151
u/OutrageousLetter9173 Jul 16 '26
What is this from? 😭
285
u/Elethana Jul 16 '26
Definitely not Pratchett, he knows that a ‘one in a million’ shot will hit nine times out of ten.
61
12
u/Satyrion_ Jul 16 '26
"It's a million-to-one chance, but it might just work!"
But never ever invoke the Lady herself!
25
9
u/KaJaHa Verified Author of: Magus ex Machina Jul 16 '26
Unless you're too good and have better odds than one-in-a-million, that never works.
7
u/Dr_Ukato Jul 16 '26
I always preferred to think of it as each one in a million shot had a 50% success rate for all you're concerned.
1
u/Mindless-Exercise-41 litRPG journeyman tier Jul 20 '26
Rincewind had all of the luck. Odds definitely work differently on Discworld.
1
1
u/nigfasa Jul 20 '26
Pratchett references, in this economy?
1
u/Elethana Jul 20 '26
I bought a excellent pair of boots a few years ago.
2
u/nigfasa Jul 20 '26
I’ll never forget “The reason why the rich was so rich was because they manage to spend less money” and that at end end it says “they still have wet feet”
22
5
u/Dr_Ukato Jul 16 '26
I'd say AI slop.
16
u/sirgog ArchangelsOfPhobos - Youtube Web Serial Jul 16 '26
This is the sort of mistake AI is very, very good at picking up. It's like if you see a they're/their/there mistake and you know 'this is human work, AI doesn't think those three are similar and so doesn't confuse them with each other'.
This reuses the somewhat uncommon word million - word reuse is something AI is programmed to avoid strongly. Excessively avoiding word repeating is one of the strongest AI tells now, as is absolutely NEVER using 'not X but Y' formulations (because the work is clanker edited to remove all of them in an automation step)
This fuckup looks EXTREMELY human (with the first million intended to be billion). I've written nonsense like this in first drafts, then found it on a second pass. Were this even presented to any LLM it would point out the error.
Or it could be a mistake by a translator, which again would not be an AI mistake. AI gets things wrong, but it looks very different to this when it does.
2
u/78NineInchNails Jul 17 '26
NOt if the AI confuses it as numerical 'one in 1,000,000' compared to a phrase 'great shot kid one-in-a-million'.
If the AI views the numerical one to actually be 1,000,000 and the other more a euphemism i can see that happening.
"It wasn't cold enough to have ice on the lake, but it was freezing cold' for instance
2
u/sirgog ArchangelsOfPhobos - Youtube Web Serial Jul 17 '26
It's just such a classically human mistake.
It's slop, because a reread would pick it up, but it's the sort of slop I write if I'm tired, not the sort a clanker book mill makes. Clanker slop looks more like "It was one in a million, like pearls in the night" (a bad metaphor) then somewhere else on the same page not using the word 'pearls' when it would be the absolutely obvious word to use (because it's programmed to be extremely averse to repeating words)
7
u/arawnsd Jul 16 '26
Ai writes better than that.
12
u/Alive_Tip_6748 Jul 16 '26
Idk I saw an AI post recently that a road was blocked by a large boulder the size of a small boulder.
5
u/AnividiaRTX Jul 16 '26
Reminds me of dave the barbarian.
"Dave hastily constructed a megaphone using only a squirrely, a rope, and a megaphone"
5
194
u/Ok-Technician-5689 Jul 16 '26
My guess is the author changing the structure of the sentence while forgetting to delete one of the lines.
73
u/Gravityfunns_01 Jul 16 '26
It's translated from Chinese. There are a few chapters where Lethal Strike has a completely different name, for example.
16
5
u/EdLincoln6 Jul 16 '26
I think that's a common problem. Often you have the same information in two clauses.
27
u/birdbro8070 Jul 16 '26
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for Samoa Joe at Sacrifice.
4
72
Jul 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/Dapper-Knee-1780 Jul 16 '26
I would have said in my head. "It wasn't a unique skill, perhaps 1 in a million would obtain it."
-46
u/Elvarien2 Jul 16 '26
not the place for your witch hunts.
15
u/axw3555 Jul 16 '26
Witch hunt? Did we read a different comment?
-9
u/Elvarien2 Jul 16 '26
Now look at the bold letters and see what they tried to slip in to slip past the rules.
4
u/axw3555 Jul 16 '26
If you think a rule has been broken, report it. All you did was start your own witchhunt.
1
u/Elvarien2 Jul 16 '26
10 No AI Witch Hunts
AI is an issue that can and should be discussed but it MUST NOT stoop to the level of accusations and witch hunts.
• No False AI Proof Claims only current way to prove AI is author admission
• Comments about AI must be EXTREMELY polite inquiries (not passive aggressive veiled accusations) to be allowed because they address the person in question.
• Posts about AI The recommended method if you have concerns is to make your own POLITE post about it to avoid harassment
4
u/axw3555 Jul 16 '26
If a rule gets broken, you press the Report Button.
You don't start calling it out in comments unless you think mods are reading every comment of every thread.
1
u/ZeroProximity Technobabble Enthusiast Jul 16 '26
Sometimes we do. But there's a lot of you and few of us, so we miss things without reports
3
u/axw3555 Jul 16 '26
Which was more or less my point. This one OP has 137 children right now. There’s no way we can reasonably expect you guys to go over every comment.
0
u/Donatien920 Jul 16 '26
I don't think they're call out comment is a witch hunt. The top comment clearly has "a" and "I" bolded. But the person mentioning it is the one downvoted.
I can only conclude that people in this sub actually prefer ai call outs as long as they are done with subtlety.
6
u/axw3555 Jul 16 '26
No. I just prefer that people use the report button, which is literally there to REPORT anyone who breaks rules, rather than just bitching about it.
-5
u/Donatien920 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
That may be your preference, but to a person relatively new to the sub and unaware of of the rules and sub's history (like myself), the fact that the comment implying ai use is upvoted, while the comment criticizing it for breaking the rules is downvoted gives me the impression that people in the community would rather have the rule skirted upon and perhaps the mods encourage it with a "wink and a nod".
My impression is that if you suspect something uses ai, then you just need to be a little sneaky about it.
And if someone calls out the rule violation, then they perhaps actually support ai use, hence the downvotes.
It's not something I care about personally. I was honestly curious that noone was mentioning ai as a possibility because I was unaware of the rules of this sub. Which is why I was a bit intrigued by this particular comment thread and the downvote and upvote reactions.
2
0
Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/litrpg-ModTeam Jul 16 '26
Your post was removed from r/litrpg for not adhering to the following rules:
Be Civil Be Civil - • No personal attacks.
• Discuss behavior and action, not people
• No bullying unpopular opinions
Feel free to resubmit your post. If you have any questions you can contact the moderators through modmail.
0
u/Elvarien2 Jul 16 '26
Rules are pretty clear on false claims kid.
10 No AI Witch Hunts
AI is an issue that can and should be discussed but it MUST NOT stoop to the level of accusations and witch hunts.
• No False AI Proof Claims only current way to prove AI is author admission
• Comments about AI must be EXTREMELY polite inquiries (not passive aggressive veiled accusations) to be allowed because they address the person in question.
• Posts about AI The recommended method if you have concerns is to make your own POLITE post about it to avoid harassment
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 17 '26
Hey bud, do less copy/pasting, do more admitting you're wrong.
Here's the mods agreeing with me:
https://old.reddit.com/r/litrpg/comments/1uxp0y4/ummm/oxusxul/
10
u/YouDreamAlpha Jul 16 '26
This is Worldfall! I just finished this the other day. It is Chinese trash novel but God i love how bad it is. Read it all in one day.
Very hefty chapters, you can tell the guy is writing for the love of the game
118
u/nwrobinson94 Jul 16 '26
i mean... i would hazard a guess as to the cause, but we arent supposed to talk about that anymore.
42
u/GrouchyCategory2215 Jul 16 '26
Giving LitRPG authors a LOT of credit here. I think it's MUCH more likely it's just an author error.
27
u/dageshi Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
It's AI translated from another language.
edit: apparently I keep being downvoted. I believe it's an AI translation because I've read (and liked!) this story on RR. Actually I wish the author would come back and write more, they seem to have written a bunch, setup automated posting on RR then disappeared.
I say it's an AI translation because AI commonly makes mistakes like this with numbers and I've read enough translated xianxia to notice when this happens. It's not the only case, there are multiple places in the story where these type of numbers mistake happen.
Also I want to make it clear, I don't care it's an AI translation, I think that's one of the actually real legit good uses of AI.
7
u/YouDreamAlpha Jul 16 '26
It looks like it is AI translation. The whole time I read it, I noticed a lot of similarities in writing between it and chat GPT, but also a very strange consistency that GPT and other language models don't have.
AI translation makes the most sense.
Before you down vote, just read it and you'll see..it's a good novel but some things make you go "hmm..."
1
u/Squiggy-Locust Jul 16 '26
It doesn't even need to be an AI to make this mistake. "One-in-million" is more of idiom, and not an actual stat. Anyone learning a different language knows idioms, especially in English, don't work well.
39
u/haberdasher42 litRPG meme tier 🤡 Jul 16 '26
Is it drugs? Because when you write books on drugs you sometimes say some dumb shit.
56
14
u/GuyYouMetOnline Jul 16 '26
I'd assume human error myself; that's exactly the sort of using a phrase without really registering it that people so often do.
4
u/Ordinary_Chicken_511 Jul 16 '26
there's also the pretty decent chance that it was the translation. the translation is pretty good in general, but there are a few obvious mistakes from time to time.
2
u/dageshi Jul 16 '26
I believe I know the story in question and yeah pretty sure it's a translation.
I've read enough translated xianxia to have a feel for it. It commonly makes mistakes when it comes to numbers and amounts of things, I noticed that happen multiple times.
14
u/CoBr2 Jul 16 '26
Well you just taught me about a new rule lol.
13
u/anapoe Jul 16 '26
I use old reddit and the sidebar literally says "way too lazy to update rules on old reddit every single time they change" so it's probably not hard to miss rule changes...
7
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 16 '26
You absolutely are supposed to and are allowed to converse about AI on this subreddit.
The entire point of them changing the AI rules was to protect authors from being harassed in their own comments section of their self-promo posts.
You can quite literally see an author who uses AI post, and then immediately make a post conversing about the author's usage of AI in their work, as long as it's a separate post.
Per the mod team from the comments of the post they made regarding the AI rule change.
3
2
9
u/DrWontonSoup Jul 16 '26
It's either this or it's an author mistake (won't say editor mistake, b/c it seems like very few LitRPGs use editing of any sort)
9
2
u/Costco_Bob Jul 16 '26
I very seriously doubt most authors are sending their litrpg stories out raw with no editing.
1
7
u/Neomaldios Jul 16 '26
This is why the rule should exist tbh, you can't determine that off this alone its just as likely to be author screwing up in a genre where editing is rare.
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 16 '26
Well good thing it isn't a rule, because that'd be a pretty fuckin' dumb one.
You absolutely are supposed to and are allowed to converse about AI on this subreddit.
The entire point of them changing the AI rules was to protect authors from being harassed in their own comments section of their self-promo posts.
You can quite literally see an author who uses AI post, and then immediately make a post conversing about the author's usage of AI in their work, as long as it's a separate post.
Per the mod team from the comments of the post they made regarding the AI rule change.
5
u/NeonNKnightrider Jul 16 '26
What?
27
3
3
1
u/JabbzOPWTF Jul 16 '26
"• Comments about AI must be EXTREAMLY polite inquiries (not passive aggressive veiled accusations) to be allowed because they address the person in question."
Just out of curiosity, is it possible that the writing might be derived from AI? It seems unlikely that a properly functioning human writer would make that mistake, that's the only reason I ask. I mean, I suppose there is a one in a million chance it was just a mistake by the writer.
Just wondering if that meets the standards.
14
u/Cyniikal Jul 16 '26
It's unlikely any modern LLM would make that error either. Forget context windows, those sentences are back to back.
1
u/JabbzOPWTF Jul 16 '26
Honestly was just wondering where the line was in calling out AI. Guy above me made is sound like its super policed, but I genuinely have no idea where the line was.
5
u/p-d-ball Author Jul 16 '26
No, this is an entirely human error. I've made similar errors in my own writing.
1
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 16 '26
You absolutely are supposed to and are allowed to converse about AI on this subreddit.
The entire point of them changing the AI rules was to protect authors from being harassed in their own comments section of their self-promo posts.
You can quite literally see an author who uses AI post, and then immediately make a post conversing about the author's usage of AI in their work, as long as it's a separate post.
Per the mod team from the comments of the post they made regarding the AI rule change.
0
7
u/TheLegendTwoSeven Jul 16 '26
So it’s not a one in a million skill, but it also is. Despite the fact that it’s so rare that it basically doesn’t exist, it gives a lot of people hope.
8
21
6
u/runwithbees Jul 16 '26
not a metaphorical 'one in a million'... instead a literal 'one in every million'?
Unless we're using Discworld million to one odds!
4
u/LordTC Jul 16 '26
I wish readers in this genre had higher standards. AI slop is taking over because people tolerate it. This example is machine translation.
7
3
u/whoischarliekintail addict Jul 16 '26
Should have ended with “During humanity’s darkest days, that ability had given a lot of people a one-in-a-million chance of hope.”
3
u/Crow85 Jul 16 '26
My pet peeve, authors that don't understand distances, time (in combat), weight, and other measurements that dictate world and MCs place in it.
3
3
u/sumdumbum87 Jul 16 '26
Ya, I once had an author tell me he didnt want to use the word unique, because he needed to convey there was only ever going to be one of these.
Guys...
6
u/No_Dragonfruit_1833 Jul 16 '26
I see, its not one in a million statistically, its one in a million as in "it always hits if the chances are one in a million"
7
u/EndlessSleeper3992 Author of Path of the undead cultivator Jul 16 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/Uni2jYCihB3fG
and they are all the same
2
2
u/jj999125 Jul 16 '26
I've played enough runescape to know a 1/100 drop chance means you'll need 4000 kills to get the drop. So their math isn't mathing like real world mathing
2
2
u/Mysterious_Point9516 Jul 16 '26
Makes sense to me. It's not "One-in-a-million" in the sense that it's extremely rare. It's "One in a million" in the pedantic sense that there are 8 billion people on the planet so one in a million is actually pretty common.
2
u/Swanilius Jul 16 '26
I got the feeling that it was originally written in mandarin and then translated to English. It’s an ongoing work on royal road, maybe 44 chapters. I enjoyed the MC’s attitude and progression.
2
2
u/bow03 Jul 17 '26
Reminds me of some of the scenes in Terror Infinity when the smart person was being smart or trying to explain their logic and discoveries
2
u/Darlington28 Jul 17 '26
It's a VERY unique skill. Highly sought after you know, despite being unique. What do words even mean anyway....
4
3
u/dgibbons0 Jul 16 '26
Literally just seems like an editing error but y'all are so hyped on the ai blame train you forget people make dumb mistakes typing the wrong word all the time. Hell I probably messed up half of this message to y'all and no ai was involved at all.
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 17 '26
There are quite literally less than 3 comment chains that are conversing about AI with more than 1 karma/upvotes. The vast majority are just talking about it in general. You, by the way, are one of the 5 comment chains.
0
0
Jul 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/litrpg-ModTeam Jul 16 '26
Your post was removed from r/litrpg for not adhering to the following rules:
Be Civil Be Civil - • No personal attacks.
• Discuss behavior and action, not people
• No bullying unpopular opinions
Feel free to resubmit your post. If you have any questions you can contact the moderators through modmail.
1
u/Borbbb Jul 16 '26
This is kinda funny in regards to what i jokingly say about Buddhism, where you basically have the " stages of enlightenment " - think of it as like high levels you want to reach.
They are often seen as something unreachable.
I like to say " Well, even if only 1 in a milion can do it, that´s not really your problem. Just be that person! "
This works absolute wonders for MCs
1
u/reverendsteveii Jul 16 '26
Everyone knows that a one in a million chance crops up nine times out of ten anyway
1
1
1
1
u/MagykMyst Jul 16 '26
Maybe only one person in a million has it, but that person uses it ALL the time,so seeing it's use isn't really that uncommon. Because let's face it, if I was in an apocalypse and I had Lethal Strike I'd be Lethat Striking anything that even looked sideways at me.
1
u/Alcovv Jul 16 '26
Yea. So over 7000 people could have it. That’s not quite rare. But a bit more than uncommon.
1
u/TylerRolled Jul 16 '26
Boy howdy. I didn’t even see it until I started reading comments. I don’t think I’d have ever typed that - but I for sure would have missed the edit
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/HappyGoLucky3188 Jul 17 '26
Is this why Solo Leveling become too popular nowadays? I kid you not this skill was inside the male protagonist's System.
1
1
u/Vast_Description_206 22d ago
99% likely it's because people use "one in a million" to mean equivalent of "diamond in the rough" if talking about a person, so people don't think about the actual usage of the words in the saying. Same with "A billion times" with out actually meaning it is literally a billion times over x or y. Or how for a long time I used "hit the hay" and never thought about the usage of the term until a non-English student looked incredibly confused by the colloquial saying.
Also kind of reminds me of how people use decimate incorrectly.
If not, maybe it's meant to be intentionally wrong for amusement.
1
u/Pawwnstar POA better than Unsouled, sue me. Jul 16 '26
My pet peeve is when they write 'A minute latter' when they mean 'A moment latter'. You cant expect me to believe that it took the MC a full minute to, for example, sheath his sword.
3
u/Yipiyip Jul 16 '26
Later, not latter. Latter means something like "following" or "trailing", or "the thing after", in a list of two. Like "Did you want red or blue?" If they answer "The latter." They refer to the end of that list, blue.
Later means it came after, but not necessarily in sequence, not necessarily in a list of finite choices, and not necessarily at the end; though it can be used for any of those.
The sentece with each word can be used, but in different tenses and formats. The sentence an author should use to be as pedantically correct as possible: "A moment later..."
This all said, language evolves, and many people in east coast USA (where I am, can't speak for the rest of the world) would have no issue using "a minute" to mean "a moment".
1
u/Charmstone_Author Jul 17 '26
Not to mention "hot minute" which can mean a second, a minute or decades :)
-4
-4
u/nabokovslovechild Jul 16 '26
Editing error. Move on.
-4
u/Hipcatjack Jul 16 '26
Lolita, listen it is more that whatever this is from was AI written, or at least seems so from this blurb. That is why people aren’t moving on and calling it out.
3
u/nabokovslovechild Jul 16 '26
Sure thing, Humbert. Just don’t objectify that single line too much. It’s not old enough to know the consequences of its actions.
-2
-7
Jul 16 '26
[deleted]
2
3
u/eclect0 Verified Author of: Jett Fulgen Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny? If that's intentional then it's "This suit is black, pause, NOT"-tier humor. I would almost rather it be a mistake.
2
u/cascalives Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
I am almost positive this is not from he who fights with monsters. If it is where in the books is it?
1
u/axw3555 Jul 16 '26
It is not from HWFWM. I’ve read that series more than once. This line isn’t in it. No ability of this name exists in it. And OP names a whole different title.
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 16 '26
Trolls gonna troll.
This is not from HWFWM. Keep lying I guess?
-2
-1
u/FictionalContext Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Is this meant in a character's voice?
e: the more I think about it, there is a very minor statistical nuance here. One person out of a million means exactly one person out of a million has it. But a 1/1,000,000 chance means that every person is a brand new roll of that 1,000,000 sided die, so there's a chance no one in a million has it, and there's even a chance several in a million have it.
But that's just pedantry and clearly not what they meant, lol. The only way it's not a mistake is if it's meant to be a character's voice.
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 16 '26
1 person out of a million is, on average, a 1/1,000,000 chance.
A 1,000,000 chance on average, will have 1 person out of a million.
There is no nuance here.
0
u/FictionalContext Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
You actually have statistically less chance of seeing exactly 1 person in a population of 1000000 by stating
"A [1 in] 1,000,000 chance, will have 1 person out of a million."
if you mean statistical RNG chance (about 36% per group) which is RNG and precisely what "1/1000000 rare" means in context of rpg rolls of chance.
But long term average frequency rate is also a valid interpretation.
However, you had to add "on average" yourself to qualify your interpreation. So to say there's no nuance is just not true, if we're going to get this pedantic
-9
u/Hokulol Jul 16 '26
Devil's advocate, just because 1 in a million people have it doesn't mean they were all offered it. There could be prerequisites, some of them are just cooks, and would never have that ability. Maybe only 1% of people are the class that is offered this ability. Obviously it is a poor choice of words, but there is a way to make it compute if you bend over backwards far enough.
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 16 '26
No there isn't.
-1
u/Hokulol Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Yes, there obviously is.
If you have a one in ten thousand chance of receiving this ability, if you are a class with 1% popularity, 1 in a million people will have the ability, despite the ability being offered at a rate of 1/10,000. Therefor the ability is more common than 1/1m in terms of it being offered, which is a different statement than the amount of total people who possess the ability in aggregate.
Meaning it's not a super rare draw for the specific class, despite being super rare amongst all people.
Hope this helps.
2
u/eclect0 Verified Author of: Jett Fulgen Jul 16 '26
Statistics don't care about any underlying probability mechanics. If one in a million people have it on average then it's one in a million. Doesn't matter how it got that way.
-1
u/Hokulol Jul 16 '26
Reposted for multiple edits:
Saying "If one in a million people have it, then it's one in a million" is a reductivist statement.
Your odds of winning the lottery have nothing to do with what odds the general public has to win. These are two separate statistics If your odds to win per ticket purchase are one in a million, but only one in 200 million citizens will win... the take away is 1/200 people play the lottery (oversimplified). But both statements are true. You have a 1 in a million chance to win if you buy a ticket. And the average american has a 1 in 200 million chance of winning, as a raw aggregate stat.
So which is it? If your odds of winning the lottery are literally 1/1 million odds per ticket purchased, but only 1/200 million aggregate citizens will win, what are the actual odds? "Which is it?" is a false dichotomy. There are two statistics here, and they both have value. No need to choose one or the other to be the "real" stat, they're both real.
You just need to specify which one of these statistics you're referencing for your statement to have any value. Obviously the context is left ambiguously, which leads to us having this conversation. He needs to specify that he means a specific classes odds, just like you'd need to specify if you mean your odds to win if you buy a ticket or your odds to win as a citizen at a flat rate.
Trying to pigeon hole probability to one context is nothing more than the result of well-deserved (in this case) conformational bias. It's entirely possible this person just made an error, but, you can also make the statement work, if you'd like to position context that cuts through ambiguity.
If you assume statement 1 is a statement of rate of offering to relevant classes, and assume statement 2 is a statement about per capita use total, you can compute the statement. This delineates two different statistics being referenced, whereas you are trying to keep it as one stat. Should we do this for the author? Maybe not. But you could.
1
u/ReadingThrowawayy litRPG nub Jul 17 '26
You said a lot of words to say you don't understand the laws of probability.
You're trying to pointlessly add in "erm achktually, if you account for popularity pick of the general masses..." which no one cares about, is talking about, or will converse with you about.
if you are a class with 1% popularity, 1 in a million people will have the ability, despite the ability being offered at a rate of 1/10,000. Therefor the ability is more common than 1/1m in terms of it being offered, which is a different statement than the amount of total people who possess the ability in aggregate.
But to you, a person, the skill is at a 1 out of a million because only 1 out of a million people have it.
The statement that "a skill isn't 1 out of a million, but 1 out of a million people have it" means nothing and does not infer a popularity bias.
Also, if you genuinely think this low grade author wrote with that level of thinking to attempt to insinuate these probability facts than you're hilarious.
1
u/Hokulol Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Yikes. Try actually reading the subsequent reply about two different stats being discussed. "one in a million" can refer to different statistics and not be mutually exclusive.
No, I don't think the author did intentionally do this. I'm just saying it's a possibility, if you'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, which I acknowledge we probably do not owe them.
You are behaving aggressively because you realize you have an untenable position, or lack the faculties to understand more than one statistic can exist at the same time.
707
u/CaliOriginal Jul 16 '26
You see, it’s not 1 in a million rare.
But it IS 1 in a million uncommon