you said it, as normally I have great respect for a majority of your posts. Chemistry, Physics, ENgineering, Materials Science are all highly involved with Freezing point and boiling points.

      And cooking is not weather.
      I am not moving the goal post, I was never talking about such a limited. I prefer to look for the topic as a whole and not cherry pick.

      If in a book it is written 1.5 you say: One point five, if it were written 1,5 you would say: One comma five. So I don't see what your point is.
      If you read something, that is written, you read it, as it is written. For me as a german "Eins Komma Fünf" just sounds fluent than "Eins Punkt Fünf", might be a reason why some nations prefer the comma.


      I am talking about freezing point of water how people use it everyday. I let it sound, like those two are only important for science. I just meant, that those words are not limited to being used in scientific circumstances. Maybe you should take not everything so literally sometimes.
      How ever I also adressed your limited weather perspective.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      I am not moving the goal post, I was never talking about such a limited. I prefer to look for the topic as a whole and not cherry pick.
      If in a book it is written 1.5 you say: One point five, if it were written 1,5 you would say: One comma five. So I don't see what your point is.
      If you read something, that is written, you read it, as it is written. For me as a german "Eins Komma Fünf" just sounds fluent than "Eins Punkt Fünf", might be a reason why some nations prefer the comma.



      I am talking about freezing point of water how people use it everyday. I let it sound, like those two are only important for science. I just meant, that those words are not limited to being used in scientific circumstances. Maybe you should take not everything so literally sometimes.
      How ever I also adressed your limited weather perspective.
      I fear you are missing the point of what I was trying to elucidate there, but perhaps some of that is my fault from not elaborating sufficiently. I agree that the differences are minor, I was trying to show that if you were reading from text that had 1.5 dollars, you would say 1 point 5 dollars, and I guess I am just questioning whether anyone would say 1 comma 5 dollars even if they used that as their decimal divider. In any case, the obvious ambiguity with coordinate systems show the edge to a decimal point.

      I did not object to your characterization of freezing, only pointed out boiling is not within the scope of weather for water.

      Yeah, not seeing that.
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • "Freezing point is the point where the streets are most likely end up being frozen over night and is therefore important for example driving" <- Weather

      "Getting told the water in the pool has currently 10° celsius is for me far more relatable than getting told it has 50° Fahrenheit." <- Just replace the pool with weather, same principle.
    • Yeah thanks for HiJacking my post where i was complaining about excessinve use of nervrobbing Godl features.

      I mean i am fine with Godl optiosn you can counter as a normal player.
      Such as: Building trillions of units and throwing them before my railguns as breakfast...

      ..but "hand of god" sucks!
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Yeah thanks for HiJacking my post where i was complaining about excessinve use of nervrobbing Godl features.

      I mean i am fine with Godl optiosn you can counter as a normal player.
      Such as: Building trillions of units and throwing them before my railguns as breakfast...

      ..but "hand of god" sucks!
      The thing that annoys me the most re using gold is healing units in the middle of a battle. My aircraft strike .. dang, stack has little bit left. Next trip - dang! stack back at full health. *sigh*

      I also don't like the reveal all troops, for two reasons. First, knowledge is power in war, and that gives a crap ton (metric or standard) of power. Second, you have no way of knowing it has been used against you which equals yet more power for the other side.
    • DOA70 wrote:

      kurtvonstein wrote:

      Yeah thanks for HiJacking my post where i was complaining about excessinve use of nervrobbing Godl features.

      I mean i am fine with Godl optiosn you can counter as a normal player.
      Such as: Building trillions of units and throwing them before my railguns as breakfast...

      ..but "hand of god" sucks!
      The thing that annoys me the most re using gold is healing units in the middle of a battle. My aircraft strike .. dang, stack has little bit left. Next trip - dang! stack back at full health. *sigh*
      I also don't like the reveal all troops, for two reasons. First, knowledge is power in war, and that gives a crap ton (metric or standard) of power. Second, you have no way of knowing it has been used against you which equals yet more power for the other side.
      I was in a coal that had a member who used reveal all..... it was scary good. I believe the game should AT LEAST tell you that your enemy has just revealed all of your troops; or maybe put an ad in the paper saying "Country has begun experimental, long-distance radar tests."
    • MicahWill wrote:

      I was in a coal that had a member who used reveal all..... it was scary good. I believe the game should AT LEAST tell you that your enemy has just revealed all of your troops; or maybe put an ad in the paper saying "Country has begun experimental, long-distance radar tests."
      When your coalition partner did that, could you see it too?
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      MicahWill wrote:

      I was in a coal that had a member who used reveal all..... it was scary good. I believe the game should AT LEAST tell you that your enemy has just revealed all of your troops; or maybe put an ad in the paper saying "Country has begun experimental, long-distance radar tests."
      When your coalition partner did that, could you see it too?
      yes
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      MicahWill wrote:

      I was in a coal that had a member who used reveal all..... it was scary good. I believe the game should AT LEAST tell you that your enemy has just revealed all of your troops; or maybe put an ad in the paper saying "Country has begun experimental, long-distance radar tests."
      When your coalition partner did that, could you see it too?
      yes
      I felt like Snowden when he first saw how much the government (US) spies on us. It felt illegal lol.