This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 311312313 314315 ... 352
9361
« on: February 06, 2015, 04:17:20 PM »
does the idea that we don't know what's happening need to be explained
are we not already aware of that
what am i missing here
Because people have a hard time comprehending, "we never know until we look" and took the best and completely mistranslated it.
9362
« on: February 06, 2015, 04:08:33 PM »
The cat isn't alive AND dead simultaneously, it is that we can't conclusively say that it is alive or dead until it is viewed.
Well yeah, but that sounds like basic probability. I was under the impression that superposition was when a particle held two seemingly contradictory states simultaneously.
That would be correct; but the statement that the cat is alive and dead (two separate but identical forms) violates the Pauli Exclusion Principle. As I understand it anyway, Turkey can probably give a better explanation.
But hasn't the cat thing always been just an analogy?
Yes, an analogy for quantum physics and uncertainty. It's usually used as an explanation for "nobody knows what's happening!", completely out of context. It's used to explain that until we perceive an occurrence, we can't without uncertainty know what will happen, like the spin of an electron. The spin doesn't just "not exist" when we don't observe it, we just don't know what it is.
9363
« on: February 06, 2015, 04:04:20 PM »
The cat isn't alive AND dead simultaneously, it is that we can't conclusively say that it is alive or dead until it is viewed.
Well yeah, but that sounds like basic probability. I was under the impression that superposition was when a particle held two seemingly contradictory states simultaneously.
That would be correct; but the statement that the cat is alive and dead (two separate but identical forms) violates the Pauli Exclusion Principle. As I understand it anyway, Turkey can probably give a better explanation.
9364
« on: February 06, 2015, 04:00:14 PM »
RC, the cat isn't alive AND dead simultaneously, it is that we can't conclusively say that it is alive or dead until it is viewed. Two identical forms cannot occupy the same space.
9365
« on: February 06, 2015, 02:09:13 PM »
What Meta is saying, Kupo, is that the responsibilities of the intern at a committee's office isn't the same as a judge. They are bound to different rules; if a judge doesn't show up, the bailiff can't step up to bat and continue the case.
A judge isn't required to marry people, and this one has done it voluntarily beyond his responsibility. It's definitely a dick move that he's made, but it's not illegal.
EDIT: Major late-post.
9366
« on: February 06, 2015, 11:03:10 AM »
21%, neurotypical. Not a surprise.
9367
« on: February 06, 2015, 10:20:40 AM »
Some people like spending time with others and derive more enjoyment from sharing activities with their friends; fuck them, right? I honestly don't understand the resentment introverts feel for extroverts.
Some might become annoyed with prodding. I personally don't have any problems with extroverts, as long as they understand that I don't want to hang out all the time.
9368
« on: February 06, 2015, 09:59:31 AM »
He's cutting off the nose to spite the face, huh?
9369
« on: February 06, 2015, 09:46:50 AM »
The only time I ever actively try to hang out with people is if I want to go out to eat. Eating by yourself in public is weird, unless it's fast food or you're sitting at a bar.
9370
« on: February 05, 2015, 02:36:08 PM »
That's funny Das, considering it's based on a discussion we had with Verb ages ago.
9371
« on: February 05, 2015, 10:07:45 AM »
Cowtits are only acceptable on older ladies. This is the only exception to the flat rule.
9372
« on: February 05, 2015, 09:50:49 AM »
That's a problem with how Rush works really, not so much map design.
9373
« on: February 05, 2015, 09:49:17 AM »
What is this games gameplay even like
Turn-based.
9374
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:22:24 AM »
Because he's waking the dragons, and the last time that happened the world was in peril.
And we don't get that feeling because, as everyone previously agreed, Bethesda sucks at writing.
I'm not sure if it's the writing so much as Skyrim being a static world and nothing bad would ever actually come of ignoring the story and not being a hero.
Very early on in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the player character is called in to resolve a hostage crisis. His boss tells him that he needs to leave in like 15 minutes or bad things might start happening. If you take too long to leave, you'll find out that the hostages were killed.
Nothing like that would ever happen in Skyrim, because the game doesn't care to be that ambitious.
Even in games where nothing will happen when you dilly-daddle, they can still create the illusion of pressure. You just never get that feeling in Skyrim because the writing isn't good enough to provoke that feeling.
Writing doesn't go far enough. Any game can try to do that, but there needs to be tangible consequences, or else it doesn't mean anything.
You're not wrong about the writing, though >.> just, the gameplay could use a step up, too.
Of course tangible consequences are a big part, but that doesn't mean the writing isn't also at fault for the lack of build and tension.
9375
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:06:45 AM »
Because he's waking the dragons, and the last time that happened the world was in peril.
And we don't get that feeling because, as everyone previously agreed, Bethesda sucks at writing.
I'm not sure if it's the writing so much as Skyrim being a static world and nothing bad would ever actually come of ignoring the story and not being a hero.
Very early on in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the player character is called in to resolve a hostage crisis. His boss tells him that he needs to leave in like 15 minutes or bad things might start happening. If you take too long to leave, you'll find out that the hostages were killed.
Nothing like that would ever happen in Skyrim, because the game doesn't care to be that ambitious.
Even in games where nothing will happen when you dilly-daddle, they can still create the illusion of pressure. You just never get that feeling in Skyrim because the writing isn't good enough to provoke that feeling.
9376
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:38:00 AM »
Because he's waking the dragons, and the last time that happened the world was in peril.
And we don't get that feeling because, as everyone previously agreed, Bethesda sucks at writing.
9377
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:24:45 AM »
> Implying Ulfric wasn't manipulated into fighting the Imperials by the Thalmor, so that the Empire would get no chance to recover and plot a revolution
Stormcloaks are fucking the situation even more. If they really wanted to change the situation, they should secretly lend the Empire aid.
9378
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:17:19 AM »
"I must defeat the shadows"
"No harry, you are the shadows"
And then Harry was a shadow.
9379
« on: February 04, 2015, 09:17:13 PM »
The writing is abysmal, I agree. They can still be enjoyable, but that doesn't mean the writing isn't bad.
9380
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:58:59 PM »
on all fronts This is the disagreement, right here. Something can have aspects of realism and still be unrealistic as a whole. For example-- on a smaller scale-- reloading a gun isn't unrealistic, or throwing a brick to create a diversion isn't unrealistic. The backdrop can be realistic while the game, as a whole, is unrealistic. I don't know how I can say it more perfectly than, "the backdrop is realistic, but everything else is unrealistic."
9381
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:53:34 PM »
Not allowing procreation is genocide. You're killing off humanity. Especially since it would be forced.
Promoting prevention of conception is not the same thing as disallowing.
Let me phrase it as such, and hopefully we can agree on it:
As a concept (a thought experiment, and nothing more) anti-natalism isn't genocidal.
In practice, there is a heavy possibility of it leading to genocide.
Exactly. And practicality is all that matters when discussing an ideology.
You can believe that if you want, but it comes back to the fact that we aren't discussing how it come be practically implemented, we're talking about the philosophy of the ideology. They are two different subjects.
They aren't, because it would lead to genocide. So we're left with the fact that anti natalism is genocidal.
Let's completely throw away proper word usage for the sake of this shit ending:
Theoretical anti-natalism isn't genocidal, practical anti-natalism could be. We good?
No, because it would lead to genocide so it's inherently genocidal.
Being born leads to dying. Is being born equivalent to dying? Anti-natalism isn't genocide, it has the capacity to lead to genocide. They are two separate things.
9382
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:51:29 PM »
Not allowing procreation is genocide. You're killing off humanity. Especially since it would be forced.
Promoting prevention of conception is not the same thing as disallowing.
Let me phrase it as such, and hopefully we can agree on it:
As a concept (a thought experiment, and nothing more) anti-natalism isn't genocidal.
In practice, there is a heavy possibility of it leading to genocide.
Exactly. And practicality is all that matters when discussing an ideology.
You can believe that if you want, but it comes back to the fact that we aren't discussing how it come be practically implemented, we're talking about the philosophy of the ideology. They are two different subjects.
They aren't, because it would lead to genocide. So we're left with the fact that anti natalism is genocidal.
Let's completely throw away proper word usage for the sake of this shit ending: Theoretical anti-natalism isn't genocidal, practical anti-natalism could be. We good?
9383
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:48:57 PM »
Due to factors outside of the core philosophy, such as misinterpretation and the possibility of radicalized sects, it would have a possibility of genocide if applied practically. but not a "heavy" one, as you phrased it
not even a remote one
I'd be willing to say that a radical philosophy is highly susceptible to heavy radicalization, whether the ideology supports it or not.
9384
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:47:44 PM »
Not allowing procreation is genocide. You're killing off humanity. Especially since it would be forced.
Promoting prevention of conception is not the same thing as disallowing.
Let me phrase it as such, and hopefully we can agree on it:
As a concept (a thought experiment, and nothing more) anti-natalism isn't genocidal.
In practice, there is a heavy possibility of it leading to genocide.
Exactly. And practicality is all that matters when discussing an ideology.
You can believe that if you want, but it comes back to the fact that we aren't discussing how it can be practically implemented, we're talking about the philosophy of the ideology. They are two different subjects.
9385
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:45:32 PM »
In practice, there is a heavy possibility of it leading to genocide. nope
Due to factors outside of the core philosophy, such as misinterpretation and the possibility of radicalized sects, it would have a possibility of genocide if applied practically.
9386
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:43:13 PM »
Not allowing procreation is genocide. You're killing off humanity. Especially since it would be forced.
Promoting prevention of conception is not the same thing as disallowing. Let me phrase it as such, and hopefully we can agree on it: As a concept (a thought experiment, and nothing more) anti-natalism isn't genocidal. In practice, there is a heavy possibility of it leading to genocide.
9387
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:40:39 PM »
I think the problem lies in the interpretation of "genocide"; genocide is not a finality, it's a means to finality. Genocide leads to extinction, but extinction doesn't necessitate the act of genocide.
9388
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:34:10 PM »
End humanity, yes; genocide, no. This can all be cleared up as simply using a word other than genocide. Extinction, destruction, elimination, improbable, maybe even esoteric. This entire argument has been based on the choice of that one word.
Humans that don't exist are nonexistent; if you aren't conceived, you don't exist. Promoting getting rid of humanity is a form of genocide.
Wasn't an insult, I was serious.
Ok.
Genocide involves killing. You can't kill what doesn't exist. Ergo, you can't commit genocide against the nonexistent. It doesn't mesh. "Verb promotes the extinction of the human race!" is 100% certifiable, but genocide isn't.
9389
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:28:19 PM »
End humanity, yes; genocide, no. This can all be cleared up as simply using a word other than genocide. Extinction, destruction, elimination, improbable, maybe even esoteric. This entire argument has been based on the choice of that one word.
Humans that don't exist are nonexistent; if you aren't conceived, you don't exist.
Wasn't an insult, I was serious.
9390
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:25:18 PM »
You are also really good at instigating, Chally. I don't even mean that negatively, it's truly an amazing trait that if applied elsewhere, could really do things. In the practical world. why would you encourage him
It's not an inherently bad trait, just usually misdirected.
Pages: 1 ... 311312313 314315 ... 352
|
Show Posts