A Wild Lurker Appears! Hyoi's Random Banter #232

[Rater202]

1: Since it's noted that Magikarp can do it if they live for several years, my assumption is that the Magikarp isn't scaling the mountain in one jump but in multiple jumps over the course of an extended period of time.

2: Again, you don't make a perfect soldier unless you can guarantee that you're the only one using them. Also, Ditto can only transform into what it can see so now that I think about it it's only situationally useful.

3: Not every Magikarp evolves into Gyarados. You only let the most loyal and controllable soldiers evolve.

[Lord Raziere]

1: Since it's noted that Magikarp can do it if they live for several years, my assumption is that the Magikarp isn't scaling the mountain in one jump but in multiple jumps over the course of an extended period of time.

2: Again, you don't make a perfect soldier unless you can guarantee that you're the only one using them. Also, Ditto can only transform into what it can see so now that I think about it it's only situationally useful.

3: Not every Magikarp evolves into Gyarados. You only let the most loyal and controllable soldiers evolve.

1. you can assume all you want, the fact remains the discrepancy opens up the question "what else is the pokedex wrong about? what else can't I trust? If its contradictory about one thing, what else is wrong?"

2. assuming you can guarantee that, which you can't. generally weapons no matter what you do, proliferate and information leaks. its not a matter of if, but a matter of when. you can only slow this kind of thing, not stop it, and sooner or later you get an arms race.

3. but whether they stay loyal and controllable is up to chance. and every soldier that doesn't die, becomes a veteran, a retiree eventually. soldiers don't serve forever, new ones must be brought in, and your picks for who you can trust won't always work out.

[Rater202]

I mean, is it really cyberpunk if it doesn't eventually go horribly wrong as the creations turn on their masters? "Smart enough to not deliberately proliferate certain tech and instead keep it for our own use" isn't the same as "humble enough to not assume that we can control everything we make."

Otherwise, the plot of "initial test subjects escape but have to deal with the fact that the Megacorp essentially controls the region" doesn't work.

But fine, I'll think of something else. My backup PC was gonna be a lady fused with a Salandit. You gonna poke holes in "moderately speedy attackers that can set things on fire and can usually poison things that are immune to poison with a minority being immune to being attracted or falling for taunts?" as a Supersoldier option.

If you assume that "Can only ever know four moves" is a game abstraction, then Salandit and its evolved form Salazzle can theoretically get damage coverage for 71% of type combinations. Fire/Poison seems to be a decent enough defensive typing combination, ground will screw you up but you take 1/4 damage three different types and 1/4 damage from another five.

[Lord Raziere]

I mean, is it really cyberpunk if it doesn't eventually go horribly wrong as the creations turn on their masters? "Smart enough to not deliberately proliferate certain tech and instead keep it for our own use" isn't the same as "humble enough to not assume that we can control everything we make."

Otherwise, the plot of "initial test subjects escape but have to deal with the fact that the Megacorp essentially controls the region" doesn't work.

But fine, I'll think of something else. My backup PC was gonna be a lady fused with a Salandit. You gonna poke holes in "moderately speedy attackers that can set things on fire and can usually poison things that are immune to poison with a minority being immune to being attracted or falling for taunts?" as a Supersoldier option.

If you assume that "Can only ever know four moves" is a game abstraction, then Salandit and its evolved form Salazzle can theoretically get damage coverage for 71% of type combinations. Fire/Poison seems to be a decent enough defensive typing combination, ground will screw you up but you take 1/4 damage three different types and 1/4 damage from another five.

Oh, you don't have to change anything, I was just debating for the sake of it at that point.

[Rawhide]

2: Again, you don't make a perfect soldier unless you can guarantee that you're the only one using them. Also, Ditto can only transform into what it can see so now that I think about it it's only situationally useful.

Spoiler: Pokemon in Disguise

Show

[Peelee]

you don't make a perfect soldier unless you can guarantee that you're the only one using them.

I very much doubt that. Right off the bat, if someone else has a "perfect soldier" and you figure out how to make one yourself, then you clearly cannot guarantee you're the only one using them but it still behooves you to do it anyway.

[Rater202]

I very much doubt that. Right off the bat, if someone else has a "perfect soldier" and you figure out how to make one yourself, then you clearly cannot guarantee you're the only one using them but it still behooves you to do it anyway.

Let me rephrase it: You don't make a perfect soldier unless you're only making them for yourself.

[Peelee]

Let me rephrase it: You don't make a perfect soldier unless you're only making them for yourself.

Countries A and B are allies. Country A figures out how to make super soldiers. Country B offers many support structures to Country A that Country A relies upon heavily. Country B wants some of the super soldiers. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Country A could give Country B some super soldiers without letting them know how to make one.

Also I'm changing "perfect soldier" to "super soldier".

[Fyraltari]

Let me rephrase it: You don't make a perfect soldier unless you're only making them for yourself.

Wouldn't loyalty be part of the "perfect" package, anyway?

[Form]

Let me rephrase it: You don't make a perfect soldier unless you're only making them for yourself.

What if I'm an evil enterprising biologist who wants to finally leverage their college degree into making some money and finally paying off my student debt by selling them?

Wouldn't loyalty be part of the "perfect" package, anyway?

I imagine we could argue at length about what 'perfect' (bit of a vague term there) entails and whether to include cost-effectiveness considerations. A better question would be for what purpose they are made? Do I want to be able to quickly churn out large numbers at low cost, their survivability be damned? Do I just want them to be strong and fast or do they need tactical aptitude as well? Do they need to follow orders to the letter no matter what or should they have a degree of independence to be able to more quickly react to changing battlefield conditions and seize on opportunities themselves without being told?

[Peelee]

What if I'm an evil enterprising biologist who wants to finally leverage their college degree into making some money and finally paying off my student debt by selling them?

Indeed.

I imagine we could argue at length about what 'perfect' (bit of a vague term there) entails

That's exactly why I choose to use "super" instead.

[Cazero]

Spoiler: Pokemon in Disguise

Show

This is adorable.

[Rater202]

Countries A and B are allies. Country A figures out how to make super soldiers. Country B offers many support structures to Country A that Country A relies upon heavily. Country B wants some of the super soldiers. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Country A could give Country B some super soldiers without letting them know how to make one.

Also I'm changing "perfect soldier" to "super soldier".

If the Supersoldiers are biological or cybernetic, an unscrupulous country could figure out how to make them by taking them apart.

In the case of a Captain America type, you can make more by transfusing the original's blood into other people.

The second you're soldiers are no longer under your control, someone will try to retronegineer them.

Also, you can't really change "perfect" Soldier to just Super Soldier. There's a world of difference between someone like Captain America, who is merely as good at everything as it is physically possible to be, and someone like Weapon H who is a single man whose powers combined with his training makes him theoretically capable of killing all life on Earth by himself.

You can make Captain Americas for your allies as long a you keep the Weapon H's for yourself as an ace in the whole in case those allies turn on you.

[Peelee]

Also, you can't really change "perfect" Soldier to just Super Soldier,

Sure I can, because there is no perfect soldier, not even in fiction. Even in your own example there was a super soldier as opposed to a super duper soldier, and that's a non-issue. Want your super soldier to be Mega Weapon X? Go ahead and have that be the case, then.

[Rater202]

Mother found a new brand of alfredo sauce and some "fresh" noodles(IE, not dehydrated, so you have to fridge them.)

Made a huge pot of chicken alfredo.

I now smell garlic every time I breathe out.

All is right in the world.

[Rawhide]

Sure I can, because there is no perfect soldier, not even in fiction. Even in your own example there was a super soldier as opposed to a super duper soldier, and that's a non-issue. Want your super soldier to be Mega Weapon X? Go ahead and have that be the case, then.

One could argue that Achilles was perfect, at least until he was brought to heel.

[Rater202]

One could argue that Achilles was perfect, at least until he was brought to heel.

For the life of me, I don't understand why his mother didn't double dip him.

[Peelee]

For the life of me, I don't understand why his mother didn't double dip him.

Because that would make for a very short and boring story.

[Rater202]

Because that would make for a very short and boring story.

The Trojan war had been ongoing for years by the time Achilles' one weakness became relevant and continued for years after.

[Peelee]

The Trojan war had been ongoing for years by the time Achilles' one weakness became relevant and continued for years after.

And how many of those years were regaled in The Iliad? It wasn't a history book, it was a story. It told the parts that were interesting. "Guy is invincible, never gets defeated" is not interesting.

[Tvtyrant]

For the life of me, I don't understand why his mother didn't double dip him.

Because then the other side wouldn't have an excuse for losing and his side for being afraid of him?

The Illiad is really about someone like LeBron James, who is so athletic fighting them means death. Hector literally runs away from him when confronted. The scenes from the Illiad where the other army runs from Achilles strikes true: you could all rush him but some of you will die. Who is going to be the foremost man?

So they made up a reason for why it was okay to be afraid of him that didn't insult their own manliness.

[Bartmanhomer]

I really can't trust people on the internet anymore because I have this major trust issue when it comes to friends on the internet. Also, I won't give anyone a free pass anymore because I don't believe in giving anyone a second chance.

[Fyraltari]

The Trojan war had been ongoing for years by the time Achilles' one weakness became relevant and continued for years after.

Achilles died in the last year of the war.

And how many of those years were regaled in The Iliad? It wasn't a history book, it was a story. It told the parts that were interesting. "Guy is invincible, never gets defeated" is not interesting.

The Illiad is not the story of the Trojan war, it's one one story that is part of a cycle of a dozen stories about the Trojan War (with the exception of the Odyssey all the other stories of that cycle are lost). Also Achilles doesn't die in the Illiad and I'm pretty sure never looses a fight (at most a god intervenes to allow whoever he's about to slaughter at time T to run for it). The story is about him letting go of his rage.

So they made up a reason for why it was okay to be afraid of him that didn't insult their own manliness.

I'm sorry, are you saying the Trojan wrote The Illiad?

[Rater202]

I stayed up all night, crashed in the morning, slept till five, and now I can't sleep.

[Tvtyrant]

Achilles died in the last year of the war.

The Illiad is not the story of the Trojan war, it's one one story that is part of a cycle of a dozen stories about the Trojan War (with the exception of the Odyssey all the other stories of that cycle are lost). Also Achilles doesn't die in the Illiad and I'm pretty sure never looses a fight (at most a god intervenes to allow whoever he's about to slaughter at time T to run for it). The story is about him letting go of his rage.

I'm sorry, are you saying the Trojan wrote The Illiad?

No I'm saying the Illiad is based off of the stories of people observing the events. Too many of them are too realistic to be made up, they lack the dream like quality of Beowulf or Gilgamesh. The people watching didn't have terms like bellcurves and outliers to explain what was happening so they made him of divine origin.

My brother played on the same football team as an NFL starter. There are so many of us that giants who are better runners then the skinny kids, stronger then the big kids and have better hand eye coordination then the accurate kids is within our mental possibility. We have many 10000 of them in a population of 350,000,000. But if you lived in ancient times they were once every few lifetimes how would you process it?

[Peelee]

The Illiad is not the story of the Trojan war

Yep, that was part of my point. Achilles doing things before falling is a story. Achilles never falling isn't a story, it's a personal fantasy or daydream.

[Fyraltari]

No I'm saying the Illiad is based off of the stories of people observing the events. Too many of them are too realistic to be made up, they lack the dream like quality of Beowulf or Gilgamesh.

I know, we found Troy.

The people watching didn't have terms like bellcurves and outliers to explain what was happening so they made him of divine origin.

My brother played on the same football team as an NFL starter. There are so many of us that giants who are better runners then the skinny kids, stronger then the big kids and have better hand eye coordination then the accurate kids is within our mental possibility. We have many 10000 of them in a population of 350,000,000. But if you lived in ancient times they were once every few lifetimes how would you process it?

Right but the story was written down by the descendants of the Acheans, they were glorifying their cultural heroes rather than making excuses for not beating them (that would be more likely if the descendants of the Trojans were telling the stories, which they are not, no matter what Virgile says).

Also, I doubt that anybody ever felt it impossible to process "some people are bigger or faster than others" without going "this guy must be the son of a god!"
It's just that when a story gets passed down from one person to the next for a few centuries before being written down like this one was, everything gers blown out of proportions: thirty ships become a thousand, a ten-month long siege becomes ten years long, all those tribe leaders become kings with divine parents, the better-than average warrior who died of a badly infected heel-wound? Was dipped into the river of the Underworld as an infant making him invulnerable to all wounds except this one, that random archer was a companion of Herakles, the whole thing happened for the most beautiful woman in the world and Menelaus once caught a fish that big!

Edit:

Yep, that was part of my point. Achilles doing things before falling is a story. Achilles never falling isn't a story, it's a personal fantasy or daydream.

But he doesn't fall in the Illiad. The Illiad doesn't need Achilles to be defeated to be a good story.

[Rater202]

Yep, that was part of my point. Achilles doing things before falling is a story. Achilles never falling isn't a story, it's a personal fantasy or daydream.

Yes, but we are expected to believe that the characters in a story are acting towards their own interest and that they are behaving rationally unless otherwise shown that they are not of their right mind.

In the Illiad, or any other version of the tale of Achilles that I've heard, outside of modern works of fiction, there's no reason given for why Thetis didn't grab baby Ahchillies by the shoulder and dip his legs in the river to make sure that he was invulnerable all over.

And I could forgive that as a moment of thoughtlessness... Except that the translation I first read also included Thetis coating Achilles in Ambrosia and placing him in the hearth to bake away his mortality and make him fully divine, and thus, immortal, only for Pelus, who had been spying on Thetis becuase he feared that she was deliberately killing their sons, to rip the infant Achilles from the fire... And then Tetis berated him and explained what she was doing and Pelus believed her.

There's no reason given for why they couldn't then put the baby back in the fire to finish baking away his ability to die.

Thetis's entire motivation in any translation or adaption of the Illiad is make sure her son doesn't die. That she didn't double-dip or put him back in the fire or do anything but these two things and the thing with forcing him to live as a woman so h wouldn't be recruited to fight in the war... Kind of a plothole.

[Fyraltari]

Yes, but we are expected to believe that the characters in a story are acting towards their own interest and that they are behaving rationally unless otherwise shown that they are not of their right mind.

In the Illiad, or any other version of the tale of Achilles that I've heard, outside of modern works of fiction, there's no reason given for why Thetis didn't grab baby Ahchillies by the shoulder and dip his legs in the river to make sure that he was invulnerable all over.

And I could forgive that as a moment of thoughtlessness... Except that the translation I first read also included Thetis coating Achilles in Ambrosia and placing him in the hearth to bake away his mortality and make him fully divine, and thus, immortal, only for Pelus, who had been spying on Thetis becuase he feared that she was deliberately killing their sons, to rip the infant Achilles from the fire... And then Tetis berated him and explained what she was doing and Pelus believed her.

There's no reason given for why they couldn't then put the baby back in the fire to finish baking away his ability to die.

Thetis's entire motivation in any translation or adaption of the Illiad is make sure her son doesn't die. That she didn't double-dip or put him back in the fire or do anything but these two things and the thing with forcing him to live as a woman so h wouldn't be recruited to fight in the war... Kind of a plothole.

It's magic, man, you don't get a do-over.

[Cazero]

Yes, but we are expected to believe that the characters in a story are acting towards their own interest and that they are behaving rationally unless otherwise shown that they are not of their right mind.

The thing is, we're explicitly informed that they're not behaving rationaly when some snotty brat abducting a king's wife/fiancee results in a war instead of a formal apology accompanied with the brat's head.

Kids were fongible back then, right?