213374U

Ah, I see. So it's the etymological aspect that bothers you. I guess I can understand that. Yeah, I remember getting into an arguement with some South American army buddies of mine because I suggested that, despite what they were used to hearing, they weren't really "latins" at all, and for that matter, neither was I. It went nowhere fast. Yep, I like my discussions tactless and pointless. Bonus points if I get my ass kicked.

Like some other words that are used to label people as 'haters' such as 'homophobe'. it's a misused word. The vast majority of the people who use such words to label others however don't think that deep, even though we're talking about a level just below the superficial. It's not a product of christian mythology, it's a product of 'cultural Marxist' or 'progressive' mythology. Propaganda. They're marginalization tools, and work well for those with short attention spans. I agree with regards to labels in an abstract sense, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with this reply. Antisemitism (the attitude) predates the word by several centuries at least. Are you suggesting that prejudices in general do not in fact exist and are a fabrication of progressive ideologues?

edit: let the triggering commence

Oh, you are absolutely right. SCS is so complex that it made my old computer stutter when too many things were going on. I bought that computer in like, 2005. BG2 was released in 2000. IIRC vanilla AI scripts were 400-odd lines long. SCS scripts were easily 4x longer. Further, I'd argue that baseline SCS difficulty is nowhere near entry-level. However, DavidW is not a professional programmer as far as I know, and he did it (plus compatibility) by himself. AI programming is, IMO, seen as a waste of effort by devs, beyond the most barebones functionality. I... can't say they are wrong, considering the industry is mostly geared towards pushing out title after title as fast as possible, with replayability value being an afterthought, if at all. Ah well.

I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news. I'm thinking that discussing some of the explicit details of DSK's and Berlusconi's parties would get a thread locked down faster than you can say "bunga bunga", here or elsewhere. With good reason, too. Scrutiny of that sort of details belongs in a court of law, and only insofar as it's needed to determine if they constitute a criminal conduct... (thanks for the writeup back there, btw. After reading through 10+ pages I still had no idea what this thread was about, and now I can safely ignore it for good. #firstworldproblems)

It figures. I wonder how they are going to compensate the increased TTK vs party survivability. Giving players more powerful or longer-lasting mitigation tools breaks routine encounters, while decreasing boss damage outputs results in "bullet sponge" fights. Of course, the rationale is total bollocks. I didn't kill Irenicus in 20s the first time around, and with an AI that can actually use the level-appropriate tools it should have in a non-brain dead manner, the fight can go on for several minutes. Ain't nobody got time fo' programming decent AI in this day and age, apparently.

So, not really a "discovery" per se. More like, somebody considering making your worst nightmare (or wildest dream, sure...) come true. Full body transplants. Now all we need is someone to start growing 'em in glass jars...

Yep. Question is why they would choose to go with arbitrary numbers instead of 1d4/level + CON*, or whatever the sourcebooks dictate. Chances are they are messing around with to-hit rolls, damage outputs, etc. This may or may not work out, but it does seem to hint at a departure from the source material. What's the point of making a D&D game... if you aren't using the D&D rules. *disclaimer: I have no idea if that's the actual value in 5e. I'm post-3.5e illiterate.

I think you are being hypersensitive about some folks' hypersensitivity wrt the B-word. Seriously though, never utter the B-word around these parts. You may think its effect is limited to the Codex, but alas, it is not so. People go mental even here, nay, especially here; it's not unlike the Two Minutes Hate in 1984. Exhibit A: typical Obsidz forum user after stumbling upon a discussion involving The Developer Which Shall Not Be Named We even have an emote especially crafted to sum up these threads: Ignore this advice at your peril... Borderline indeed, ever since they locked down the hot women thread...

That's a "global cooldown" and is different from what is usually meant by cooldown-based gameplay. GCD prevents you from doing anything other than moving for a fixed amount of time after using an ability. It's applied across the board and its length isn't dependent on the ability that triggered it. It's a common feature in games where ability spam may be an issue, even if it's disguised as unclippable animations. Even the old IE games had similar mechanics, even though there was no visual or UI cue and after doing his thing the character would just stand idly waiting for the "round" to be over. On the other hand specific ability CDs encourage searching for an optimal rotation of abilities or ability deployment priority system which hurts the tactical element by reducing the number of viable alternatives. The game then is more about how well you can execute the rotation -and with a pause feature, that's trivial- and less about adjusting to fluid combat situations, i.e. tactics and decision-making. I don't mean to sound condescending, but they really are fundamentally different things. edit: ability =/= skill

Ding ding ding. Netanyahu (much like the GOP) is owned by Sheldon Adelson, who already tried to scare Democrats out of the idea of boycotting the speech. Remember, this is the same guy that wants to turn Iran into one big ol' glass parking lot. You do the math.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31656455 So a bunch of idiots got arrested after a brief stint playing rambo around Novorossiya. Seriously, how stupid can you be? I mean, I can understand being brainwashed and thinking of it as your ticket to heaven and 70 virgins or whatever. But this? One of these clowns proudly displayed his life-size Stalin portrait tattoo. Wow dude, just wow. Now they are being charged with "compromising the State's neutrality in the conflict" and being "accessories to murder" in addition to having had a few illegal guns confiscated. Odds are that they'll be also charged with "terrorism" under the brand new anti-terror law, as they had gone to Ukraine to "terrorize" civilians there. I wonder though, if these morons had been in the payroll of a PMC, would they be charged? "You are allowed to participate in foreign wars if you are doing it for money ONLY!"

All my toons are on RE. I didn't know you played there! They didn't exactly change anything "there" — they changed the whole game. There was a DPS nerf across the board when 3.0 hit. The idea was to have people in full itemized 192 gear parse the same as they were doing pre-3.0 in full Dread Master (186). It seems there was also an undocumented buff to silver mobs people were complaining about that made them deadlier than golds... but I never noticed that myself. Haven't been to Oricon after 3.0.

Gravity fields disappear when the masses that originate them cease to exist, dissipate or what have you. Black holes are thought to eventually evaporate so in the far future there would be no masses that can generate gravity. Do you mean gravitational waves? I have no idea what would happen with those in an expanding universe. I must admit, I'm not up to the latest developments, so heat death may well be obsolete. The point remains, however. The observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe results either in hyperacceleration (Big Rip) or the aforementioned heat death (depending on the cosmological constant IIRC). In the more extreme case of the Big Rip, at a certain point you have a situation where the observable universe is smaller than arbitrarily smaller structures, first tearing apart molecular bonds, then atomic nuclei, and finally fundamental particles. Either way, all information and possible observers have been destroyed. How can an infinite amount of anything be destroyed? What? Is this some new interpretation of the many-worlds theory or...? Never knowing or never being able to measure doesn't necessarily imply infinity. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I seem to remember that you railed against Walsingham answering for obyknven, with good reason. That's exactly what you are doing now. Whether it's infinite from the pov of any one human isn't relevant (in this thread). This is about information in a general sense. Is it infinite in the universe as a whole? I honestly don't know, but I'm leaning towards no. I'm not fond of infinity as a reality. I seem to remember that Gromnir has an actual physics degree so maybe he can comment, but he's not the only one who could offer an educated guess. More educated than mine, at any rate. Regardless, if you want to frame the question in human terms, then you must also limit the information pool that is relevant to any given human-scale decision by the same measure. At any rate, saying that one can never make informed decisions because "information is INFINITE" is... wacky.

No, I'm just trying to decide if doing good (or at least not doing evil) for the wrong reasons is still good. You can't have it both ways — you either define good/bad based on intent, or you define it based on results. Applying the definition selectively leads to paradoxes.

So, conversely, if one is a well-motivated killer, he should be commended on his diligence? That's... not something I've heard often.

My... my mom told you that you are a pre-pubescent girl? Was that before or after you asked her to read you Twilight fan fiction? Nevermind... none of my business. I won't judge.

Oh, come on. If I plan a genocide but I don't follow through with my plans, is it a bad trait to have? If I get jealous at my coworker and plan to make her look bad before the boss but I don't at the last minute, is it a bad trait to have? That sort of general life advice or whatever you want to call it is meaningless, and that's why "acting on what you believe" is useless. Circumstances define if it's good or bad. Personally, you may deeply respect people who commit honor suicides — I'm not sure if you're just playing devil's advocate here. Me, I think it's silly.

Being female? Sitting down eating popcorn, rather.

^ If only it was like that IRL.

[...] As an aside, I'd love to hear an explanation on why information is infinite. I was under the impression that the universe is a closed system with finite energy. This would suggest that information in a quantum sense is, indeed, finite. However, by virtue of the principle of uncertainty, we know that information doesn't really "exist" unless an observer makes a measurement, and at that precise moment and by virtue of the measurement, the relevant "information" bit comes into existence. Again, since there can only be a limited amount of observers making a finite amount of measurements (because the universe has a finite energy, remember), information is also finite. Further, a prominent model of the end of the universe predicts that it will end with what is called "heat death". In this scenario, the universe becomes esentially a nothingness without distinguishable features (in simple terms, no information). If all information has been destroyed, this means information was finite to begin with. So what makes you say that information is infinite? Well, professor. What's your take?

Pretty much, yeah: Remember, this was in response to somebody suggesting that people are driven to suicide out of desperation. You don't believe what? This sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense. What is something trying to force through my mind? Try again, please. And if you read carefully, I haven't actually disagreed with this. I only suggest that people have been informed of all possible alternatives to death and can make the decision freely, fully in possession of their mental faculties. Whether this is the case for people with obesity is up for debate. Damn. You really are scary. If I was a pre-pubescent girl. And didn't know that behind every internet tough guy there is a sad, afraid little man. Nope. The fallacy lies with you assuming that obese people choosing suicide have 100% of relevant information and 100% unimpaired mental faculties. "They should just go ahead because they chose it and they know what's good for themselves", right? I already provided evidence and self-evident facts (people don't generally know about medicine and sports science unless they study medicine and sports science) to cast doubt on that assumption. I threw in some personal experience for good measure. Your counter so far has simply amounted to circular logic (If a person decides to commit suicide it's their decision) and dogma (Human beings are perfectly capable of making decisions about themselves they see fit). As I said, Don Quixote, I don't want to decide for anybody. I'm not the one running for office, remember? Done and done. I eagerly await your explanation. Oh, wow. Such sharp wit. You bad boy, you. I bet the ladies love it... in all of that fantastical kingdom you have built up in your mind.

Unlike you, I actually give reasoned argumentations of my points. They aren't ironclad... and I'm giving you the opportunity to address the whole paragraph you were quoting instead of just going off on a tangent about the last sentence. Here, try again: Any "life coach"? Funny, the coaches I've met are more interested in dealing with specific problems and offering experience-based advice than vague grandiloquent statements about success and failure. You must be speaking about the Facebook variant of "life coaches". Or perhaps the pseudoscience peddlers you can find in NLP seminars. It's irrelevant though, as you simply cannot prove that "any life coach would X". I agree, trial and error is an essential part of the learning process. You may have missed the part where implementing suicide prevents you from learning anything else, though. I did no such thing. It's good that you have finally understood that we are discussing obese people with suicidal tendencies, though. Now, how is suicide an objective solution to obesity? Because, you know, people may be entitled to make a decision, but that doesn't automatically mean they are making the right decision. Exactly. Wow, you really are a class act, aren't you? Let me ask you though: if you don't give a **** what happens to such people, what are you doing in this thread? Why are you offering advice on how such people should act? Yep. Evidence such as the article in the OP, the chart aluminiumtrioxid posted, the studies I linked to, etc. That's what we are discussing, but you keep insisting that your objectivist wet dreams are more relevant... or something. How is it off-topic? Please explain how three articles studying the relationship between obesity and mental health (one of them focusing on dementia) are irrelevant in a discussion about obesity... and mental faculties. It gets better, because you asked for "the studies that shown correlation between overweight and brain functions", which took me a full five minutes to dig up. Then you start crying that they are not relevant. Do try to be a bit more subtle with your strawmanning. I already said I don't mean to imply that obese people are mentally ill. You are conflating correlation and causality. As I said, science doesn't work that way. Pay attention, please. As a matter of fact, you did say it: So, yeah, it is evidence-based. Inasmuch as your pathetic internet tough guy talk can be considered "evidence", anyway.

Wall of text: The Sequel If you wanted me to give you Twilight fanfic links, why didn't you say so? I won't judge. The articles I linked to study the relationship between obesity and depression in some cases and dementia in others. The correlation between obesity and depression is hard to dispute, at least in those studies. I'll be happy to read and discuss other studies that find no such correlation if you can find them. but that doesn't mean everyone that is obese will be depressed, and it doesn't mean everyone that is obese will inevitably develop Alzheimer's. That is not how science works, and I never claimed that obese people are mentally impaired. I actually wrote a post for Valsuelm explaining what exactly I meant, both in a general sense and in this particular context. Go read it. (And yes, that was you strawmanning) Yep, that doesn't follow from what I said. Nice try, no dice. You are talking about people making the decision that suicide is right for them. I contest that on the basis that it's not generally an informed decision. I base this on the self-evident fact that people don't know everything. Therefore, they should put off the decision to off themselves until they have all the relevant facts. This is a counter-argument specifically to your suggestion that people kill themselves when they think that's what they must do, not when they are trying to decide if they should wear pants or not, or any other daily, inconsequential decision. Or do you think people should fly airliners and operate nuclear reactors before receving proper training because your life coach told you that "the outcome isn't always important" and "being passive is always wrong"? I'm not deciding for anyone. I'm actually very much for people making their own decisions, provided they are informed and FREE decisions. Under the circumstances we are discussing, they are not, as per above. Leave the windmills alone, Don Quixote. More hand-waving. I provided both an abstract reasoning and a real world analogy to show why your solution (death) isn't a solution at all. Care to discuss that? "If a person decides to commit suicide it's their decision". Well, duh. See above for my stance on decisions. Nah. Let's say I give you $100. You don't give the guy to your right $100, you give them some bread. Then that person gives the one to their right a hug and so on and so forth depending on what each individual skills and needs are. And considering that support networks are very much a real thing, the burden of proof is on you to establish that "life doesn't work that way". And nope, I didn't say you need to seek guidance and advice before you act. I said you need to seek advice and guidance before you make any serious personal investment in general, and in particular (again, context) before killing yourself. If only because the permanent nature of that act precludes any further rectifications. That was you strawmanning. **** yeah. **** happens. Step up or shut up. Do or die. It's showtime, mother****ers. Now, if we are done spouting meaningless one-liners and your boner has gone away, maybe we can talk? Nope, you don't need to have ALL the information. You just need enough. How much is enough? In this context, sufficient to recognize that there are ways out of obesity that don't entail killing yourself. As an aside, I'd love to hear an explanation on why information is infinite. I was under the impression that the universe is a closed system with finite energy. This would suggest that information in a quantum sense is, indeed, finite. However, by virtue of the principle of uncertainty, we know that information doesn't really "exist" unless an observer makes a measurement, and at that precise moment and by virtue of the measurement, the relevant "information" bit comes into existence. Again, since there can only be a limited amount of observers making a finite amount of measurements (because the universe has a finite energy, remember), information is also finite. Further, a prominent model of the end of the universe predicts that it will end with what is called "heat death". In this scenario, the universe becomes esentially a nothingness without distinguishable features (in simple terms, no information). If all information has been destroyed, this means information was finite to begin with. So what makes you say that information is infinite?

Any "life coach"? Funny, the coaches I've met are more interested in dealing with specific problems and offering experience-based advice than vague grandiloquent statements about success and failure. You must be speaking about the Facebook variant of "life coaches". Or perhaps the pseudoscience peddlers you can find in NLP seminars. It's irrelevant though, as you simply cannot prove that "any life coach would X". I agree, trial and error is an essential part of the learning process. You may have missed the part where implementing suicide prevents you from learning anything else, though. Oh, and please elaborate on how being passive and not acting is always wrong. Repetition of a baseless statement does not magically turn it into an ironclad argument. I didn't add anything. YOU were replying to TrueNeutral's post, here: I don't know if that's really "working correctly" because "feeling bad about it" can take so many forms. I highly doubt a person whose psychological response to seeing a fit person is "you'll never look like that, go die in a hole you fat pig" is going to be motivating, let alone the "correct response". Correct response would be acting on that response not only think it. Let me explain: if you quote somebody, it is assumed you are replying to what that person is saying. Like, directly making a follow-up comment in the same context, be it to support, dispute, offer a different viewpoint, or post a funny gif. If mean to make unrelated comments, the button you want reads "start new topic". The issue is with the reasons that drive someone to "quit" or "stop carrying". The idea that people may think it's right to quit and ACTUALLY being right can only stand with perfect free will and omniscience as premises. But then, there are those who have them, and there are those who don't, right? And those who don't end up killing themselves because hey, "that is the way of things". Some are weak, some are strong, some will die and you don't really give a flying ****. **** happens, right? That's awesome. The Objectivism thread is that-a-way. Here we discuss evidence-based stuff. While I'm explaining, providing links and sharing personal experience to illustrate my points, you are just waving your hands so hard that I can hear the sonic boom from here. I already explained those 3 in the last post. Your answer was "your point?". This clearly means you didn't understand anything. Go back and read it again. And again. And again. Until you understand and are able to produce an actual rebuttal. I'll be waiting. Ah, of course. It is logical for those who think they must kill themselves to kill themselves. And you would if you did, because that's how you roll. But of course you will *never* think that yourself. Must be great to be one of the master race, no? ...and they were saying TN is full of it... It is a consequence of the statement. One that you have already admitted to, yourself, in this very post. Let me put it in simple flowchart format for you. "ACT ON WHAT YOU BELIEVE! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!" → Fail → "TRY AGAIN, YOU WRETCHED UNTERMENSCH!" → Nope, no good → Suicide? If a person keeps failing, does not see a way to succeed, and this failure is tied to their self-worth, they may be led to consider suicide. This is both an actual real world occurrence AND the hypothetic case you were replying to. By your own advice, and your own admission above, they should kill themselves "because that's what they believe is right". This is not only a fairly terrible thing to say and symptomatic of a total lack of empathy, but it's also pretty bad logic.