seventhtiger

Unless the refugees are guaranteed a right to return, then you're just asking for Jordan and Egypt to facilitate ethnic cleansing and finishing the job.

The scientific method tests its understanding of causation using prediction.

If something is not predictable in principle, then it is impossible to show that it has causation.

Maybe the universe is digital after all.

So this would be a totally separate source of indeterminism than quantum mechanics. So you could have a schrodinger's rocket fired at a indeterministic 3-body system which means multiple sources of indeterminism interact.

Entropy could be viewed as the simple addition of information due to indeterminism.

How can causality survive in a universe like that.

Does having inherently unpredictable phenomena have philosophical implications?

Usually games with deep development issues have those issues show up everywhere. Not so in Diablo 4.

The art direction is great, they produced a massive amount of assets at a very high quality, the story is great by Diablo standards, the marketing was good, the tech is pretty good.

The player experience is still very good and very high quality. I usually find the only people who complain are the hardcore players. It makes sense because once you've run out of campaign content, you really have to rely on those core mechanics to keep the game going.

A lot of the people involved are competent and have a good track record. I just don't understand why the foundations are shaky. They're not even innovating so much on what an ARPG is supposed to be.

I think Diablo 4 is really well made but I keep getting surprised by some goofs in what I would consider the most important parts of the game.

Like even when I make a small scale RPG, my damage formulas and scaling and so on are my bread and butter. I obsess over them. I would accept being wrong about the resulting experience and having to adjust, but to me it's really unacceptable to have oversights and mistakes there.

So something like how broken resistance was, or different types of scaling implemented wrong. That's not disagreeing about the outcome. That's clear oversight in what I consider the heart of the game.

Or for example how the mount's controls with mouse were just remapped from joystick and you have to put your mouse at the edge of the screen to go fast.

I don't understand how to reconcile such a big and well made game with many baffling oversights in the game's core systems. Feels competent and amateurish at the same time.

Yes I'm Muslim. They do where I am. Calling marriage "completing half my faith" is a very common expression. Why wouldn't they take it literally?

If your social life is this small, then simply the pool of candidates is so small. You need to expand how many people you meet by a lot. Only then you can start thinking about how to attract romance, how to approach, etc, which is all a lot easier if you just meet a lot of people.

Over 2 years, I attended once or twice weekly public speaking meetings. Became president of a club, VP of another, member of another (most are biweekly). Mentored and worked with dozens, met hundreds, spoke in front of thousands.

There are some very low resistance social graphs. Just travel them consistently.

Apps did not just fail to help me meet someone. They really harmed my self esteem. Even when a match on an app becomes a real date, the lack of any context other than the app makes those dates really weird. "Could I have kids with this suspicious stranger from the Internet?" I could never be myself. Never had a second date through an app.

Met my SO after I had stopped looking for romance at a hobby club. In social and hobby contexts people can glimpse the breadth and depth of your personality. Others can vouch for you and speak well of you. You actually have something to talk about. It feels much more organic and not forced at all.

I challenge you to make 200-300 friends and acquaintances and not find a romantic relationship. Looking back, that's actually what I was doing, and somehow romance fell into my lap. We go married last year.

It's not an obligation in the sense that it's not strictly mandatory.

But it is beyond encouraged. Any faithful Muslim believe that marriage is half of faith.

“When a person gets married he has completed half of his religion, so let him fear Allah with regard to the other half.”

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/11586/is-marriage-half-of-re...

That's really interesting to me. MOBAs are notoriously new player hostile, just with the sheer amount of knowledge the game demands, and the fact that a team really does rely on its members which is too much pressure for a new player (which can translate into verbal abuse from your team depending on the game's culture).

So what's the MOBA that got you interested even though you're not familiar with the genre?

Yes they specifically confirmed that the web player is included and works the same.

Samsung S20 ultra. It's been almost 4 years and it feel amazing. I replaced my Pixel when its battery got down to about 6 hours. Unfortunately the Pixel couldn't be fixed any more in my country.

Samsung is really popular here so I'm hoping if I just replace the battery when it gets bad it can last me 4 more years. It's honestly so nice.

To add, 3-body systems have been found which would require sub-Planck precision to simulate. That information doesn't even exist in our universe.

The same could be said for climate scientists and geologists couldn't it?

Not an unending explanation as much as it is just an explanation. Not a semantic circular explanation like slavery is bad because it creates more slaves which is bad.

Absent total anarchy/libertarianism, freedoms will be limited in some form, including the freedom to poison a lake, and the freedom to own explosives, and the freedom to drive drunk.

These limitations must be able to be discussed and consensus formed. If one party refuses to engage in discourse then their only avenue is power.

Like I said, there's no issue with that on a personal level. The authoritarianism is in the context of that attitude in the public space, because the public space is where morality is talked about to make policy decision. Choosing not to convince someone, in a position of power, is authoritarian.

It doesn't matter how low your floor is, or what you specifically think is above or below it. You have to be able to explain how you set this floor in the first place to join the public discussion.

Trusting your intuition and blocking out people is great for you, personally, the owner of your space.

That attitude would harm the public space, where standards to discuss current and new issues would be really helpful.

You also think the choice of slavery is proof of people falling below your personal moral floor. To me, and I think to the OP, it's proof that even questions with obvious moral answers are beyond empiricism. Which is the point you're missing.

So we need to know on what basis we arrive at the obvious answer slavery is bad, because the we can use that basis for more complex matters. Shutting each other down just for talking is authoritarian, and the thing about that is if the guy on top is your guy that's great, but you have no control over who the guy on top is.

Science has come against its own limits many times.

Hume's problem of induction shows you that every scientific conclusion is a leap of faith. Scientists try to make it as small as possible of a leap, but it is still a leap.

Chaotic systems require more percision than physics allows, making many systems theoretically unpredictable. Having accurate models is useless. If you have a model that's theoretically accurate but requires more accuracy than the universe actually has then what does that even mean? Where does that information come from?

Qunatum mechanics was basically the end of causality as we know it. Forget correlation does not imply causation. There is no causation.

Godel's incompleteness, Turing's halting, prove that formal systems have limits and that even logic itself cannot go everywhere.

The ox that pulled the cart. So now what?

This kind of measuring jobs by efforts always ends up being won by an animal or machine. Even among humans, the guy digging ditches with his bare hands is putting in more work than the guy using a shovel.

It ends up being a stupid incentive structure, and is not a replacement for supply and demand in the labor market.

The most intelligent person ever born could still die to a gun. In these discussions superintelligent AI can be more accurately described as "the genie" or "God". If you assume omniscience and omnipotence I guess nothing else matters. But intelligence is not equal to power, and never has.

Second, if you are able to set a goal then during this setting you can set many constraints, even fundamental ones. There is no reason the goal is more fundamental than the constraint. If I approve, make paperclips. Efficiently make 100 paperclips.

It's the duality of being able to set a rule but not being able to set a constraint that I find a strange concept. I lean towards the picture of not being able to set goals nor constraints at all.

The basic premise is that it has somewhere in it that is telling it to make more paperclips. Put the constraints there.

If you're saying such an AI would be too smart to be a simple paperclip maximizer, then I'd agree, but then what's the point of the thought experiment if a paperclip maximizer is impossible.

Stocks are only zero-sum in the short term. It's true for day traders.

In the long term stocks reflect true growth in the economy. Dividends are not zero-sum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_rela....

>The Saudi leadership opposed the U.S. plan to invade Iraq in 2003 and did not join the Coalition. Their fears and warnings that Iraq would fracture along sectarian and political lines proved accurate.

>What was worse for Saudi Arabia was the strengthening of the Shi'ites in Iraq, seen as Iran's proxy. This drew the Iranian threat much larger for the Kingdom. Iraq, as a result of being now ruled by Shi'ites, have chosen Iran over Saudi Arabia as their closer ally.

I'm not American, nor am I a libertarian. I'm a socialist Arab.

I still object to communism, and populist memes like "eat the rich." At best they're immature, at worst they're agents of chaos and destruction who actually harm the lives of millions when they get what they want.

Your first step is "take" and your second step is "figure it out". If you did figure it out, you wouldn't have to be forcefully taking.

Are you assuming we already have enough resources to solve poverty? Isn't the actual issue that even with perfectly equal distribution we don't have enough resources for every body?

If the pie isn't big enough, why is the communist's focus always on how to divide the pie, rather than growing the pie? Do communists have anything to add at all when it comes to increasing productivity so we can all have more?

Wasn't lack of productivity exactly what killed communism? Even China didn't wake up until it opened its markets.

Inequality isn't increasing because poor people are doing worse. Poor people are doing better. Poor people's conditions are improving faster than they ever have. It's true that the richest people's wealth grew even faster than that, therefore increasing inequality.

But if you really care about the wellbeing of the poor, then you wouldn't distracted by inequality when the conditions are improving. You'd interrupt the most successful ever for the worst system ever, driven by jealousy, bitterness, and moral indignation.

You can do us a favor and outline for us how doing that is a first step to solving poverty. Otherwise it seems like you just regurgitated a populist meme.

I'm skeptical of how the results of the educational field apply to the individual.

They deal with very specific constraints because of classroom economy.

If your stated goal is to get every child in this room to read, then you're wildly out of alignment with the needs of the child who could be reading the classics by the end of the year.

Gifted and accelerated programs only alleviate the problem by a fixed amount by adding one additional more intense tier, which every child competes for to improve their university application profile.

Any person who tried to teach a child one to one for a short period of time learns how unfit school is. The only limit to their learning is the adult's energy and skill. While school is the product of several rounds of the lowest slowest denominator.

Kings and princes used to be taught by tutors they form long term relationships with. This is still the best way. School is the equivalent of feeding the masses dog food to keep them compliant.