@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

It sounds to me like you are doing your friends and family a serious disservice. If they ask you for your opinion, and you really do think it's a bad idea to get a tattoo, then imo you should tell them that.

@TracingWoodgrains I admire the courage it takes to put yourself out there. Godspeed brother. That said, you'll always be TracingWoodgrains (or at least Trace) in my heart, because I still admire your respect for the best bit of writing Orson Scott Card ever did. You, sir, are a man of culture.

I feel like I probably wouldn't enjoy it because I don't care for soccer, but man this post made me want to check out Football Manager.

Monthly payment all-in is $2200 and expected to go up due to property values increasing.

I'm guessing you mean from taxes? That's a factor for sure, but it's going to be so minuscule that it isn't even worth talking about. The assessed value of my home went up by like 75% in the past year, and it's going to mean an extra couple hundred dollars on our monthly payment. Compared to the value you will get from selling the house later on, that's nothing imo.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It really was a great time for video games, and while there are still good games coming out it's not the peak that it was then.

Second the Three Kingdoms recommendation for historical TW. @cjet79 mentioned he doesn't like the powerful lords and heroes in Warhammer, which 3K does have kinda... but you can play in "records mode" which is more realistic. And I think that 3K just plain nails the gameplay more than any other game, even Warhammer. The campaign layer is the best in the series, with the diplomacy/espionage/family relationship systems. And the battles feel great too. The terrain can be interacted with (like you can set forests on fire), the cavalry feels super satisfying to use, and the leader duels are super cool and thematic.

I think it's a shame that CA dropped 3K like a hot potato, because it's some of their best work by far.

Like @ratboygenius said, they all have their own appeal. 3 is where it all began and has a nice Italian Mafia thing going on, VC has the 80s cocaine setting, SA has the 90s inner city gang vibe, 4 is a more modern gritty take on NYC with a lot of bitter subtext about the failure modes of the American dream, and 5 has the three protagonists and great heist design. Pick which one of those sounds appealing and just go with it, they have some connections between games but it's really just for fanservice.

I didn't have any consoles growing up, my parents were very against them. I only had old PC games. My first console (eventually) was a PS2 my sophomore year of college.

It's weird to have one person do it, let alone more than one.

I played, it's very much in "wait" territory imo. It has potential. I like the way you assign families to jobs, and how you can turn people's homes into artisan workshops. I also like the addition of combat to the city builder format. But I also think it's very much half baked even by early access standards. The map takes way too long to traverse, the AI has no chill, some techs seem to not work at all, and so on.

I think that if the dev can keep at it, Manor Lords is going to be great someday. But it's pretty meh at the moment.

Dude it's common sense. It doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out in the rules, any more than the rules explicitly enumerate every single word you aren't allowed to use to describe fellow posters.

I'm focusing on this part because it's the part which matters. Reasonable people may disagree on whether the initial warning was right, and if FNE had chosen to politely argue that she wasn't in the wrong then all would be well. I think that the initial warning was a bit harsh, though I think "indefensible" is far too strong a claim. But the way you take up your cause with the mods matters a great deal, and nobody gets to just go "nah I'm not listening to you". That's not ok.

With all due respect, "I do what I want" is not a viable approach to building a quality space. FNE was given a warning, not a ban straight off (presumably because she is a good poster and it wasn't a serious infraction), and that's all that it needed to ever be. It was because she chose to escalate things that she got banned temporarily, and it was perfectly reasonable.

I think that the ban was perfectly reasonable. When a moderator says "hey cut that shit out", "no I won't" is not an acceptable response. It's fine to argue why you think the mod's decision is in error, but to flatly refuse to abide by the decision crosses a line.

She's left in the past and come back. Hopefully she comes back again, she is someone I really enjoy hearing from.

That said, I think Phlebas is just more entertaining

That's wild to me, because imo the only thing less entertaining than Consider Phlebas is the classified section of a newspaper. It's by a large margin the most painfully boring fiction book I've ever read. Meanwhile Player of Games actually was really quite entertaining.

Can't say I have. My experience with the bus begins and ends with taking it from one stop on the side of the street to another. I'm not saying they're necessarily unusual, just that I've never interacted with one.

I've never seen such a thing, but it seems to me like you're saying those are stops for separate bus routes, and the other crowd was at the wrong one? I feel like in that case one doesn't owe to people to go to the back of the line.

What's the distance here? To me, waiting at the next stop makes it sound like they're a block or two away. In that case I think that they're too far away to really have a good objection if you're at the front of the line. On the other hand if the bus pulled up a few feet away from the stop like @DradisPing suggested, then you don't get to jump to the front of the line because the people waiting were slightly off.

Shit man, I had 0 dates up until age 30. I somehow got married, much to my infinite surprise. Just goes to show that you never can really know the future for sure, I guess.

"we deserve hell" is a bog standard part of Christian doctrine. If we didn't deserve hell on our own merits, then we wouldn't really say we need a savior. Agree or disagree, this isn't really a fringe position that @Felagund is taking.

What, you mean you don't insert?

Catholics don't believe that scripture is infallible? Infallibility is a strong statement to make, and admitting that men wrote it is kind of conceding a lot of ground. I guess I don't know what you're supposed to base your belief on here, if men wrote it and it may not be accurate to what God actually wanted us to know.

I guess I would say my understanding is that scripture is a mixture of fallible bits and infallible bits. There are undeniable moments in the Bible where the human author is shown to be imperfect - I can't recall the exact verse, but there's a part in one of Paul's letters where he says that he forgot something or other. Clearly, God doesn't seem like he would be in the business of telling Paul "yeah say you forgot this bit". But the Catholic belief is that those things are fine because they aren't the essence of the message (which is infallible, cause that is the part God inspired).

How would inspired word look any different from some random jackwagon writing whatever he wants?

Great question, because yeah once you open that door you now need to distinguish which parts are inspired by God, and which parts are not. Unfortunately the answer in my case is that I am just not well-versed in this stuff enough to know. I would bet that at least part of the answer is going to be rooted in what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition - basically, the idea is that not all of the teachings of the early church were written down as a modern audience would expect, but at least some were handed down orally. Those teachings are considered to be authoritative as well, and the Catholic justification for how we know which books of the Bible are canonical is basically "God gave men the grace to discern it and pass that down as part of Sacred Tradition". Given that the answer for which books are canonical is believed to be rooted in tradition, I imagine that so too is the answer to your question. But ultimately I don't know - sorry about that, because it is a totally fair question.

To that end, is there anything solidifying your belief in day-to-day life?

A couple of things. One thing (and basically the reason I came back to the faith after I left it in my 20s) is basically that my dad attests to having seen two genuine, cannot-mistake-it miraculous (or at least supernatural) events (I can give you more detail if you like, but I generally figure that "my dad said so" is not something which would convince anyone who doesn't know him, lol). Obviously I have a high degree of confidence that he wouldn't lie to me, and I have a high degree of confidence as well that he didn't just hallucinate the things he reports. So while that doesn't exactly prove that my faith is correct, that gives me a pretty strong nudge towards the faith my dad has (i.e. Christianity) being correct.

The second thing is the way in which I met my wife. It probably sounds trite, but it's true. I was single up until I was 30 - I couldn't even get a date, much less a girlfriend. I was pretty unhappy but couldn't really make any headway, and I would've bet you every last penny I owned that I was going to die alone. Eventually, I had a friend who had good success with online dating and I made an OKCupid profile basically just to earn the right to be bitter and mad at the world (kind of like how people will vote so they "have the right to complain about the result"). I wound up meeting my wife, who unknown to me also made a profile in more or less sheer desperation after she had been in a couple of bad relationships. Before she met me she was also going to give up on dating (for a long time if not forever), because it had just been so negative for her. To me... I just can't really believe that is coincidence. I know it's possible! But ultimately I really do think that the most likely explanation is that God brought us together at the right time when we both really needed each other. So that also solidifies my day to day belief.

I asked a couple Christians if there is justice in this life, or if it's only reserved for the afterlife, and both of them seemed pretty stumped by what I thought was a simple question.

I believe that sometimes we get justice in this life, but that ultimately justice is only guaranteed in the afterlife.

To me, it seems pretty obvious that life is randomly cruel to everyone, Christian or not, a world of chaos, untamed and wild except for where men have tamed it. If someone created it, they're either not paying attention to it, as if they wound up a wind up doll and walked away from the table, or they never cared much about it in the first place, an apathetic god that lets the chips fall as they may. You probably disagree with that, and if you do, I'd like to hear it.

Yeah, I definitely feel the frustration of how messed up this world is and how it really seems like it's ripe for God to step in and correct things. Surely people deserve that from him, right? I have had the same thoughts myself more than once. Ultimately, the problem of evil is just really hard and I don't know that there's a perfect answer. But if I had to say what I think, it's probably something like this.

God is not exactly alien to us (like a Lovecraftian elder god or something), but he's not entirely comprehensible to us either. That means that having faith in God means I need to accept that sometimes, the way he chooses to handle things is going to seem really messed up in the short term but will pay off in the long term. Unfortunately, I think that sometimes "long term" here means "in the afterlife", which is really hard for us humans. But I do believe that God loves us, and that everything is ordered towards our ultimate good. I've had my own experience where I had something happen to me that I thought was catastrophic, but ultimately made me better, and I think of that whenever I think of all the horrible things God allows to happen in our world. I know that's cold comfort to those who suffer. I wish I had a better answer. But that's what I believe at least, and what I try to cling to whenever I find myself questioning "what the hell, God? Why would you allow this?"

I have so many random theological questions (does the suffering of animals mean anything?), but maybe some other day. Or some other thread.

For sure man. Feel free to ask, I'll at least do my best to answer. And I try to be honest when the answer is "I don't know", which it will probably be more often than not. ;) But I am always down to try to answer the questions.

Thank you! I had heard the term before but totally forgot about it, so I appreciate the info.

Take something like the laws of logic for example, they are as far as anyone knows eternally true, and what's more they seem to be intuitively undeniable and, in a manner of speaking, to impose themselves on any rational mind and, failing that, at least the material reality of the irrational.

And yet, our understanding of those things has changed many times throughout history. The laws of logic and mathematics haven't changed, but over time we learn more about them. So clearly just because something is eternal and unchanging, our understanding of said thing is not precluded from changing.

In other words, it does seem to be possible for God to put ideas into the minds of all humans that are relatively stable and undeniable by any serious thinker. Why did he not do that for belief in himself?

The honest answer is "nobody knows for sure". Some people say that those ideas already exist. For example, some people believe that the majestic beauty of nature is proof that an intelligent creator must be behind it, and that anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Others believe that for God to do so would be limiting himself in some way. I personally would lean towards the idea (which I touched on in my earlier post) that people aren't actually as ready to accept these ideas as they think they would be. But that is just my best guess based on observing the human tendency to skepticism.