[P2TM Chat] The Restaurant at the End of the Multiverse III

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Question, if a noble family have twins of the same gender born at the same time while trying to produce an heir,who do they choose as the heir?

Whichever one popped out first.

[Rupudska]

Good titles are hard.

For a moment, I actually read that as 'titties'. ._.

I need help.

Good titties are not usually hard, except for certain parts. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Achesia]

For a moment, I actually read that as 'titties'. ._.

I need help.

Good titties are not usually hard, except for certain parts. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

What else do you cut your glass with?

[Seraven]

Question, if a noble family have twins of the same gender born at the same time while trying to produce an heir,who do they choose as the heir?

The more competent one at politics, nobility, social life.

[Achesia]

Question, if a noble family have twins of the same gender born at the same time while trying to produce an heir,who do they choose as the heir?

See: Star Wars, The Old Republic, Knights of the Fallen Empire

[Agritum]

Question, if a noble family have twins of the same gender born at the same time while trying to produce an heir,who do they choose as the heir?

The first child to be literally taken from the womb is the eldest one.

[Wolfenium]

Question, if a noble family have twins of the same gender born at the same time while trying to produce an heir,who do they choose as the heir?

The first child to be literally taken from the womb is the eldest one.

I suppose it makes things easier for a second son to usurp power. Just steal the elder twin's identity. And crown. And wife. :^)

[Agritum]

The first child to be literally taken from the womb is the eldest one.

I suppose it makes things easier for a second son to usurp power. Just steal the elder twin's identity. And crown. And wife. :^)

*Iron Mask Intensifies*

[Minroz]

Damn, quite intrigued. Noble things.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

Good titles are hard.

For a moment, I actually read that as 'titties'. ._.

I need help.

Don't worry, it happens to all of us.

I once read something as "no panties."

[The Burning Sun]

Oh no, I've been noticed.


I've really been noticed!

*vanishes into Gaylluminati bunker*

There's a Gaylluminati now? And here I thought the world was run by oil barons, bankers, arms dealers and multinational corporations.

Pffft, those are just puppets literally. Ever since the original Illuminati died, it's been a constant cycle of mutual brainwashing. Nobody really knows who's in charge.

[Benuty]

I completely forgot this existed.

[Kinky Bastards]

There's a Gaylluminati now? And here I thought the world was run by oil barons, bankers, arms dealers and multinational corporations.

Pffft, those are just puppets literally. Ever since the original Illuminati died, it's been a constant cycle of mutual brainwashing. Nobody really knows who's in charge.

This has been a valuable lesson. Thank you!

Anyway, would anyone be interested in an Astérix RP?

[Wolfenium]

'Tis the season to be crazy! Santa's going to need to rethink his 'coal for bad kids' policy, fast. It's not working, and it's evironmental murder.

[Nature-Spirits]

'Tis the season to be crazy! Santa's going to need to rethink his 'coal for bad kids' policy, fast. It's not working, and it's evironmental murder.

Vote Krampus for a more sustainable Christmas.

[New Neros]

Any interest in a Code Geass roleplay? Right before the Holidays? Me either.

[Wolfenium]

'Tis the season to be crazy! Santa's going to need to rethink his 'coal for bad kids' policy, fast. It's not working, and it's evironmental murder.

Vote Krampus for a more sustainable Christmas.

No reward for bad behaviour! Vote Krampus!

And suddenly, I want a quick election thread RP between Krampus and Santa. ( ･ิω･ิ)

[Rupudska]

'Tis the season to be crazy! Santa's going to need to rethink his 'coal for bad kids' policy, fast. It's not working, and it's evironmental murder.

Bad and naughty children will now be placed in the pear wiggler to atone for their crimes, as coal is not environmentally friendly and Santa has very good reasons to care about that.

[Seraven]

I'm THIS close to call someone an ignorant prick in NSG.

[Minroz]

'Tis the season to be crazy! Santa's going to need to rethink his 'coal for bad kids' policy, fast. It's not working, and it's evironmental murder.

Instead of snow, it'll be nothing more than smog for everyone if that happens.

Who likes smog? :3

[Alleniana]

Realistically most of the kids who believe in Santa (western kids), and of course it's only kids who believe in him who get presents generally, are not going to have the facilities or desire to burn coal, nor transport it those who do, especially due to economic scale. Because the coal won't be burnt, Santa is actually doing a kind of weird carbon storage, which is more of a good thing. Obviously, marginal costs such as transport (reindeer farts perhaps) and the energy cost of mining are significant, but those are low compared to most consumer goods (assuming Santa's sleigh is relatively environmentally friendly and does not need the kind of power say, an airplane does [magic isn't environmentally unfriendly is it?]) and Santa is in a way driving the price of coal up thus making coal-fired energy less viable, assuming he procures his coal from a source which might be accessible to others, and at market price. Of course, the counterargument may exist that he is driving up capital investment in coal, but the supply only rises to meet demand, and at least converting the demand from coal fire to coal for stockings reduces carbon released into the atmosphere in the end.

Furthermore, Santa may be culturally influencing the world against coal, by giving it only to "bad" kids, who despite potentially liking to be labelled "bad", are still going to prefer good presents (which would be coal if they really wanted coal, so no need to be bad just to get coal, also). Associating coal with bad will ultimately turn public opinion against coal, especially when children who knew of Santa grow up and reach voting age, and/or become the politically relevant generation of adults. Even if there is no active change in the rate of those who believe coal is associated with bad, Santa would seem to at least keep this rate artificially high as opposed to if he were not present. The effect in general is unclear but good may be reasonably assumed to be more preferable to most than bad.

Looking at opportunity cost, increased coal consumption by Santa means reduced present consumption; the environmental friendliness of Santa's workshop is unclear, despite his promotion of "green" (along with red... Santa an inside out watermelon, maybe?) but this reduction should at least be noted for further consideration.

In conclusion, Santa's policy of giving coal to bad children reduces carbon emissions as the coal he gives to children is most probably not burnt, and avoids being burnt permanently most probably. Less significant auxiliary phenomena to Santa's activity are also present.

[The Burning Sun]

Realistically most of the kids who believe in Santa (western kids), and of course it's only kids who believe in him who get presents generally, are not going to have the facilities or desire to burn coal, nor transport it those who do, especially due to economic scale. Because the coal won't be burnt, Santa is actually doing a kind of weird carbon storage, which is more of a good thing. Obviously, marginal costs such as transport (reindeer farts perhaps) and the energy cost of mining are significant, but those are low compared to most consumer goods (assuming Santa's sleigh is relatively environmentally friendly and does not need the kind of power say, an airplane does [magic isn't environmentally unfriendly is it?]) and Santa is in a way driving the price of coal up thus making coal-fired energy less viable, assuming he procures his coal from a source which might be accessible to others, and at market price. Of course, the counterargument may exist that he is driving up capital investment in coal, but the supply only rises to meet demand, and at least converting the demand from coal fire to coal for stockings reduces carbon released into the atmosphere in the end.

Furthermore, Santa may be culturally influencing the world against coal, by giving it only to "bad" kids, who despite potentially liking to be labelled "bad", are still going to prefer good presents (which would be coal if they really wanted coal, so no need to be bad just to get coal, also). Associating coal with bad will ultimately turn public opinion against coal, especially when children who knew of Santa grow up and reach voting age, and/or become the politically relevant generation of adults. Even if there is no active change in the rate of those who believe coal is associated with bad, Santa would seem to at least keep this rate artificially high as opposed to if he were not present. The effect in general is unclear but good may be reasonably assumed to be more preferable to most than bad.

Looking at opportunity cost, increased coal consumption by Santa means reduced present consumption; the environmental friendliness of Santa's workshop is unclear, despite his promotion of "green" (along with red... Santa an inside out watermelon, maybe?) but this reduction should at least be noted for further consideration.

In conclusion, Santa's policy of giving coal to bad children reduces carbon emissions as the coal he gives to children is most probably not burnt, and avoids being burnt permanently most probably. Less significant auxiliary phenomena to Santa's activity are also present.

You forgot about how Santa will cause a global depression by single-handedly crashing the coal market and wiping out a large chunk of the energy industry.

Unfortunately, the resulting economic downturn will leave many families totally destitute and homeless, with nothing but the coal of their bad children to burn for heat during the winter. Coal emissions with thus inevitably increase, except now nobody has enough money to invest in clean energy and the world is doomed.

[Nature-Spirits]

Realistically most of the kids who believe in Santa (western kids), and of course it's only kids who believe in him who get presents generally, are not going to have the facilities or desire to burn coal, nor transport it those who do, especially due to economic scale. Because the coal won't be burnt, Santa is actually doing a kind of weird carbon storage, which is more of a good thing. Obviously, marginal costs such as transport (reindeer farts perhaps) and the energy cost of mining are significant, but those are low compared to most consumer goods (assuming Santa's sleigh is relatively environmentally friendly and does not need the kind of power say, an airplane does [magic isn't environmentally unfriendly is it?]) and Santa is in a way driving the price of coal up thus making coal-fired energy less viable, assuming he procures his coal from a source which might be accessible to others, and at market price. Of course, the counterargument may exist that he is driving up capital investment in coal, but the supply only rises to meet demand, and at least converting the demand from coal fire to coal for stockings reduces carbon released into the atmosphere in the end.

Furthermore, Santa may be culturally influencing the world against coal, by giving it only to "bad" kids, who despite potentially liking to be labelled "bad", are still going to prefer good presents (which would be coal if they really wanted coal, so no need to be bad just to get coal, also). Associating coal with bad will ultimately turn public opinion against coal, especially when children who knew of Santa grow up and reach voting age, and/or become the politically relevant generation of adults. Even if there is no active change in the rate of those who believe coal is associated with bad, Santa would seem to at least keep this rate artificially high as opposed to if he were not present. The effect in general is unclear but good may be reasonably assumed to be more preferable to most than bad.

Looking at opportunity cost, increased coal consumption by Santa means reduced present consumption; the environmental friendliness of Santa's workshop is unclear, despite his promotion of "green" (along with red... Santa an inside out watermelon, maybe?) but this reduction should at least be noted for further consideration.

In conclusion, Santa's policy of giving coal to bad children reduces carbon emissions as the coal he gives to children is most probably not burnt, and avoids being burnt permanently most probably. Less significant auxiliary phenomena to Santa's activity are also present.

You forgot about how Santa will cause a global depression by single-handedly crashing the coal market and wiping out a large chunk of the energy industry.

Unfortunately, the resulting economic downturn will leave many families totally destitute and homeless, with nothing but the coal of their bad children to burn for heat during the winter. Coal emissions with thus inevitably increase, except now nobody has enough money to invest in clean energy and the world is doomed.

This is only assuming that the current capitalist system remains in place. Santa -- especially given his penchant for the colour red and habit of distributing presents at no cost -- is obviously a socialist, although it is unclear how ethical the working conditions of his elves are. In any case, it can be assumed that Santa would support a workers' revolution (for humans, at least), ensuring a green communist future for mankind and making coal obsolete.

That said, it is possible that Santa's regime remains unethical due to elf exploitation. This is where Krampus comes in: he serves to rally the elves to revolt, and they will seize the means of toy production from the increasingly-authoritarian Santa. Krampus also serves to find and punish counterrevolutionaries and capitalists, ensuring that humankind never regresses back to the unsustainable ways of the past.

[Alleniana]

You forgot about how Santa will cause a global depression by single-handedly crashing the coal market and wiping out a large chunk of the energy industry.

Unfortunately, the resulting economic downturn will leave many families totally destitute and homeless, with nothing but the coal of their bad children to burn for heat during the winter. Coal emissions with thus inevitably increase, except now nobody has enough money to invest in clean energy and the world is doomed.

This is only assuming that the current capitalist system remains in place. Santa -- especially given his penchant for the colour red and habit of distributing presents at no cost -- is obviously a socialist, although it is unclear how ethical the working conditions of his elves are. In any case, it can be assumed that Santa would support a workers' revolution (for humans, at least), ensuring a green communist future for mankind and making coal obsolete.

That said, it is possible that Santa's regime remains unethical due to elf exploitation. This is where Krampus comes in: he serves to rally the elves to revolt, and they will seize the means of toy production from the increasingly-authoritarian Santa. Krampus also serves to find and punish counterrevolutionaries and capitalists, ensuring that humankind never regresses back to the unsustainable ways of the past.

I'm not sure Santa has the volume needed to crash the market; even supposing he gives five full kilograms to each naughty child, and assuming all children receive coal and are naughty, then we come to 1.9 billion children * 5 kg = 9.5 billion kg of coal, or 9.5 million tonnes, equal to less than 2.5% of the total production of bituminous coal in Australia in the 2010-2011 financial year^[1].

However, assuming the inherent flaws of capitalism, or instability in the transition away from it will produce economic downturn to the point where coal use will be increased is not overly implausible.

Even that considered, though, despite Santa's socialistic tendencies, may not subscribe to "mainstream" Marxist doctrine; given he has little history of agitating for revolution, he may well be a gradualist, a democratic socialist, an entryist, a pacifist socialist, a trade unionist, a fellow traveller, even. His socialism may even be questioned; capitalism has had a significant impact on him, e.g. the Coca Cola interventions of the 20th century, though the potential entryism of Coca Cola may be otherwise discussed.

The elves' conditions are unclear; inspection seems to suggest that the HDI of the North Pole is very high, and there is no evidence of dissent in what publication we do have^[2]. It may even be possible that the media suppresses details of the North Pole in the fears that it will provide a working model for socialism, though I personally believe this level of conspiracy is overstated and nonexistent. The North Pole may simply be a well-organised commune, endowed by magical natural and elvish/human resources, and even provides an example of interspecies cooperation. Its population may be below the Dunbar number, or the number may be different for elves. The role of Santa in the North Pole suggests some level of hierarchy; it may be suggested Santa is therefore, if socialist, not an anarcho-socialist, or is a Marxist-Leninist, or holds some other vanguardist position.

The Krampus is a revolutionarily oriented figure, indeed, but his affiliation to Santa is unclear; he may be a North Poler. He also does not promote any doctrine but revolution, which is troubling.

[Wolfenium]

This is only assuming that the current capitalist system remains in place. Santa -- especially given his penchant for the colour red and habit of distributing presents at no cost -- is obviously a socialist, although it is unclear how ethical the working conditions of his elves are. In any case, it can be assumed that Santa would support a workers' revolution (for humans, at least), ensuring a green communist future for mankind and making coal obsolete.

That said, it is possible that Santa's regime remains unethical due to elf exploitation. This is where Krampus comes in: he serves to rally the elves to revolt, and they will seize the means of toy production from the increasingly-authoritarian Santa. Krampus also serves to find and punish counterrevolutionaries and capitalists, ensuring that humankind never regresses back to the unsustainable ways of the past.

I'm not sure Santa has the volume needed to crash the market; even supposing he gives five full kilograms to each naughty child, and assuming all children receive coal and are naughty, then we come to 1.9 billion children * 5 kg = 9.5 billion kg of coal, or 9.5 million tonnes, equal to less than 2.5% of the total production of bituminous coal in Australia in the 2010-2011 financial year^[1].

However, assuming the inherent flaws of capitalism, or instability in the transition away from it will produce economic downturn to the point where coal use will be increased is not overly implausible.

Even that considered, though, despite Santa's socialistic tendencies, may not subscribe to "mainstream" Marxist doctrine; given he has little history of agitating for revolution, he may well be a gradualist, a democratic socialist, an entryist, a pacifist socialist, a trade unionist, a fellow traveller, even. His socialism may even be questioned; capitalism has had a significant impact on him, e.g. the Coca Cola interventions of the 20th century, though the potential entryism of Coca Cola may be otherwise discussed.

The elves' conditions are unclear; inspection seems to suggest that the HDI of the North Pole is very high, and there is no evidence of dissent in what publication we do have^[2]. It may even be possible that the media suppresses details of the North Pole in the fears that it will provide a working model for socialism, though I personally believe this level of conspiracy is overstated and nonexistent. The North Pole may simply be a well-organised commune, endowed by magical natural and elvish/human resources, and even provides an example of interspecies cooperation. Its population may be below the Dunbar number, or the number may be different for elves. The role of Santa in the North Pole suggests some level of hierarchy; it may be suggested Santa is therefore, if socialist, not an anarcho-socialist, or is a Marxist-Leninist, or holds some other vanguardist position.

The Krampus is a revolutionarily oriented figure, indeed, but his affiliation to Santa is unclear; he may be a North Poler. He also does not promote any doctrine but revolution, which is troubling.

Well, whatever Santa's ideological leaning, it can't be denied that the North Pole's diplomatic relations with the Western World is rock solid, as are relations with most Christian-majority countries. Media in the United States have shown a shocking lack of criticism for North Polar domestic affairs, not unlike the lack of information in the First World on the continuing plight of Sub-Saharan African countries. Santa's total control over domestic media and internet only served to blur the reality of his regime in the North Pole further. Dissent only appears to be non-existent, but it's entirely possible his security apparatus ensures that no dissent is ever heard of, even among the local elfen population.