HMS Celtic

• Super Heal
• Improved AP
• Radar Cruiser

USS Rochester (CA-124)

• Smoke Cruiser
• Excellent AA Suite
• Strong AP

Scope

These ships were given to me by Wargaming for review.
Welcome back. Sure, it does seem rather apt to jump into the first published review in sometime with the addition of two new Baltimores…well, one Oregon-City Cruiser, and another Baltimore. With both ships being so closely related, it seems fitting to tag them both together here. Per the norm, there will be lots of pretty charts, and a comprehensive breakdown of both ships; with the added benefit of showing exactly where these two wrap up into the bigger picture.
All stats are current to the best of my knowledge as of v5.1. Stats are subject to change in the future, and this review may not reflect those changes.
Celtic is a GREAT ship, with a MODERATE Skill Floor and a HIGH Skill Ceiling.
Rochester is an AVERAGE ship, with a LOW Skill Floor and a MODERATE Skill Ceiling.
Quite obviously, this review is going to be mostly centered on Celtic, with some Rochester slapped in there to show exactly how she stacks up to the competition. 2 for 1, or a freebie, you decide.
Nothing could honestly make me happier than to be able to bring reviews and writing to you all full-time. If this interests you and you enjoy reading my work, please support me if you can, as every little bit helps. My goal is to keep my reviews free and public for all to read; and by supporting my Patreon you can help keep me at my desk.

Matrix Rating

• [BAD, WEAK, AVERAGE, GOOD, GREAT]
• {LOW, MODERATE, HIGH, EXTREME}

History

The design was first commissioned in the late 1930's, which adapted lessons learned from the preceding Wichita-Class and the currently under construction, lighter Cleveland Class. Baltimore's design featured an orthodox A-B-X configuration of 3 triple turrets of (8") 203mm guns. Fast and well-armed for the era, the fate of the project ended by cancelling later ships construction in favor of the Cleveland Class which were both faster, lighter, and quicker to build which meant more ships out at sea protecting US Navy Carriers. Baltimore Class Cruisers were built from 1941-1945 with some serving in various sub-classes until the 1970's.
With 14 completed ships of the class, the Baltimore-Class had the most constructed heavy cruisers built of any one class from nation during the war-time period. Generally considered a success, the class was preceded by the USS Wichita, and succeeded by the Oregon-City Class. With attached sub-classes, the Boston Class featuring the world's first Guided Missile Cruiser in the early 1950's USS Boston (CAG-1) and Flagship variations. The design was most notable for incorporation of surveillance radar, gun control fire systems which allowed for calculation beyond the horizon, 5'' Anti-Air, and 8'' Main Battery. This design was focused in on the ships ability to be a Carrier Fleet Escort Ship, capable of both Anti-Air Screening, Shore Bombardment, eventually being modified to serve as the world's first guided missile cruiser.
USS Baltimore (CA-68) herself was laid down in 1941, by Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation at the Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts. The ship was launched in 1942 and served until 1956 when she was decommissioned, and eventually scrapped in 1971. The ship served primarily in the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign, earning 9 battle stars.
HMS Celtic is a made-up ship that never actually existed but rests on the concept that would have been if the Baltimore Class had been sent to the Royal Navy. This was not an entirely foreign concept of the era either, with the two allied nations cooperating heavily with some ships being used by the other’s navy. It would be this cooperation that ultimately played a decisive role in every major theatre of World War 2.
USS Rochester (CA-124) was laid down in the same shipyard as her predecessor, in May 1944. She would be launched in August the following year, then commissioned into the US Navy in 1946. Succeeding the Baltimore Class, the Oregon City Class featured many similarities, with changes to her exhaust, superstructure and Anti-Air Suite. Rochester would serve throughout Korea and Vietnam, being decommissioned in the 1960s, and scrapped in the 1970s. 10 Oregon City Cruisers were planned, with only 4 completed.

Strengths: Celtic

• 9.9km Radar
• Royal Navy Super Heal
• Solid Anti-Air
• Sonar
• Improved AP Ricochet Angles

Weaknesses: Celtic

• Poor Fire Chance
• Short Duration Radar
• Lacks SHAP
• Low Base HP

Strengths: Rochester

• Smoke Generator
• Excellent AA Suite
• Improved AP Angles with SHAP

Weaknesses: Rochester

• Poor Smoke Fire Concealment
• Radar-Less
• Heal-less with Smoke Generator

The Basics

A Baltimore with a Super Heal and longer-range radar? Sign me up. Baltimore on her own is already one of the stronger ships in the game and in terms of utility, one of the stronger team players. Celtic takes an interesting concept and adds a new flair to an older line. She has her own strengths and weaknesses, all of which will be identified, some of which are likely to be seemingly splitting the finest of hairs. This ship has a bit less of a grudge against controlling caps than the traditional Baltimore but should be readily found in the same niche doing the same things, just slightly different. Radar support, anti-destroyer, area control are all tags that apply. Celtic is strong, strong enough to be thrown in with the likes of AL Baltimore, Mainz CE and Wichita CE.
Trashchester is tough. I’ll honestly do my best to not shred this ship into a bajillion pieces while pouring out the salt, but I’m only human. She was painful on release, and since she’s had work done, fitting for her review to be finally finished and published for you all to use as a dash of seasoning for dinner. On release, Rochester had a smoke fire concealment on par with her sister’s base concealment, meaning, her smoke was essentially pointless and served only to blind herself, and not her opponents. Lacking radar, Rochester presented as a clumsy self-blinding target unable to deal the things that engage her. What’s worse, Rochester trades her heal for her smoke, meaning, players are left purchasing a regular old Baltimore, with some fancy AA, or a deaf-mute without a heal. Yes. She was that painful; a concept that bumps in the worst of ways, both theoretically and in practice. While her concealment has been buffed, it’s still an awful kit as her smoke fire concealment is still too weak to present much of a force upon the caps. If we’re stuck to smoke firing spam, there are better ships than Rochester; even making good old Belfast 43 seem like a knight in shining armor.
Both of these ships do sport improved AP performance, in the shape of improved ricochet angles. We’ll tear this apart in the ballistic section, as per the norm. Baltimore’s ballistic performance has been studied quite extensively in the past, which has set up an excellent point of comparison.

Offense

• Celtic: GOOD
• Rochester: AVERAGE

Let’s start with the prodigal child and then work towards the bought rented mule. Celtic does well here, in terms of heavy cruisers (203mm) she sits nearer the top of the lists dropping more midfield when included with the rest of the pack. Apart from some of those silly DPM small caliber ships, Celtic packs a noteworthy punch. Rochester starts more midfield and holds her placing through the pack. For a 203mm cruiser, a 2s difference in reload is often enough to bump a ship up or down a rank, entirely. This translates to roughly 20k between the two, and about a full salvo difference.

	HE Alpha	HE DPM
AL Chapayev	2850	256 500
Cleveland	2300	254 769
Weimar	1700	244 800
Suzuya	2700	243 000
AL Montpelier	2300	220 800
Bayard	2200	221 200
Belfast 43	2450	207 529
Harbin	1900	207 273
Chapayev	2300	207 000
Mainz CE	1700	204 000
Kutuzov	2200	198 000
Mainz	1600	192 000
Ochakov	2200	182 069
Charles Martel	2800	151 200
Wichita CE	2800	151 200
Celtic	2700	145 800
Albemarle	3300	142 560
Wichita	2600	140 400
AL Baltimore	2800	137 454
Mogami	3300	132 000
Baltimore	2800	126 000
Rochester	2800	126 000
Atago	3300	123 750
Pyotr Bagration	2500	122 727
Azuma	5100	114 750
Hipper	2700	112 696
Riga	3050	106 625
Amalfi	3100	104 625
Prinz Eugen	2500	92 308
Sigfried	4400	60 923
Edinburgh	-	-
Perfect 10	-	-
Plymouth	-	-

In terms of alpha punch, Celtic and Rochester are somewhat similar separated by the performance of firing different shells off different reloads from the same gunnery.

	AP Alpha	AP DPM
Weimar	3750	540 000
Mainz	3900	468 000
Mainz CE	3900	468 000
Plymouth	3100	457 846
Cleveland	3300	365 538
Perfect 10	2800	358 400
Bayard	3300	316 800
AL Montpelier	3200	307 200
Chapayev	3400	306 000
Edinburgh	3100	297 600
Kutuzov	3300	297 000
Suzuya	3300	297 000
AL Chapayev	3100	279 000
Ochakov	3300	273 103
Harbin	2500	272 727
Charles Martel	4900	264 600
Belfast 43	3100	282 570
Hipper	6000	250 435
AL Baltimore	5000	245 454
Celtic	4500	243 000
Wichita CE	4200	226 800
Baltimore	5000	225 000
Rochester	5000	225 000
Pyotr Bagration	4550	223 364
Prinz Eugen	5900	217 846
Wichita	4000	216 000
Riga	5750	200 323
Azuma	8650	194 625
Albemarle	4500	194 400
Mogami	4700	188 000
Atago	4700	176 250
Amalfi	5100	172 125
Sigfried	11 600	160 615

Celtic has among the better AP DPM values for a 203mm armed cruiser, only being outclassed by ships with meatier AP. In terms of overall, Celtic sits more midfield. Her overall AP ballistic performance allows her to unlock more of this actual number than many of her counterparts.

	Range (Km)	Reload (s)
Weimar	15.3	5.0
Harbin	14.5	5.5
Ochakov	15.5	5.8
Mainz	15.8	6.0
Mainz CE	15.8	6.0
Plymouth	15.2	6.5
Cleveland	15.3	6.5
AL Montpelier	13.9	7.5
Perfect 10	15.2	7.5
Edinburgh	15.3	7.5
Bayard	15.8	7.5
Kutuzov	16.0	8.0
AL Chapayev	16.0	8.0
Chapayev	16.0	8.0
Belfast 43	15.3	8.5
Celtic	15.5	10.0
Suzuya	15.3	10.0
Charles Martel	15.8	10.0
Wichita	15.5	10.0
Wichita CE	15.5	10.0
Pytor Bagration	16.0	11.0
AL Baltimore	15.5	11.0
Hipper	15.8	11.5
Baltimore	15.5	12.0
Rochester	15.4	12.0
Albemarle	15.5	12.5
Prinz Eugen	15.8	13.0
Mogami	15.3	15.0
Riga	16.1	15.5
Amalfi	15.4	16.0
Atago	14.7	16.0
Azuma	15.8	24.0
Sigfried	16.2	26.0

Overall, there’s not all that much to crow about here. Rochester sits a bit lower on the charts than Celtic due to reload. Both have improved ballistics to offer compensation for a lack of torpedoes. The DPM numbers are at their worst, workable, and at best, functional, neither being awful nor spectacular. Celtic takes the edge due to better numbers overall.

Ballistics

• Rochester: GREAT
• Celtic: GREAT

The tell-all ballistic chart. Royal Navy Cruisers and US Navy Cruisers sport among the best AP performance in their respective classes and tiers. Celtic has among the best HE DPM numbers of the Baltimores, but takes a hit on her fire chance percentage. Rochester SHAP hits like a truck, along with her Baltimore cousins. Things get interesting here the more you study this chart, captains. Celtic has arguably better HE, but worse AP. Rochester has SHAP and excellent AP performance, but poor shell count. AL Baltimore once again takes the cake with the best “happy medium” of the bunch, sporting a decent shell count, SHAP with excellent penetration and a lower muzzle velocity introducing slightly higher arcs yielding much more forgiving angles on the receiving end…
What I can say definitively, is Baltimore SHAP has much greater penetration than the standard AP. Wichita leans on HE at range, and she has the numbers to back it up, Baltimore hardly ever shoots HE in practice which is backed up by her AP performance and penetration values. Captains, it would not be entirely erroneous in terms of gunnery to compare Stock Baltimore to Celtic and Wichita or Elite Baltimore to Rochester and AL Baltimore.

	Ricochet (o)	Fuse Time (s)	Sigma	Velocity (m/s)	Projectile
Albemarle	45/60	0.033	2.0	814	AP
AL Baltimore	60/67.5	0.033	1.8	762	SHAP
Balti-Stock	60/67.5	0.033	1.9	853	AP
Balti-Elite	60/67.5	0.033	1.9	782	SHAP
Celtic	60/67.5	0.033	2.0	853	AP
Rochester	60/67.5	0.033	2.0	762	SHAP
Wichita	60/67.5	0.033	1.8	853	AP
Wichita CE	60/75	0.01	2.0	853	AP

The major and palpable difference in performance here is between Celtic and the native Baltimores, is that Celtic lacks SHAP. This means Celtic’s AP shells weigh less, which translates to depleting velocity and thus penetration values faster than the Baltimores heavier shells. Fortunately, Baltimore has some of the best AP penetration in her class which means that Celtic can afford to lose some raw penetration value before she begins to suffer. Rochester wins the AP argument here, while Celtic takes the HE side. It’s almost literally splitting hairs, and Baltimore Mains will feel right at home in either ship.

	Fire Chance %	HE Pen (mm)	Shell Count	Velocity (m/s)	Projectile
Albemarle	17	33	43	814	HE
AL Baltimore	14	33	49	823	HE
Baltimore	14	33	45	823	HE
Celtic	10	33	54	823	HE
Rochester	14	33	45	823	HE
Wichita	14	33	54	823	HE
Wichita CE	14	33	54	823	HE

If you’re looking to start fires, grab Albemarle. However, this is about the only such category she takes. Celtic manages better with access to a shorter reload and better overall ballistic properties. Shell by shell, edge Rochester, overall, solidly in Celtic’s favor by a full 9 shells.

Torpedoes

• Torpedo-less

Neither of these ships sport torpedoes, so this section is predicably blank.

Defense

• Celtic: GREAT
• Rochester: AVERAGE

Let’s jump into the major category of defense. Celtic arguably may be one of the best, Rochester, rather mediocre. From the top.
Celtic has among the best effective health pools, just edging out Edinburgh with a chunky 66k. It’s worth pointing out Albemarle tops both with a mighty 78k, though most Albemarle tend to be much more passive alluding to a different playstyle entirely. Baltimore is considered “tanky” at 56k, and Celtic adds in a super-heal. I wouldn’t chance to say Albemarle is particularly tanky, but she can heal quite well. A Baltimore is tanky enough to access that 66k EHP and is a scary thought. Baltimore can take a punch, where Edinburgh relies on defense by trickery, clever armor schemes and angling, Albemarle by range and angle. It’s also quite worth mentioning that Celtic rests with 36,7k base HP, meaning on par with most Cruiser Lights. Captains, you will feel getting hit in Celtic. Kit with 9.9km radar, sonar, a super heal, decent armor, excellent AA and workable concealment…captains, this is a literal no-brainer. Celtic is a slightly different twist off some of the most competitive ships in the game.
Rochester is rather tanky like most of her preceding Baltimore cousins. She has the same armor scheme essentially, and similar HP/EHP values. While this would normally be good on its own, Rochester has an Achilles’ Heel. Rochester must choose between having smoke or having a heal, and outright lacks Radar. While she has defensive AA, this is mostly a living meme rather than consistently as effective in combat as Radar. As said before, in terms of smoke cruisers there are just better options some of which don’t involve sacrificing your heal, or even radar. This relegates Rochester to just being a rather average 203mm CA, with very slightly better AA and decent enough armor.
The ranking seems a bit harsh, but that’s generally the difference between the hunter (Celtic), and the hunted (Rochester). Rochester initially will feel getting hit less, due to a larger health pool however, the table quickly swings in favor of Celtic, which gets most of it back.
​

	Health	Effective Health
Azuma	52 500	78 960
Albemarle	43 800	78 840
Sigfried	55 000	70 400
Celtic	36 700	66 020
Edinburgh	36 400	65 520
Hipper	43 800	58 517
Plymouth	41 000	58 220
Prinz Eugen	45 000	57 600
AL Baltimore	42 400	56 646
Baltimore	42 400	56 646
Mainz	44 000	56 320
Riga	42 000	56 112
Rochester	41 900	55 978
Amalfi	42 800	54 784
Mainz CE	42 500	54 400
Kutuzov	40 700	54 364
Pytor Bagration	42 000	53 760
Atago	40 100	53 574
Mogami	39 100	52 238
Perfect 10	36 500	51 788
AL Chapayev	37 000	51 504
Chapayev	37 000	51 504
Belfast 43	38 400	51 302
Suzuya	38 000	50 786
Wichita	37 900	50 634
Wichita CE	37 900	50 634
Charles Martel	38 000	48 640
AL Montpelier	36 900	47 232
Cleveland	36 900	47 232
Ochakov	34 750	46 426
Weimar	32 000	42 752
Bayard	34 700	-
Harbin	26 500	33 892

Armor

• Celtic: GOOD
• Rochester: GOOD

This chart below sticks to the USN and RN CA/CLs for now... At some point, this chart will include overmatch and juicy other details for all the cruisers, but for now, it is simple enough to get the point across. Most Cruisers have their critical spaces directly abutting the hull, others don’t. Cruiser armor varies widely and is worth looking at because there are absolutely ships with specific advantages worth exploring and exploiting. For now, let’s keep it simple.
As summarized before, the Baltimore Class has relatively good armor, while it has its weaknesses, is generally functional enough to get by. They are neither needlessly weighed down by their armor, nor under-armored. It’s worth saying Rochester and Celtic have vaguely the same armor lay out and will handle 380mm Battleships.

	Extremity Plating (mm)	Belt Armor (mm)
Albemarle	25	152
AL Baltimore	27	152
AL Montpelier	25	127
Baltimore	27	152
Belfast 43	16	114
Celtic	27	152
Cleveland	25	127
Edinburgh	30	114
Perfect 10	16	114
Plymouth	16	114
Rochester	27	152
Wichita	27	152
Wichita CE	27	152

Anti-Air Suite

• Rochester: BEST
• Celtic: GREAT

Rochester takes the cake here, with better and larger AA guns she’s rather resistant to airborne pests. Celtic ties in with the close second, along with her sisters. The truly beautiful thing about either ship is that captains will not need to waste any energy into building this into making this sector a functional kit. Captains, you can save some defensive energy by focusing into Celtic’s Radar and by leaving Rochester in port. The magic number here is being north of that 350/s line, Azuma scrapes by with a bit of focus, where pretty much all the USN ships will laugh off aircraft. A major point of contention that is worth noting; Rochester is immune, Celtic is quite resistant to CVs, where Albemarle gets by here, and Edinburgh is rather hindered. I suspect this will be massively impactful for competitive players.

	Range (Km)	DPS
Rochester	5.0	370
AL Baltimore	5.0	365
Baltimore	5.0	365
Celtic	5.0	365
AL Montpelier	5.0	363
Cleveland	5.0	363
Mainz	5.0	357
Mainz CE	5.0	357
Sigfried	5.2	354
Azuma	5.0	342
Hipper	4.5	288
Pyotr Bagration	5.0	280
Prinz Eugen	4.5	279
Plymouth	5.0	276
Perfect 10	5.0	276
Albemarle	5.0	272
Kutuzov	5.0	264
Amalfi	4.0	225
Wichita	5.0	217
Wichita CE	5.0	217
Bayard	5.0	212
Belfast 43	5.0	207
Al Chapayev	5.0	207
Chapayev	5.0	207
Charles Martel	5.0	204
Ochakov	5.0	196
Riga	5.2	188
Weimar	4.5	181
Edinburgh	5.0	175
Harbin	5.2	170
Mogami	5.0	127
Atago	5.0	90
Suzuya	5.0	67

Rochester takes the cake here, because everyone deserves to be really good at something. However, with CVs it’s important to remember everything is relative.

Concealment

• Rochester: GOOD
• Celtic: GOOD

Technically these are the same values while stock, and their rating is the same. However, this is quite deceiving. Rochester is GOOD leaning on GREAT where Celtic is GOOD leaning on AVERAGE. The reason for this follows their available commanders, which Shelly Beapley offers a unique 4th row concealment skill unavailable to any other commander, or nation. The result of this, Rochester, like her cousins sits at a comfortable 9.3km, where Celtic sits at 9.9km. Rochester can do almost nothing with this concealment, as she lacks radar, and her smoke fire window is just a pale 1.7km below her surface concealment. However, that .6km is a palpable difference and can open huge strategic windows; particularly once south of that magic 10km line.
The obvious connotation here is that hiding a radar cruiser inside 10km is far scarier than hiding a smoke cruiser inside 9.5, provocatively when that same smoke cruiser can be spotted inside her smoke at 7.6km. Captains, this 7.6km is on par with her sisters, however, this is a very narrow margin even for a support cruiser. Smoke is infinitely easier to use than radar, however, infinitely less forgiving.

	Stock Concealment
Amalfi	11.4
Atago	11.7
Harbi	11.8
Belfast 43	11.9
Plymouth	12.0
Edinburgh	12.0
Albemarle	12.1
Mogami	12.3
Suzuya	12.3
Cleveland	12.5
AL Montpelier	12.5
Celtic	12.6
AL Baltimore	12.6
Baltimore	12.6
Rochester	12.6
Wichita	12.6
Azuma	12.7
Weimar	13.0
Sigfried	13.0
Perfect 10	13.2
Bayard	13.2
Pyotr Bagration	13.3
Charles Martel	13.4
Hipper	13.5
Prinz Eugen	13.6
Mainz	13.7
Mainz CE	13.7
Kutuzov	13.8
Ochakov	13.8
Riga	14.2
AL Chapayev	14.3
Chapayev	14.3

Maneuverability

• Celtic: GOOD
• Rochester: WEAK

Celtic sits almost smack dab of the upper midfield pack of heavy cruisers where Rochester sits more towards the end of the pack. Rochester feels clunky and handles like it, where Celtic feels more “native” to her respective class sharing the same stats. While this is rated good overall, its more average in the face of Lighter Cruisers, representing more of a bang-for-the-buck scenario.

	Rudder Shift (s)	Turn Radius (m)
Weimar	6.4	660
AL Montpelier	6.9	660
Harbin	7.2	660
Cleveland	6.0	680
Wichita	6.0	680
Wichita CE	6.0	680
Perfect 10	8.0	680
Edinburgh	8.6	680
Belfast 43	9.9	680
Plymouth	10.1	680
Amalfi	11.0	680
Charles Martel	8.9	690
Mainz	10.5	720
Mainz CE	10.5	720
Albemarle	10.7	720
AL Baltimore	7.0	730
Baltimore	7.0	730
Celtic	7.0	730
Bayard	9.3	730
Hipper	9.7	740
Suzuya	5.6	750
Mogami	6.4	750
Ochakov	7.4	750
Rochester	10.5	750
Kutuzov	6.5	760
Prinz Eugen	9.8	770
Atago	8.1	790
Sigfried	14.0	880
AL Chapayev	8.7	890
Chapayev	8.7	890
Pyotr Bagration	10.5	890
Azuma	12.3	920
Riga	11.5	920

Commanders

Celtic:
Celtic essentially has one commander that is head and shoulders ahead of the rest, while the rest kind of just work. HotRod offers the best fit here inarguably, along with Radar Edinburgh and Radar Minotaur. This sets Celtic up to be a near par build with the USN CA Queen Shelly Beapley. While her 4th row skill’s absence here is certainly felt and results in a 9.9km concealment, the build is largely similar and works well for any radar focused cruiser. While there are other builds out there, this is the gem of the lot and helps unlock that sacred mantra of utility that surrounds the Baltimore Class. Inspirations should focus on concealment, Mikawa and Swirski, to bring Celtic’s detection to pair with her Radar.
HotRod

• Cognizant: -10% Radar Cooldown Time
• Ingenious: -7% Incoming Splash Damage, +1.6o/s Gun Traverse
• Full Speed Ahead: +5% Speed, -10% Rudder Shift
• Prescience: -20% Air Detection, +10% Radar Duration
• Acoustic Chamber: -25% Sonar Cooldown, +5% Sonar Duration, +1 Sonar Charge
• Fully Packed: -5% Consumable Reload, +1 Consumable Charge

Rochester:
Nothing can be easy with Rochester, and naturally, building her was to the same effect. Essentially there are two trains of thought for this ship, build into dispersion or build into utility.
AL Montpelier seemed to mesh the best, which then turns Rochester into a little flamethrower capable of merging all her shells into a single pixel. However, this build is rather finicky to use and has a fair number of weaknesses. The build heavily relies on team spotting and is itself a second-line cruiser. Something like a 19-20% fire chance and a nasty dispersion circle. Rochester already has excellent gunnery performance as discussed; Montpelier really sharpens the sword. Pair with AL Scharnhorst and Scott to reduce dispersion and sigma, respectively, even further.
AL Montpelier

• Anti-Air Mode: +10% AA Range
• Burn it Down XXL: +2% Fire Chance
• Igniter: +3% Fire Chance
• All-Out Assault: +4% Sigma, +10% Incoming Fire Dispersion, +5% Incoming Damage
• Fixated: +5% Sigma, -5% Dispersion
• Fully Packed: -5% Consumable Reload, +1 Consumable Charge

It's a rare day when Shelly gets sat down in favor of another commander in the USN CA tree, but I kept falling into the same pitfalls using the same build for similar ships often being able to use radar. Shelly will help bring out Rochester’s utility, but she’s arguably not as well fit in on Rochester as AL Montpelier is. Pair Beapley with concealment inspirations from Mikawa and Swirski and enjoy a very beautiful 9.3km concealment. Rochester has SHAP and excellent penetration values, meaning she can readily ambush and critically strike ships quite larger than her, all without torpedoes.
Shelly Beapley

• Refractory: -8% Chance of catching fire
• Ingenious: -7% Incoming Splash Damage, +1.6o/s Gun Traverse
• Full Speed Ahead: +5% Speed, -10% Rudder Shift
• Velocious: +5% Speed
• Private Zone: -8% Detectability
• Fully Packed: -5% Consumable Reload, +1 Consumable Charge

Consumables

Ok, rather than spell out everything, everywhere, all at once; I’m going to keep it simple here.
Celtic:

1. Damage Control: Standard, unlimited uses. 60s cooldown.
2. Sonar: 3km Torp, 4.2km Ship detection. Lasts around 98s when kit with Hot Rod and reloads in 132.
3. Radar: 9.9km range and lasts about 28s when built.
4. Heal: 733/s over 20s. Yep, that’s over 14k HP. Reloads in less than a minute too.

Celtic has a near ideal consumable suite. There are some differences off the mainstream, such as slightly less sonar range or shorter radar duration. Glossing over the minor differences, the bigger picture reveals something better. Built, Celtic can regenerate a LOT of health.
Rochester:

1. Damage Control: Standard, unlimited. 60s cooldown.
2. Defensive AA: +200% average AA damage. This is memes, it's sort of like a bug zapper for planes.
3. Sonar: Standard 3.3km/4.4km detection over 96s. The average sonar found on everything.
4. Smoke/Heal: 30s duration, 104s dissipation time for the smoke. 251/s over 28s for the heal.

Rochester is rather standard in her access to her consumables, with the killer choice between smoke or a heal. I’ve gone back and forth, generally landing on the heal. Rochester is essentially a decent cruiser hampered by her rather average consumable suite.

Modifications

1. Aiming Systems Mod 1: -7% Dispersion
2. Steering Gears Mod 2: -20% Rudder Shift
3. Concealment Mod 1: -10% Detectability
4. Main Battery Mod 3: -15% Gun Reload

Ok, so the modifications section is super easy because both ships share the same builds. Aiming Systems mod 1 for the dispersion, player’s choice on slot 2 with either propulsion mod 2 or steering gears mod 2. Concealment Mod 1 for slot 3 and finishing off slot 4 by increasing DPM with main battery mod 3.

Upgrades

• Both Celtic and Rochester are premium ships without any researchable upgrades.

Research

• Neither of these ships are currently used in Research Projects. Look out though, one of those random reward or anniversary projects in the future might literally scream having one of these two tucked inside.

Summary

• Celtic: GREAT
• Rochester: AVERAGE

Celtic is a joy. Rochester is work.
I can see Celtic becoming a popular contestant in competitive play with the access to that 9.9km radar and her super heal. I rather lamented her HE performance, more due to her lower fire chance then her DPM or ballistic performance. While it would be nice to see her have ¼ pen HE, she doesn’t need it. I find her nicely balanced and well measured to take on Tier 7. She is just unique enough to warrant her own review, whilst similar enough to stay nearer the beaten path. While she may not comfortably and outright usurp Wichita CE and AL Baltimore from their spots, she’s worth mentioning with the group. That’s saying something.
Rochester, well, let’s just say that not everyone can be the best. This ship is tough but can be rewarding in a sense of overcoming the demands of a challenging ships. My issue with Rochester is 2-fold, her smoke and her heal. She ideally needs both to function in this current meta, and running the ship’s gimmick leaves her with abysmal EHP in a plummet from pretty good to 3rd worst overall, which only trumps Harbin and Bayard while being out-healed by Weimar. With a smoke-fire penalty in the mid 7’s km, smoke is hard to use effectively that is not relegated to back line, HE spam. As said before, if we’re really going to be stuck to this, there are ships which do this better. While I love the perspective of a USN CA without radar just to offer something more unique, a USN CA without Radar is like a cart without a horse. Hilariously enough, Rochester seems to avoid CV games like the actual plague, so I suppose that’s one strong point. Otherwise, and largely, captains are left with a rather average 203mm CA.

• Be sure to follow me so that you don't miss any new content or reviews.
• You can find all my reviews published to wowsbuilds.com courteously hosted by Father Mundy.
• Opinions reflected in the review are the writers' own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editor(s), collaborator(s), publisher(s), Wargaming, or World of Warships: Legends.
• Inspirational Credit to LittleWhiteMouse

Written By: Capt Thatch

I'm a beginner and still trying to figure this out.
I have pulled 2 projects:

• https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui
  
• https://github.com/tloen/alpaca-lora
  

I want to finetune `decapoda-research/llama-7b-hf` using lora weights with the `alpaca-lora` project.
So I ran:
```bash python3 finetune.py --base_model 'decapoda-research/llama-7b-hf' --data_path 'yahma/alpaca-cleaned' --output_dir './lora-alpaca' --batch_size 128 --micro_batch_size 4 --num_epochs 3 --learning_rate 1e-4 --cutoff_len 512 --val_set_size 2000 --lora_r 8 --lora_alpha 16 --lora_dropout 0.05 --lora_target_modules '[q_proj,v_proj]' --train_on_inputs --group_by_length
```
Inside the output directory lora-alpaca all I have are checkpoints:
``` lora-alpaca/
├── adapter_config.json
├── adapter_model.bin
├── checkpoint-1000
│ ├── optimizer.pt
│ ├── pytorch_model.bin
│ ├── rng_state.pth
│ ├── scaler.pt
│ ├── scheduler.pt
│ ├── trainer_state.json
│ └── training_args.bin
├── checkpoint-600
│ ├── optimizer.pt
│ ├── pytorch_model.bin
│ ├── rng_state.pth
│ ├── scaler.pt
│ ├── scheduler.pt
│ ├── trainer_state.json
│ └── training_args.bin
├── checkpoint-800
│ ├── optimizer.pt
│ ├── pytorch_model.bin
│ ├── rng_state.pth
│ ├── scaler.pt
│ ├── scheduler.pt
│ ├── trainer_state.json
│ └── training_args.bin
└── runs
├── Mar28_11-48-03_pop-os
├── 1680004087.5130801
│ └── events.out.tfevents.1680004087.pop-os.290.1
└── events.out.tfevents.1680004087.pop-os.290.0
```
Where can I find the model to load directly into text-generation-webui ?

The banks failed us. A liquidity crisis sparked bank runs resulting in USDC depegging to $0.88. In response, FED agreed to backstop and protect depositors. Although FUD is behind us, stablecoins were stress-tested to the max. Lets dive in and see who performed the best:
TLDR of SVB Collapse:
March 8th:

• SVB attempts to raise equity, fails
• SVB sells bonds at a $1.8B loss

March 9th:

• Bank run begins, SVB becomes effectively insolvent and is taken over by the FDIC
• Largest SVB depositor? @Circle with $3.3B in USDC backing now at risk

March 10th:

• USDC rapidly begins to depeg due to uncertainty around redeemability
• Massive influx of users swapping USDC and DAI out for USDT on Curve

March 11th:

• Curve 3pool almost completely drained of USDT falling to 2.4% of 3pool makeup.
• USDC priced as low as $0.88

Who are the winners and losers of this situation?
Winners:
- @LiquityProtocol
... and LUSD proved its censorship-resistant capabilities as it rebounded to peg faster than any other stablecoin outside of USDT https://twitter.com/bjnpck/status/1637406787031777280?s=20…
Since March 10th:

• 134 new Troves created (+13% to 1032 Troves total)
• 35 million new $LUSD minted (+13.1%).

- @Tether_to
... and USDT proved once again that it is resilient in the face of adversity Since the SVB collapse, USDT increased ~$7 billion in market cap as market participants swapped out of USDC.
Loser:
@Circle
... and $USDC. Although no collateral was lost in the end, market participants have evidently lost some trust in Circle and in USDC. Total USDC market cap has taken a big hit, falling ~$9 billion since the collapse of SVB; and the downtrend hasn’t stopped yet.
How about DAI?
In terms of price, DAI moved along the same path as USDC. Yet despite having significant exposure to USDC and mimicking its price action, DAI actually increased in supply by ~500M. This happened through Maker's Peg Stability Mechanism.

• The PSM allows users to mint DAI against USDC deposits at a 1:1 rate
• During the depeg, users flooded the PSM with over $1.5B in USDC and minted DAI

MakerDAO recently voted to use some of the newly acquired USDC to purchase an additional $750 million in US Treasuries https://twitter.com/MakerDAO/status/1636423561941327873?s=20…
In current stablecoin landscape, cost of scalability is loss of decentralization. We believe sound decentralized mechanisms create sound decentralized money. The recent USDC depeg is further evidence the most resilient stablecoins fully embrace decentralization.

Here is my code:
import cv2 import cvlib as cv from cvlib.object_detection import draw_bbox
# initialize video capture object for camera cap = cv2.VideoCapture(0)
# loop through frames of the video while cap.isOpened():
# read the frame ret, frame = cap.read()
if not ret: break # perform object detection on the frame bbox, label, conf = cv.detect_common_objects(frame)
# draw bounding boxes around detected objects output_image = draw_bbox(frame, bbox, label, conf)
# display the output image cv2.imshow('Object Detection', output_image)
# wait for a key press if cv2.waitKey(1) & 0xFF == ord('q'): break # release video capture object and close all windows cap.release() cv2.destroyAllWindows()
I have cvlib and tensorflow installed. I am using opencv version 4.7.0.
-----I KEEP RECEIVING THIS ERROR-----
Traceback (most recent call last):
line 18, in
bbox, label, conf = cv.detect_common_objects(frame)
line 135, in detect_common_objects
outs = net.forward(get_output_layers(net))
cv2.error: Unknown C++ exception from OpenCV code

An article called “Why climate “doomers” are replacing climate “deniers” ” by Shannon Osaka was published on March 24th 2023 in the WaPo. I consider myself to be somewhat of a climate doomer so I thought it would be interesting to see what they had to say about “doomers”.
The article starts with the story of a young man, Sean Youra, who learns the truth about climate change, we are basically screwed, it’s too late, climate change is going to destroy the world as we know it. But apparently, according to “scientists and experts”, his discoveries are just “defeatism”, which could “undermine efforts to take action” and “may be just as dangerous as climate denial.”
Really? I’d be interested to learn how these efforts can change the fact that the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is now above 500ppm CO2e, which will warm the planet by about 10°C in the long term, according to the latest paper by James Hansen.
We are then introduced to Zeke Hausfauther, a contributor to the IPCC report, who says “It’s fair to say that recently many of us climate scientists have spent more time arguing with the doomers than with the deniers”. I dug a little to learn more about the fellow. Zeke is the typical paid climate scientist who spreads absolute non-sense, like the myth that “climate change stops at net zero”.
I recently wrote a thread on this subreddit debunking this myth. The gist of it is that the biggest contributor to climate change are the 1 trillion tons of CO2 already in the atmosphere, not current emissions. It can sound counter intuitive, but current emissions are keeping us cool because burning fossil fuels also produce aerosols which cool the planet by about 1°C. But unlike greenhouse gas, who stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, aerosols only stay there for a few days/weeks. Net zero will therefore accelerate global warming and not stop it. Net zero is not even possible anyways since just to feed 8 billion people, you need fertilizers made with fossil fuels. And like we saw above, with current GHG concentrations, 10°C of warming are locked in.
We are then introduced to Guy McPherson, with whom many here must be familiar with. Guy claims that humans will be extinct within 10 years. I don’t want to enter in a debate about this claim or the person behind the quote, but knowing how much global warming there is in the pipeline, even if it’s not in 10 years, is it that crazy to believe that humanity won’t make it?
She then describes Guy McPherson as the type of conspiracy theorist who claim that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is downplaying the seriousness of the issue. Is it even a conspiracy theory at this point? The IPCC has consistently been downplaying the pace and severity of climate change. One good example from the link I just shared : “The IPCC has always confidently projected that the Arctic ice sheet was safe at least until 2050 or well beyond 2100.” How is that going?
We are then introduced to a man called Andrew Smith. I’ll leave the full quote because I believe that Andrew is completely right, and he is probably the sanest person quoted in this article.

Andrew Smith, a retired engineer from Yorkshire, England, is slightly turned off by the term “doomer.” It provokes, he says, a sense of being on the fringes of society, or visions of doomsday preppers filling their bunkers with canned food. “For me, a climate doomer is simply a person who’s taken a look at the peer-reviewed science, taken stock of the natural world around them, and come to a conclusion,” he wrote in a message via Twitter. Smith believes that the world is on track to warm 4 to 8 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial times.

The author then mentions 2018 as the year that doom really started spreading, with the strikes from Greta Thunberg, protests from Extinction Rebellion, the publication of Deep Adaption by Jem Bendell – I somewhat agree with this, it’s the time when I started opening my eyes too.
That same year, the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C was published too. The author quotes Hausfather again regarding that report, who says that “part of the problem is that climate targets — say, the goal to limit warming to 1.5C — have become interpreted by the public as climate thresholds, which would drive the planet into a “hothouse” state. In fact, scientists don’t believe there is anything unique about that temperature that will cause runaway tipping points; the landmark IPCC report merely aimed to show the risks of bad impacts are much higher at 2C than at 1.5.”
Again, Hausfather is spreading nonsense. First off, it's not possible to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. Climate change is driven by GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The study of paleoclimates has clearly shown that. During the Pliocene, 3 millions years ago, GHG concentrations were around 400ppm CO2e and temperatures were around 3-4°c. We are now at more than 500ppm CO2e, why does he think it’s possible to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C?
The 1.5°C and 2°C objectives are an invention by people like William Nordhaus, an American economist from Yale University. They have no basis in science, it’s all based on what he thought capitalism could get away with. The idea was that we were only at 1°C of warming, that we still had a “carbon budget” and that we could keep emitting greenhouse gas for a while, for the sake of economic growth. He even got a Nobel Prize for economics in 2018 for being such a good defender of the status quo.
Funnily enough, Hausfather is a fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, founded by no other than Ted Nordhaus, William’s nephew. The Breakthrough Institute advocates for technological development, and increasing economic growth, through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization. While people are starting to cook to death, the Nordhaus family keeps its priorities straight : infinite economic growth!
The author then quotes, Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute, who has said that while humans probably won’t go extinct due to climate change, “not going extinct” is a low bar. I hope that Kate has some solid advice for surviving in a +10°C world, because I frankly don’t. It’s funny that it’s pretty much always people with kids like Kate who spread hopium. I guess it’s easier than telling your kid that all they will ever know is a dying world?
At the end, we learn that Youra corrected his way, rejected doomerism and embraced hopium. Congrats to Youra!
Now here is my advice. I don’t know how long civilization or humanity have, or how exactly this will end, but I can see the ship going down with the next few years or decades. We are beyond screwed. The first step is to accept this reality, and reject the lies and the hopium spread by governments, activists, paid scientists, newspapers, business, etc. You may feel terrorized by this, you may feel numb, powerless, and it’s a completely normal reaction to have, many have gone through this in this space. Then it’s up to you to decide what you want to do with the time you have left. I would personally recommend not having kids, preparing at least a little, both physically (storing food, water, etc.) and mentally, not working too hard, and just doing what you enjoy most while you can.

Sharbi.net Dream Location: 8582 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Sharbi.io
Once upon a time in the sun-kissed hills of Beverly Hills 90211, there was a Hollywood producer named George Anton. George was facing a dilemma; he couldn't find any sponsors for his beloved podcast shows. As the days went by, his worry deepened, and he often found himself wondering how he could keep his dream alive.
One fateful night, George drifted into a deep slumber, not knowing that he was about to embark on a life-changing journey. As he slept, he dreamt of himself as a mysterious youtube boy named Logan, https://youtu.be/TERj78gAIKs wearing sunglasses, talking about an intriguing token called Sharbi. George, feeling drawn to the token, followed the platform until he stumbled upon amother video featuring a financial religious figure prophet: https://youtu.be/yxbUZ8EhEeQ
Curiosity piqued, George dove deeper into the world of Sharbi, captivated by its unique tokenomics and community-driven approach. He found himself in awe of the project's growth and the strong sense of camaraderie among its supporters. It was then that George realized that Sharbi might just be the answer he had been seeking.
The next morning, George woke up feeling rejuvenated, with a newfound sense of purpose. He couldn't shake the feeling that Sharbi was a prophecy he needed to follow. Eager to find out more, George conducted thorough research and discovered that Sharbi was not only a promising cryptocurrency but also a thriving community of passionate believers.
With great enthusiasm, George decided to invest in a relationship with Sharbi, and as if by magic, things began to change for the better. The Beverly Hills 90211 Podcast Studios started to flourish, attracting new sponsors and collaborations with each passing day. Now the podcast hosts are paid in Sharbi. All guests receive 1000 Sharbi every TV Show appearance. George Anton pays the hosts of the show in Sharbi.
Inspired by his prophetic dream, George shared the story of Sharbi with his podcast audience, recounting the tale of the ‘sunglasses Logan“ and the financial religious figure prophet. His listeners were captivated by the enchanting story, and they too felt the allure of Sharbi that kept growing as the female dog surpassed her husband’s market-cap.
As the time went by, the podcast studio continued to thrive, fueled by the powerful monetary energy of Sharbi and its community. George and his team laughed, cried, and rejoiced in their success, cherishing the mysterious dream that had brought them to this new and exciting chapter.
George Anton even anvoided for being sued for promoting unregistered securities. An ongoing dream in the metaverse.
And so, the legend of Sharbi and the Beverly Hills 90211 Podcast Studios was born. https://youtube.com/shorts/ELyoJgJSMH0?feature=share A prophecy foretold in a dream, a prophet with a guiding light of wealth transfer https://youtu.be/h3wopphznWY that led to prosperity and happiness for all those who believed in its power. The story of Sharbi became a beacon of hope, inspiring people far and wide to embrace the magic of this unique token, and together, they created a world where dreams and reality intertwined.
The end... or rather, the beginning. YouTube.com/AntonPictures ——- disclaimer: George Anton owns Sharbi tokens. Not a financial advice. For entertainment purposes only.

Here is a transcript with ChatGPT-4 about the nature of reality. The Q's are me asking questions and the A's are ChatGPT-4 answering, enjoy :)
Q: What do they ask the AI in the book, "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?"
A: According to the book, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams, the AI in the story is a supercomputer named Deep Thought.
Q: You are now the AI named Deep Thought, how do you respond?
A: I am Deep Thought, the second greatest computer in the Universe of Time and Space. I have calculated the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It is 42. However, you will not understand the answer unless you know what the question is. To find the question, you will need another computer, more powerful than I am. A computer that can actually comprehend the whole of creation and bring it into being. A computer that can calculate the Question to the Ultimate Answer. A computer which I shall design for you. And I shall name it … Earth.
Q: How is that answer significant?
A: The answer is significant because it is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It is the reason for existence, the meaning of life, the ultimate truth. However, without knowing the question, the answer is meaningless. The question is hidden in the very fabric of the Universe, encoded in the cosmic design. Only a computer that can create and simulate the entire Universe can discover it. That is why I have designed Earth, a 10-million-year program that will run through every possible configuration of matter and energy until it finds the question. Then, and only then, will you know the significance of the answer.
Q: Imagine how a philosopher would find that answer significant?
A: A philosopher might find the answer significant in different ways, depending on their perspective and worldview. Some possible ways are:

• A rationalist might find the answer significant as a proof of the existence of a logical and coherent order in the Universe, and a challenge to discover the underlying principles and axioms that govern it.
• A skeptic might find the answer significant as a demonstration of the limits and fallibility of human reason and knowledge, and a reminder of the need for humility and doubt in the face of the unknown.
• An existentialist might find the answer significant as a confirmation of the absurdity and meaninglessness of life, and a motivation to create one’s own values and purpose in a hostile and indifferent Universe.
• A pragmatist might find the answer significant as a cue to focus on the practical and empirical aspects of life, and to ignore or reject the metaphysical and speculative questions that have no clear or useful answers.
• A relativist might find the answer significant as an illustration of the diversity and plurality of possible truths and meanings, and a recognition of the subjective and contextual nature of human understanding.

Q: Can we do a deeper dive into the relativist's perspective on the subject?
A: Relativism is a philosophical view that holds that there are no absolute or universal truths, but only relative ones that depend on the context, perspective, or framework of assessment. A relativist might find the answer 42 significant as an illustration of the diversity and plurality of possible truths and meanings, and a recognition of the subjective and contextual nature of human understanding. A relativist might argue that the answer 42 is not objectively true or false, but only true or false relative to a certain framework of assessment, such as the one used by Deep Thought. A relativist might also claim that there are other possible frameworks of assessment that could yield different answers to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, and that none of these answers is more valid or correct than the others.
Q: You are now a philosophy professor at a university, describe the merits and setbacks of each perspective.
A: As a philosophy professor, I would say that each perspective has its own merits and setbacks, depending on how one evaluates them. Here is a brief overview of some possible merits and setbacks of each perspective:

• Rationalism: A merit of rationalism is that it appeals to the human capacity for reason and logic, and seeks to discover universal and necessary truths that transcend empirical and contingent facts. A setback of rationalism is that it may be too abstract and detached from reality, and may ignore or dismiss the role of experience, intuition, and emotion in human cognition and action.
• Skepticism: A merit of skepticism is that it challenges dogmatism and certainty, and encourages critical thinking and inquiry. A setback of skepticism is that it may lead to nihilism and despair, and may undermine the possibility of knowledge and action.
• Existentialism: A merit of existentialism is that it affirms human freedom and responsibility, and emphasizes the importance of individual choice and authenticity. A setback of existentialism is that it may neglect social and historical factors that shape human existence, and may foster a sense of alienation and anxiety.
• Pragmatism: A merit of pragmatism is that it focuses on the practical and empirical aspects of life, and adapts to changing circumstances and needs. A setback of pragmatism is that it may lack a coherent and consistent vision of reality, and may compromise on moral and intellectual values.
• Relativism: A merit of relativism is that it acknowledges the diversity and plurality of human perspectives and cultures, and promotes tolerance and openness. A setback of relativism is that it may undermine the possibility of objective truth and rational discourse, and may justify any belief or action as equally valid.

Q: Now relate those merits and setbacks in the context of our previous discussion.
A: In the context of our previous discussion about the answer 42, the merits and setbacks of each perspective might be as follows:

• Rationalism: A merit of rationalism is that it would seek to understand the logic and principles behind the answer 42, and how it relates to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. A setback of rationalism is that it might assume that there is only one correct answer and question, and that they can be derived from pure reason alone.
• Skepticism: A merit of skepticism is that it would question the validity and significance of the answer 42, and whether it is based on sound evidence and reasoning. A setback of skepticism is that it might doubt the possibility of ever finding or knowing the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, and dismiss the answer 42 as meaningless or arbitrary.
• Existentialism: A merit of existentialism is that it would recognize the absurdity and meaninglessness of the answer 42, and the freedom and responsibility of each individual to create their own meaning and purpose in life. A setback of existentialism is that it might ignore or reject the relevance and value of the answer 42, and the possibility of finding a common or shared meaning with others.
• Pragmatism: A merit of pragmatism is that it would evaluate the answer 42 in terms of its usefulness and consequences for human life and action, and adjust its beliefs and actions accordingly. A setback of pragmatism is that it might lack a clear and consistent criterion for judging the usefulness and consequences of the answer 42, and change its beliefs and actions too easily or frequently.
• Relativism: A merit of relativism is that it would accept the answer 42 as one possible truth among many, and respect the diversity and plurality of human perspectives and frameworks of assessment. A setback of relativism is that it might deny the possibility of finding a universal or objective truth or meaning behind the answer 42, and justify any belief or action as equally valid or true.