is all knowledge based on faith

It’s based on assumption, not faith. If we can trust our senses, and if things will continue to be as they have been, then the things we are learning have value. As long as you can recognize that everything could in theory end or completely change at any moment, it’s not blind belief.

Nobody wants a burger that’s one 1/8th pound patty and 3 inches worth of solid lettuce.

Had regulars when I worked fast food that would order the kid size burger with a fuckton of lettuce and tomato. Just way too much.

Supposedly, a meltdown at sea is pretty low risk because you have the perfect heatsink literally everywhere around you, and its a molten salt design, which I think(?) (source: my ass) means that the fuel would at worst leak into the sea and immediately solidify back into some inert state.

deleted by creator

Doesn’t really seem spoilery to me at all. Alan Wake - and Remedy in general - is very into surreal weirdness and world fuckery. He’s mostly talking about audiences being receptive to pushing creative boundaries.

This does not apply when you can move or make your own instance. It’s like complaining about tyranny inside your own house. Like, what?

I think a perfectly acceptable line to draw is “Is it reasonable to expect a large majority of the people on this instance would want this other instance blocked?” If the answer is yes, block them. If somebody has a problem with that, move to a different instance.

I don’t really understand what the problem is.

I added that to sort of admit my own hypocrisy; I tried to exaggerate my opinion a bit for the sake of spurring discussion. I mostly believe what I said, but my real thoughts are much messier and less well thought out.

Many Marvel films, for example, are actually competently written plot wise. I also believe lots of them have basically no value.

Gonna try to phrase this an inflammatory way:

People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are ‘good enough’, and they don’t value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.

On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.

I think you’ve correctly identified a problem, but misidentified the solution.

It’s true that there are many redundant communities of which everyone would be better served if there were an easy way to group them together. The solution, however, is not to reduce the number of instances, but rather to provide more tools for instances to group communities together. You want communities to be spread across many instances because this maximizes user control - it’s kind of the entire point? But of course, the lack of grouping makes it very difficult to try to centralize discussion, which is important for the community to grow. This service is still a work in progress, so these kinds of things - I hope - will come in time, as both the technology and culture develops.

tl;dr: centralized control bad, centralized discussion good, the current system does a bad job of reconciling these two positions

If you want, you can view science as a system of organization. A way of making sense of facts. If I give you a file of seemingly random ones and zeroes, it is useless. If I give you an algorithm to decode those ones and zeroes into a message, that has utility. However, somebody else could produce an algorithm to decode those same ones and zeroes into an entirely different message. So, which algorithm is correct? Neither.

But say I give you another file, and Algorithm B doesn’t produce anything useful for this message, so now Algorithm A is more useful. But I also provide a new Algorithm C which also finds messages in both files. Now which is more correct, A or C? And on and on. We continue to refine our models of the data, and we hope that those models will have predictive utility until proven otherwise, but it is always possible (in fact, almost guaranteed) that there is a model of the universe that is more accurate than the one we have.

Consider the utility of a map. A map is an obviously useful thing, but it is also incomplete. A perfect map, a “true” map, would perfectly reproduce every single minute detail of the thing it is mapping. But to do so, it would need to be built at the same scale as the thing it is mapping, which would be far too cumbersome to actually use as, you know, a map. So, we abstract details to identify patterns to maximize utility. Science, likewise, is a tool of prediction, which is useful, but is also not true, because our model of the universe can never be complete.

I don’t really know what this post is on about, but science is not truth. It’s a system of prediction. The closest you can get to “truth” would be observation and data. Science is the process of interpreting these facts to better understand what things will look like in the future. It is obvious that science is not ‘true’, because by its nature it requires change over time as our models of the world improve.

Backpack Battles, basically.

If you try to just use the characters and setting to tell a different story, it’s also going to be soulless because those characters aren’t made to tell that story. Make your own characters and tell your own story if you don’t want to stick to the spirit of the original work.

I don’t exactly agree with this. If the creator has a vision, I say let them try. They should be able to stretch and change and rework things however they want. Of course, the farther they stray, the more it begs the question “Why?” but I don’t think it’s impossible if they have ideas.

or played the game

I would argue it’s actually a detriment to experience anything other than the source material when adapting a work. Especially with books, different people are going to have wildly different interpretations of the world. The character that exists in your mind is going to be different from somebody else who read the same book. But once it is adapted to a visual medium, you lose a bit of that magic. Which sucks, because all of those previous interpretations are still valid! More valid even, than anything that was put to screen, because they were yours.

I think the argument for accuracy is kind of bullshit anyway (not that you said this, but others have). Is The Shining (the film) worse for the changes it made to the original text? Stephen King might think so; he would also be wrong. You don’t want something accurate, you want something that’s good. You want somebody with passion and artistic vision to create something new and uniquely amazing. The recent Last Of Us show, to my knowledge, tread pretty closely to the source material. “Aha!” you might say. But what is also true, is that the best episode of that first season was also the probably the biggest deviation from the source material. I probably don’t even need to say which one if you’ve seen the show.

Anyway, companies should hire people who are both passionate about the source material, and want to make something cool and new in that world - not robots who are just going to recreate the original work beat for beat. If I wanted that, why wouldn’t I myself just, you know, read the book?

Cadence or intonation depending on what you mean.

Edit: This would seem to sum up the various parts of speech pretty concisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_(linguistics)

the game we should have had at launch

DLSS, frame-gen and massive CPU/GPU performance boosts

I don’t think the performance is Starfield’s biggest problem.

An “Everything App” is just an operating system.

I suck at math, but if the mean is sufficiently over the “positive” threshold, and there’s a low standard deviation across reviews, wouldn’t this have the problem I describe? The more certain people are about the quality of good games, the less relevant the ratio becomes, which is perhaps the opposite of what you would want.