Your point specifically doesn’t stand. Not the one you made in your comment. You’re getting incredibly upset over being corrected when the correction was genuinely well meant and important to the discussion at hand. I’m sorry that this is something that angers you, but your hurt feelings don’t change the fact that what I’m bringing up isn’t pedantry but a correction on a misconception which is being propagated for political gain.

I know what events you’re referencing and misrepresenting, yes.

The correction was entirely on point because the framing of this being an example of rampant inflation and thus a major governmental failure is misinformation propagated by the Republican party.

While it is certainly imaginable that the erratic pricing of eggs in particular could have been handled better by the Democratic government, it’s entirely false to present it as just one example of a wide reaching problem as the price increase in this case is unique to this product. Inflation has been happening and is comparatively high, putting a lot of pressure on lower income households, but it is not effectively apocalyptic as it is presented here.

Your response is completely unwarranted as in no way was I even attacking or talking down to you.

Inflation describes the decrease of the value of your money. When a currency is affected by inflation, all prices go up as you require more of that money to equal the same worth of goods.

If eggs shot up to a price of 8 or so bucks and then went down to 2.69, you weren’t being affected by inflation as it is unheard of for a currency to suffer such insane inflation and then immediately recover from it.

What happened in your case would have been a large shift in supply and demand, possibly brought on by the mentioned problems in the egg production, or price gouging by whoever was selling these. Possibly also just a mix of those.

In no sense did I say that other people’s dislike for their games is a problem. I take no offense to that. I myself am literally of the opinion that the newer AC games are hard to enjoy and insulting to the players time.

Nonetheless, I can acknowledge that it’s a source of comfort for some, even when I fail to enjoy it. Making them feel bad about it just isn’t OK.

I’m sorry, but “Really? Ubisoft though?” is not just rubbishing Ubisofts practices. It’s condescending to OP.

The fact that just because I criticized your choice of words makes you assume that it’s in defense of my own tastes is unreasonable too. Is there not a chance someone might sympathise with someone without sitting in the same exact boat as them?

Point is, many people would feel bad about being approached the way you did and it is not exactly unreasonable to think that they would.

There’s so much attempted shaming in these comments. People like some of their games and some like them a lot. Even if you don’t feel like they’re the best, Original and Odyssey still carry the attachment people have for Assassin’s Creed and Anno 1800 has no real direct comparable alternatives.

Stop trying to make people feel bad for just wanting to enjoy something they like when they are the victim of these companies trying to make their life harder. The fact that Ubisoft treats their customers like trash isn’t something to rub in someone’s face, it’s too bad that some people’s hobbies are locked behind something like that.

Their claim does have support in so far that the early testament contains a lot of work written by polytheistic people that later in would become the monolatrists and even later monotheists that we know as Jews, further branching off into what today are Christians.

This does not mean that Christians in any sense are not purely monotheistic. Not only are they so, it’s one of the most critical parts of their beliefs, to the point where even believing that their one god has in any way shape or form some kind of tangible division is considered strict heresy from trinitarian churches which form the mainstream of Christianity and have done so for hundreds of years.

Edit: There is a great video by Alex O’Connor interviewing Esoterica on that topic in particular and they talk about the evidence that supports the viewpoints.

Maybe not news in the sense that it’s a new development (though the title implies it is a deterioration), but still very much worthy of reporting. Just because something is typical doesn’t mean it is unremarkable.

It’s not quite that simple. Crowdsourcing has many of the drawbacks that AI has too.

While it can have a higher reliability in detecting nonsensical inputs or inputs that it’s simply unfit in processing, that comes at an intrinsic cost in scalability. Some tasks can’t be effectively crowdsourced for, either because of volume or urgency.

Machine Learning systems learn to approximate decision making and thus can attempt at learning from crowdsourcing efforts. It is notable though that depending on the use case, model and training method, machine learning algorithms can potentially be better than the data it was trained on. Or much worse, it’s very fickle.

It is definitely still the case that crowdsourcing is a really important tool and oftentimes machine learning relies on it’s efforts. And it naturally can solve tasks that we don’t have a viable automated approach for.

They are, but, even as someone who really enjoyed playing them without any nostalgia for them, I would have liked them all the more with a better combat system that is properly turn based and three-dimensional as the one in BG3 is.

I know for a fact that there is a sizeable portion of players that don’t think that BG3 is strictly or at all better, but at the same time, a lot of people can’t get into BG1 because they really don’t enjoy its combat.

I’d absolutely adore a mod that gives us the BG1 story in BG3 and I think it would really boost accessibility. It would also be an enormous amount of effort to represent it well, especially in a way that tries to capture it in a recognizable form.

You make the claim that a will relies on some idea of chaos, which definitely requires some actual explanation.

The amount of choices one has is irrelevant in the comparison to random chance. If the person uses reason to decide for one of several options, they, in the most common sense, clearly have acted out of free will. Assuming that a free will exists in a physical universe, but we’re in metaphysics anyways.

I am not sure what it even means to create choices where there were none. If you end up making a decision, then it clearly was an option to begin with, by the definition of what that word means.

What pointing out the paradox here entails is that amongst the presumptions we made, at least one of them must be false. The argument used in the OP does not disprove the existence of some divine being at all and it’s not trying to. It’s trying to disprove the concept of a deity that has the three attributes of being all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing. In the argument given, it is shown that at least one of these attributes is not present, given the observation of evil in the world.

Your comparison to light being described as a particle and a wave is to your own detriment. The topic of this duality arose in the first place from the fact that our classical particle based models of the universe began to become insufficient to correctly predict behaviours that had been newly observed. A new model was created that can handle the problem. The reason this is a weak argument here is that no physicist would ever claim that the models describe the world precisely. Physical models are analogies that attempt to explain the world around us in terms humans can understand.

In your last question, you make the mistake of misunderstanding the argument once again. You grant the person omnipotence and leave it at that. The argument is arguing about the combination of omnipotence, omniscience and all-lovingness. The last of these deals with your question directly, explaining the drive to make the changes in question. The other two grant the ability to do so without limitation.

This chart isn’t reducing that much at all. It’s explaining a precise chain of reasoning. It may or may not be missing some options, but you haven’t named any so far that weren’t fallacies.

You should contextualise such claims.

So that vision impaired people or people with whatever other impairment can enjoy the content. The text can be read out by a screen reader.

The point being made though was that the languages are well shown to be genuinely related through a common ancestral language from which they both deviated, just as have most languages in Europe and parts of the Near East. The connection is tangible and quite real, not something just based on some few similarities.

Paradox has long maintained a DLC policy based around their permanent improvement and development of their games. I don’t get what is greedy about genuinely expanding their games with content that wouldn’t have been in the base game and charging money for it. Some of the DLC may indeed be on the more expensive side, but calling their entire policy greedy is simplistic and just trying to bunch them in with companies trying to rip you off. Sure, there’s been cases where some of Paradox DLC has been egregious, but frankly, the standard case is that they clearly added onto the game that otherwise wouldn’t have been there at all.

To propose one of the titles where this works best is Stellaris. I genuinely mean it, take a look at that games post release development and tell me that Paradox is being genuinely greedy. Just because something is long term profitable doesn’t make them necessarily immoral.

I am just barely at the start of Shadowbringer now and I’ve been playing for more than two years now. I personally really enjoy having an MMO to continuously play next to other games, but it definitely doesn’t help with my backlog either, lol

It’s very fun. I also really enjoyed the sequel, even if it felt like it lost some of its charme and attention to detail in exchange for scope and combat depth. Felt a little harsh to switch to the next one, but I had a lot of fun either way.

I admire your ability to keep track of all that. I actively play FF14 to fill my MMO slot and then some other game that is my mainstay at the time. If I dare even touch another serious title, it tends to completely push out the prior one, so I have been really trying hard not to start another bigger game while I’m not done with the last one.

It’s how I’ve been playing Yakuza 0 for the last entire year, coming back every half eternity. I really need to just sit down and play a title or take forever.

Shogun 2 and older games massively lose out on the UX. Especially in combat, the games have much less quality of life.

Furthermore, the newer games simply work towards a somewhat different audience. The studio has clearly picked up on the success of Warhammer and after stumbling both through all of Three Kingdoms and the launch of Troy, they seem to have firmly settled towards the more fantasy direction which is counter to the philosophy of the earlier games.

While I certainly support trying out the older titles too, calling Troy a simply worse game than the older titles is a bit reductionistic and definitely has a personal bias and may be somewhat misleading, even if your advice was in good faith.

My first leveled Tank was Gunbreaker, my first leveled DPS was Mechanist and I am myself now working on Sage to fill out my “shoot guns at it to solve your problem” Trifecta.