Editing Talk:1862: Particle Properties
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
As suggested by Zach Weinersmith ([https://twitter.com/zachweiner/status/885154434514395138 "For a joke: If you put pure alcohol under extreme pressure, could you claim to exceed 200 proof?"]), it's kind of confusing that the comic suggests alcohol proof can exceed 200 proof, and also that baseball batting averages can exceed 100%. Although on further review, they use the arrow-dot →∙ notation rather than the dot-arrow ∙→, so maybe it's not intended to indicate a lack of an upper bound. But then I'm not sure what it does indicate, esp. compared to the Electric Charge property. Continuous vs. discrete? It doesn't seem clear… [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 15:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC) | As suggested by Zach Weinersmith ([https://twitter.com/zachweiner/status/885154434514395138 "For a joke: If you put pure alcohol under extreme pressure, could you claim to exceed 200 proof?"]), it's kind of confusing that the comic suggests alcohol proof can exceed 200 proof, and also that baseball batting averages can exceed 100%. Although on further review, they use the arrow-dot →∙ notation rather than the dot-arrow ∙→, so maybe it's not intended to indicate a lack of an upper bound. But then I'm not sure what it does indicate, esp. compared to the Electric Charge property. Continuous vs. discrete? It doesn't seem clear… [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 15:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
:I think the arrow-dot is meant to mean "approaches, but does not (usually) reach" -- asymptotic behavior, in other words. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.15|162.158.62.15]] 16:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | :I think the arrow-dot is meant to mean "approaches, but does not (usually) reach" -- asymptotic behavior, in other words. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.15|162.158.62.15]] 16:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
Proof is presumably US proof - UK usage based on gunpowder 175 degrees proof would be 100% alcohol | Proof is presumably US proof - UK usage based on gunpowder 175 degrees proof would be 100% alcohol | ||
Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
Actually, D&D calls you "dead" if you go to your NEGATIVE hit point maximum. Otherwise, you make a completely random (50%) death saving throw. After 3 cumulative fails, you die. After 3 cumulative successes, you are stable. More info can be found in the {{w|Player's Handbook}}. [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC) | Actually, D&D calls you "dead" if you go to your NEGATIVE hit point maximum. Otherwise, you make a completely random (50%) death saving throw. After 3 cumulative fails, you die. After 3 cumulative successes, you are stable. More info can be found in the {{w|Player's Handbook}}. [[User:SilverMagpie|SilverMagpie]] ([[User talk:SilverMagpie|talk]]) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
:According to the rules I know (Editions 3, 3.5 and Pathfinder) it's: 0 HP = unconscious; [-1; -CON) = dying (-> lose 1 HP each round unless you make a successful CON check); -CON = dead. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions/#TOC-Dead [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | :According to the rules I know (Editions 3, 3.5 and Pathfinder) it's: 0 HP = unconscious; [-1; -CON) = dying (-> lose 1 HP each round unless you make a successful CON check); -CON = dead. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions/#TOC-Dead [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
"Heat" measured in jalapeño has also been used by some email systems such as Eudora to measure how strong an email message is (e.g., whether it will lead to a flame war) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.46|198.41.238.46]] 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | "Heat" measured in jalapeño has also been used by some email systems such as Eudora to measure how strong an email message is (e.g., whether it will lead to a flame war) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.46|198.41.238.46]] 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
Line 36: | Line 34: | ||
Pretty sure the jalapeños are from ratemyprofessor.com: the tell is the grayed out one for zero [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.81|162.158.62.81]] 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | Pretty sure the jalapeños are from ratemyprofessor.com: the tell is the grayed out one for zero [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.81|162.158.62.81]] 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |