therunner

Members
  • Content count

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

316 Bloodsealer

4 Followers

About therunner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Czech Republic
  • Interests
    Books - sci-fi (Dune, Oryx & Crake, anything by Asimov, Blindsight & Echopraxia, and a lot of others), fantasy (Anything from B.S., LoTR, Wheel of Time), and web-novels by Wildbow (Worm, Ward, Pact, Twig, Pale, with Twig/Pact being favourites)
    Movies - too many to count, but Star Wars is always good, and from more recent ones 'I'm thinking of ending things' was excellent
    occasionaly pencil drawing, but I suck at it :)
    Some sports with friends - billiard, volleyball, football
  1. We have a general answer here (but quite an old one, however I assume the basic principle 'more compression -> greater loss' still holds) Couple years later he answered a question based on this, so we could hope it still holds. So based on the WoB it is not additive, i.e. divide the time by 50, but multiplicative which will be bad. If you store x seconds at 50% capacity, then you could have x seconds at 150%, but only x/2-something at 200% and x/4-something at 250%. So ignoring the loss for the moment, it seems that tapping and compressing the attribute is exponentially inefficient going 1/(2^n) with n being the difference in percentage divided by storing factor (e.g. (250-150)/50) . if you would want to get to 50x the normal amount of attribute, you need to tap for 5000%, so the n here would be n = (5000-150)/50 = 97. So to get 1 second at 50 times the normal level, you would need 2^97 seconds of storing at 50%. That is roughly 31*10^21 years. Sadly that is a bit too long for any practical purposes, and we have still ignored the inefficiency factor. Of course it is possible that the math is not as bad, and as you go up it stops being so punishing. However as far as I know, this is the only numbers we have. And generally it seems that feats like tapping at such high compressions factors are accessible only to compounders, who would not be limited by time (up to a point of course). EDIT: Heh, realized that I have actually not answered the question exactly, so this is only covers how the attribute*time compressions seems to work (or have worked). The loss itself (the something factor) is not something we have raw numbers for, however based on his comments, it is something that also grows with more compression, so it will be increasingly relevant at higher compression factors.
  2. wax

    If I might chime in, a possible 'physical' explanation could be that what Iron Feruchemy stores is specifically gravitational mass, not an inertial one, and these two are in some way distinct in Cosmere. Gravitational mass (m_g) is what 'causes' gravity (sort of like electric charge), and so storing and tapping this would give the desired effect of lowered/increased weight. Inertial mass (m_i) is a property that describes how much an object 'resists' acceleration. In our world m_g = m_i (at least we think so, currently they seem to match to 10^(-15) precision), but if this does not hold in Cosmere, then by storing only gravitational mass you would be decreasing your weight, while not changing your speed (as that should be covered by inertial mass, I think) or increasing/decreasing your density with respect to external forces like bullets, etc. (as those interact with inertial mass of atoms, not with gravitational mass). So this would mostly explain what is going on, although there would still be a need for some magical shenanigans to explain why do I-Feruchemist not crush themselves.
  3. WoB RAFO'ed it, but if it was possible it would be incredibly difficult Since he then likens Leechers to Larkin and Nightblood, and Nightblood is far beyond any Leecher or Larkin, I don't think Leecher can really destroy a Shardblade even with Duralumin. (Nigthblood is so far the only thing capable of outright killing spren, that is not anti-investiture, Larkin never did such a thing based on what we know). EDIT (accidentaly posted early): So I don't think it is a question of being protected, but more that spren and shardblades are so much more invested that Leecher does not really stand a chance (barring special circumstances, like if you trapped a spren and leecher had time to recharge).
  4. You ok man, haven't seen you in a while

    1. therunner

      therunner

      Hey man, 
      Last couple of months have been crazy busy for me (a lot of grad school and a lot of work at the same time), so I have switched into a more passive lurker mode, because I don't really have energy for anything else. Around Christmas I should finally have some more time off, so hopefully I will recharge and start getting more active again.
      Other than that I am doing well, thanks for asking :)

  5. No. nonononono. Why did you bring me into this? Why did you drag me back? I have been free for 10 years, since that accursed summer of 2011. The meme was dormant, if not destroyed, buried deep in my psyche, where conscious though cannot reach. The best ethanols and tetrahydrocannabinols money (well, not a lot of money, but still) made sure of that. And now all the effort is for naught, as you turned it attention upon me. I curse your name for dragging me back. Anyhoo If I am to fall, I will not be alone....so.... @ScadrianTank
  6. It is not a single WoB but a combination of two. First there is this (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/69/#e6261) From which we know that metal from SoS is associated to one of nine shards we knew at the time. Technically this could still mean that Trell only stole a metal of some shard and used it for its own purpose. However we also have this WoB (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/174/#e8554) From which we know that metal from SoS confirms that the Shard associated with the metal is the same as (or is closely associated with) the entity Trell.
  7. I don't think that is necessarily true. While the bond system is designed to encourage progress, it does not force it. As @Frustration mentioned, plateauing was not unheard of, so if Radiant is comfortable at some level of Oaths, and feels they cannot/should/will not progress, they are free to do so. In Navani's example she willingly accapted first ideal (although you could argue it was under duress) and now can either progress if she will want, or stay (or safely break the bond). I don't agree, because I don't think there is any evidence that there is something supernatural making Radiants keep the Oaths. While yes, the Radiants are restricted in some of their freedoms, it is a restriction they chose and if they for some reason decide that the trade-off is not worth it they can break the bond (as Kaladin almost did, and as Shallan did). In the past it was probably more common, simply because breaking the bond would not dead-eye the spren involved. For the Dalinar example, that is a good example, but I think the issue is not the Oaths themselves and restrictions resulting, but the fact that Radiants treats Oaths as a moral system (which it is not necessarily). I think that some future Bondsmith could hold the same oaths as Dalinar, but also to think that sometimes breaking a promise is a moral thing. Radiants were not created to fight Desolations, Heralds were. Surgebinders (and their organizing into orders) was a side-effect that came from spren and other humans mimicking what was happening between Heralds and Honor. Due to social pressure they most likely were mostly fighting Desolations at first, but for vast majority of time of existence of orders no Desolation was going on, and so Radiants were effectively more strict monastic/martial order. EDIT: To be fully clear I personally believe that greater power should come with some enforceable restrictions, so to me Oath system is particularly nice in this regards. I.e. I believe that if you wish power greater than other humans, you should accept some restriction on how you can act in a trade-off.
  8. Ah, I think I misunderstood you then, you meant using F-nicrosil to store ability from a spike the feruchemist would have in themselves? On that we have only RAFO (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/398/#e13200). I would personally think they still could not, as the while the spike 'staples on' different soul, it is still different soul and without the spike it would not hold. In medallions the F-nicrosil works discretely (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/316/#e11247), which would be an argument against it storing the strength from pewter (or more specifically the kinetic investiture gained from pewter burning), but medallions are in some sense limited (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/361/#e11519) so a true Soulbearer might be able to do that.
  9. I would not think so, as the Investiture in spikes is not keyed to them (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/404/#e13536) and is most likely not in form they could use. You could burn them allomantically though for some weird effects (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/210/#e4616)
  10. Leechers would have trouble destroying Shardblades and they would die before they could do anything to Nightblood (as they/it is much more invested than even Shardblades). Generally the speed at which leecher leeches is dependent on burn rate, and they are simply much slower at this than Nightblood. Also chromium burns relatively fast On the nicrosil, that is a good question. I think Nicroburst would not really do anything to Nightblood, as Nicroburst affect only kinetic investiture, whereas Nightblood's effect seems to be inherent to it, i.e. it is a passive one.
  11. No, you said that lashing in opposite direction acts like reverse thrust, which it does not, because gravitational acceleration does not cause g-forces, because it is uniform through the entire body. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force for reference) Except with regular hammer it takes around a dozen warform parshendi (so at least 2 as strong as Rosharan) multiple minutes. Shardblade does it in 3 hits. If you are seriously suggesting that a regular blade can break Shardplate as easily as Shardblade, you are not even wrong. Do you think no one would have noticed in the last 2000 years if that was the case? There is nothing hard to understand, only that in order for the bullet to push the armor away, the armor needs to dent first. Observe bullet hitting various materials at ultra slow mo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg), see how the material deforms? That is exactly what Shardplate does not do, per every single source we have. Yes, but the force is what is important, the swing gives you much more. You will not be able to stab through armor with a dagger, period, because you physically cannot put that much force into it. EDIT: Even regular armor can stop modern small arms fire from a short distance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ZSM6qpJw8 ), and Shardplate is better than a regular plate (and 4-8 times as thick). If he is delivering the force through tip of the boot, than it could act close enough to piercing, only thing that matters is pressure (and potentially how much room there is between fibers potentially). Dozen of Singers Beating on it for minutes. It clearly has very different material properties from non-magical materials, but you are seriously underplaying how durable it is. No, for very simple reason, Shardblades are at least as thin as edges of regular blade potentially thinner (depending on how to interpret the comment that cutting stone with them is not useful as you cannot really pull it away), so they are still quite good at resisting shard edges. Spears are very poor against armor. And if those spears are in any way useful, why did no one use them to break Kaladin's plate, or at least easily crack a section?
  12. I don't want to get too into this again, but Moash joined Alethi military and was put into bridge crews. See the quote on previous page, nowhere is it stated that it was punishment, it was simply what he (and others) were assigned to do. So clearly at least volunteers can be put into bridge crews. (which has no bearing on their treatment) For reference
  13. Neither dahns nor nahns seem to necessarily play a role in military, or to be more precise, military ranks overrules socials rank in military context. See Kaladin and Tien's (both of second or third nahn) positions in Amaram's army, or Kaladin's position as captain of Dalinar's personal guard (as there were some lighteyes of lower ranks there). So this does not seem to be special to bridge crews but general way Alethi military functions. We have no evidence that they could have been sold outside of bridge crew context. In fairness we also don't really have evidence that they could not have been (outside of them not all being legally slaves). Fair enough. To me calling them 'slaves' without any qualifier is precisely de-contextualization, as you are applying a word which in their context carries different meaning (i.e. 'bridge crew member' =/= 'slave' to a Rosharan, as they understand the word slave differently, and despite there being some overlap there are also differences). I think calling them bridge crews (or Sadeas' bridge crew) should be sufficient, because we all know exactly what they went through and how were they treated, so there is a little possibility of misunderstanding. As we seem to be approaching this from different viewpoints, we will most likely never agree on this so agreeing to disagree is I think the best way forward. Agreed, I never even expected this to become a discussion in the first place as I never intended for it to be a part of my argument, merely a sidenote.
  14. @Honorless Because to characters themselves it would not be slavery, nor would they call it that I think. They perception of the situation is different, and the word slavery carries a different meaning for them. Calling their situation 'slave-like' or saying 'they were treated like slaves', would be okay to me as it defines the relationship by similarity to what we understand as slavery but does not add factually wrong statement. I apologize if it seems pedantic, but to me it feels wrong to call them literally slaves when in their context they were not, as that would imply things like depressed wages for the same job, tenth dahn, being able to buy and sell them even outside of context of bridge crews etc.
  15. I do think that we should view those actions through at least two lenses, our contemporary one and the one characters themselves would have (or as close as possible). That is because our contemporary lens is biased as well, albeit differently then theirs is. For example the slavery debate, our modern perspective on what constitutes slavery is very different from that of people in history, or from that on people on Roshar. We might call what happened to Bridge crews slavery, but to them it was not, as to them slavery is a social institution that carries greater implications than what happened to them. (I am not trying to restart that discussion again, only use it to illustrate my point). As someone who does not think morality is something inherent to humans (outside of some basic preference for behaviors helping an in-group) I don't think our moral standards are necessarily superior to those of other cultures, present or past (or fictional). Some behaviors are obviously acceptable by culture despite being harmful to in-group (i.e. human sacrifice, various more risky rites etc.), but some which are individually harmful can be beneficial to group as a whole (i.e. conscription and war). You can think of society/civilization as a super-organism comprising all the people (and potentially also animals) in it, and just as an organism can take actions that benefit them as a whole at a cost of some parts (i.e. hurt a limb to save themselves) so can society take actions that hurt some members to save the entire society (and more people). Ideally if such actions can be avoided, they should be, but sometimes they cannot. Above I was only outlining my views on this in general, obviously the entire war on Shattered Plains is unnecessary posturing, hence any actions taken up until the start of Last Desolation cannot be justified through this lens. Now, personally I do find conscription to be immoral, but not to the same extent as slavery. To me conscription is generally speaking still several steps better (of course that also depends on precise details of the conscription process and terms). And morality of conscription also depends on context. Conscript for war of conquest? Not good. Conscript for defensive war? Much more justifiable.