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.

I see many comments discrediting this somehow, but I want to put my two cents in as someone who does work with sensor based AI assisted processing in real time and safety reliant environments.

Just because a concept can be thought of that sounds reasonable and maybe even works in simple tests, that doesn’t mean that it’s actually useful for the real use case. Many typical approaches to creating models that can solve computer vision tasks such as this can result in unstable results and no system that has a considerable false positive rate would be tolerated by any airliner. This isn’t even to speak of the false negative rate which might then still be rather high, which still leaves the system useless.

Naturally it’s not to say that no such system could be created, but they can’t be just whipped out like some people here claim. If, as people here are already assuming, the problem happened because someone climbed onto the conveyor belt and was carried in, then this type of problem is sufficiently unthinkably rare that most companies didn’t think about it much either.

Clearly greater security is necessary, but people are being unreasonable with how trivial they portray the solution as being.

I think their main problem was that it was again reliant on the same ramp up that is typical for Pre-Patch events.

The lack of communication in that left people assuming that the current speed of acquisition was all there was, when most likely there was no worry about missing out even if you joined in the last week. People with alts also had a massive advantage.

Could have all been solved with more communication. While you can’t make two first impressions, it still seems like a fun enough event and the rewards are neat. Not enough to play the game just for the event, but I doubt that that’s ever the intent behind these. They’re just there to set the mood a bit for the upcoming release.

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.

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.

It’s not my job to do either of those things. It may have been in your interest to make a comprehensible point though.

I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t search through your comment history to find your own arguments for you. Consider editing the actual top level comment if you want to use these arguments without retyping them.

It’s a bit harsh to put such words in their mouth. They said their sympathies lie elsewhere, not that he deserved it.

You seem to be implying that fusion is a gimmick of an idea by comparing it to Hyperloop which was nothing but that.

Fusion is a mechanism which has been providing humanity with energy from the first moments in the form of the sun. It’s a well known functional form of energy generation. The struggle isn’t whether or not it could possibly work, but just to make it practical enough to make it work.

This isn’t even necessarily about a single company promising that they have an idea that may work, this is an example of it functioning in some capacity.

Your comparison is simply arbitrary.

“Taiwan never has been a sovereign state”

I guess the Republic of China never existed?

Taiwan isn’t exactly a rogue province. It’s the holdover of the prior government of China that lost the revolutionary war and retreated there.

It doesn’t entirely invalidate the point, but it has to be said that the situation is markedly different from the one with Texas.

It’s more like if Texas overthrew the US government in a violent rebellion and the UK worked to support the holdover of the old US government that retreated to Puerto Rico.

Nothing that happened since has invalidated truly the right of Taiwan to remain a sovereign state. It’s in no sense a rogue province.

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.

Historical accuracy is not racism. Choosing to identify yourself based on the racist actions in your history is.

To drive it to the extreme, it would be like saying that Germany depicting Jews being gassed on their new flag isn’t racist, just historically accurate.

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.