FlailingAce
No bio...
User ID: 1084
40 acres
HOA
No way this can be real, right?
Actually the hot tub scenes were the worst for me. Dionysus leaves nothing to the imagination, and nothing is more sinful than man's imagination.
They gave Aphrodite a more dominant feminine look, in contrast to the sort of demure virginal look of some traditional depictions. This matches her characterization as an active and relatively sassy participant in the story. She is a seductress rather than an object of seduction. Taste varies of course but I'd certainly call her attractive even if you don't.
The arms are definitely not large. Even for an athletic female I consider them thin, never mind what you would typically see on an athletic male build. I can agree with the small waist, but that's about it.
They're defending the artwork because the criticism is stupid.
Firstly, Rose is fine, let's get that out of the way. And the art in Hades II is quite attractive, if not always in-your-face about it. Personally, as a Christian I had to look away from certain scenes to avoid lustful thoughts, but your experience may vary. No idea why anyone would claim it was unattractive for, what, having a unique art style?
Second, fans of something will always defend it, even against legitimate criticism. Ferociously, even! I don't know why this would possibly surprise you.
None of these hypotheses are necessary. People like a game, they like the art, and creeps on X attacking it for stupid reasons should rightly be pushed back against.
I think there's something a little off about her in this image, but it's not 'trans' by any stretch. I think maybe her head is a bit small compared to the rest of her body? That's all I can pinpoint. Very weird that people read this as trans.
At first blush this sounds like you're describing class mobility. In a society with high class mobility, a laborer who makes good decisions will receive that benefit and has the potential to rise, and likewise an elite who makes poor decisions will faces the consequences and fall. Societies with low class mobility prevent consequences for elites and offer limited opportunities to laborers. Likewise, a larger middle class implies higher class mobility.
The war between slaves and free men only takes place when there's an actual distinction, a wall between the two groups that can't be climbed. That's why we haven't had class war in the US. But with the younger generation rejecting the American mythology of class mobility, that war is looking more likely.
Congrats! Another blow struck against declining global fertility!
Perhaps Gillis is trying to expand the appeal to more than just the upper-middle class, but I don't think the joke lands with lower-middle class women either.
I don't think Gillis gives two hoots about expanding the appeal of SNL. I think he thought it was funny. He probably also thought it was thumbing his nose at the SNL audience who got him fired, which makes it even funnier.
Disagree, I laughed. It's funny precisely because it was on SNL and transgresses the norms of that subculture.
It was the one deal that guaranteed some degree of international cooperation, which is absolutely essential to reduce global emissions.
You're laughing mate. The Paris Accords had no enforcement mechanism and did not include the largest polluters. It was pure virtue signaling.
Leftist climate policy actually gives credence to Trump's claim that climate change was a hoax invented by China, since it seems China is the one benefiting from Western nations crippling their own energy infrastructures.
Anyway, I’m heterodox so feel free to ignore all of that, but I’m heterodox for a reason because modern Christianity is broken per every statistic on it. You’re not bringing in anyone or retaining very many people, and the lifestyle of those you retain are questionable, so we should figure out what works.
I'd like to hear more of your ideas on this. I'm in leadership - and potentially taking over someday - at a small Calvary Chapel (we're pretty heterodox as denominations go). What do you think we could be doing better, as a church body or as Christians generally?
I'm somewhat bemused by the strength of conviction displayed in opponents of PSA.
My theory is that it's because of a distaste towards the Levitical system in general. As modern Christians, we don't need to make offerings for our sins, so the whole concept seems alien to us. Never mind that it's the system God chose to give to Israel - it just feels wrong! Why couldn't God choose to forgive sins without all this slaughtering of innocent animals? Why does blood have to have this significance? It seems barbaric to modern sensibilities. So if some people have this distaste towards the idea of blood sacrifice, it seems reasonable to me that such distaste would apply also to theories of Jesus as a blood sacrifice, even if the text of Scripture seems to treat his death as such. I wouldn't call this a theory of mind necessarily, but perhaps a vibe check?
Anyway, interesting write-up! Like you, I don't have a strong opinion about which theories of soteriology are correct - I'm just putting my trust in Jesus and looking forward to finding out how it all works one day. Congrats on your conversion!
People are arguing online about the death penalty and not about XYZ other topic, that's working exactly as intended. Plus this puts Islamic terror and law and order front of mind, both of which are typically winners for Republicans. The details of this particular spectacle are irrelevant, nobody is voting based on their opinion of this execution.
I just want to note that I like the optics of him being crippled. If he was a strong Arab man who proudly stands his ground it might make for good martyrdom propaganda. Instead he will hopefully appear weak and pathetic, which I think will be more impactful to the target audience of potential jihadis.
Isn't it the opposite? The political capital of generating controversy is to take attention off of matters of governance that actually matter. The people need their circus.
This is why I'm not a utilitarian. The idea that you can quantify suffering and then try to optimize over the sum necessarily leads to absurdities around ideas like the torment nexus.
If we care about AI pain, shouldn't we also care about AI pleasure? And then isn't it our moral obligation to create as many AIs as possible and simulate the pleasure nexus for each of them? Even if there's only a tiny chance AIs can experience pleasure?
The Sim clearly tries to avoid drowning in the pool, it's only the removal of the ladder that prevents them. They have a reward function and a trigger that they are trying to avoid that impacts that function, that's the definition of pain.
What people say pain is bad they really mean the experience of pain as a conscious phenomenon. If pain didn't feel bad we wouldn't have a problem with it, it would just be a useful diagnostic tool for our bodies.
That's why the comparison with the Sims is apt. You ridicule it because you understand intuitively there's no experiential pain, but the same is equally as true about an LLM.
I don't think I agree with that perspective on Big O notation. It's common because generally people don't intuitively understand the difference between, say, quadratic and exponential growth. But of course in computing it's crucial, so people need to be taught it over and over so that they will understand it intuitively. It has a huge impact on how fast an algorithm performs in real world implementations.
The difference here is that the smallest example where log(n)^(1-2^-182) is noticeably different is if you were multiplying two numbers whose physical representation in bits is larger than the universe. It's totally meaningless.
Integer multiplication below n log n, which I had mentally filed under "the floor, go home."
If I understand your comments below, this is actually false, you didn't have any expectations about the bounds for this problem. Presumably this claim was just AI generated.
The improvement in the paper goes to n(log n)^(1-(2^-182)), which while kind of neat is essentially the same as n log n (unless we're multiplying numbers on a computer larger than the universe). It's a toy result. Your amazements suggests you probably didn't even look at the paper.
In other words, I consider your thoughts on this totally untrustworthy. Please don't use AI to write your posts.
I'll second both parts of that. I've got about 500 hours in XCOM 2 Long War of the Chosen, culminating in completing an Ironman Legend campaign earlier this year. It is addicting but in a digestible way, because you can play just a little at a time, and can take your time figuring out any situation. It's also by far my favorite game.
Gotcha, I see the connection better now.
It seems like a misapplication of the template though. The point of it seems to be to mock someone's enthusiasm for a topic or their willingness to share an opinion that nobody else cares about. Scott is adding in a totally different aspect with his comparison between EA and Christianity. It ends up as a mixed metaphor which I think is why so many are confused by it.
I think I've seen you link this image several places, and every time I don't see any connection. There's no similarity between this 'template' and what Scott says. A copypasta means you copy and paste, maybe with minor alterations.
I don't understand how you read Scott's message and took it as something other than a joke.
The problem is it doesn't read as a joke. There's no wordplay, no clever twist conclusion. It's just a straight-forward comparison that comes off (at least to me) as both direct and fairly aggressive in tone. It's no surprise that people would take it at face value.
If it was meant purely as a joke then it was poorly conceived and poorly executed.
- Prev
- Next

Dang that stinks. I'm only 8 minutes drive outside my town with 1 acre, but basically no restrictions on land use. I haven't tried to build a dirt bike track though.
More options
Context Copy link