redhorsejacket @ redhorsejacket @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

222

Joined

2 yr. ago

Perhaps. But expanding ones borders through conquest also seems medieval, and guided missiles are poor tools for holding territory, so the classics still have a role to play.

As neat and tidy as your explanation is, I think you are vastly oversimplifying the concept.

You say the moon is real because you can see it, and you can prove it's there by telling other people to just go look at it. Alrighty then, I've seen bigfoot. In fact, lots of people say they've seen bigfoot. Therefore he must exist too, right? The photos "prove" his existence just as much as you pointing to the sky saying the moon exists cause there it is.

Now, I realize that there's probably some degree of hyperbole in your statement, so I'll walk this back a little. If the defining metric of your separation between these concepts is whether the hypothesis can be proven through experimentation, that's all well and good. However, I would argue that, in 99.9% of cases, it's still a belief statement. Let's continue with the moon example, but, rather than "seeing is knowing", let's apply the same standard that you applied to God. So, you "know" the moon exists, not just because you can see it, but because it's existence can be empirically proven through experimentation. What sort of experiments would you conduct to do that, exactly? Have you done those experiments? Or, like the rest of the rational world, do you accept that scientists have done those experiments already and decided, yup, moon's there? Cause, if you're taking someone else's word for it, do you personally "know" what they are saying is true, or do you believe them based upon their credentials, the credentials of those who support the argument, and your own personal beliefs/knowledge?

As another example, let's imagine for a sec we're philosophers/scientists of the ancient world. I have a theory that the heavier something is, the faster it will fall. You may know where I'm going with this if you remember your elementary school science classes. I believe in the power of experimental evidence, and so, to test my theory, I climb to the top of the Acropolis and drop a feather and a rock. The feather falls much more slowly than the rock. Eureka, I've proved my theory and therefore I now KNOW that an object's weight affects its fall.

Now, anyone not born in 850 BC Athens in this thread will point out that it's a flawed experiment, since I'm not controlling for air resistance, and if you conducted the same experiment in a vacuum chamber, both objects would fall at the the same rate. However, the technology to test my hypothesis with all of the salient variables controlled did not exist at that time. So, even though it's now widely known that my experiment was flawed, it wouldn't have been at the time, and I would have the data to back up my theory. I could simply say try it yourself, it's a self-evident fact.

Finally, your statement about subjectivity of definition being an obstacle to functional language is so alarmist as to border on ridiculous. If this question were "how do you personally define the distinction between 'yes' and 'no'", then sure I can get on board a little bit more with your point. However this is much more like 'twilight' vs 'dusk'. Crack open a dictionary and you'll find that there is a stark, objective distinction between those terms, much as you pointed out that belief and knowledge have very different definitions. For the record, since I had to look it up to ensure I wasn't telling tales here, sunset is the moment the sun finishes crossing the horizon, twilight is the period between sunset and dusk when light is still in the sky but the sun is not, and dusk is the moment the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon. So, I know that these are unique terms with specific, mutually exclusive definitions. But let me tell you something, I believe that if I randomly substituted one term for another based purely on my personal whimsy, people are gonna get what I mean regardless.

All good! You were in the ballpark, certainly. I read CAD, but not Penny Arcade, and I was there when Loss was uploaded, so the distinction is clear to me.

Wrong webcomic. Ctrl + Alt + Del is the name.

More a piece "inspired by" than a direct translation, but, if you have any affinity for classic metal music, Savatage has you covered.

Would the sensation be similar to being at high altitude without oxygen? There is a Smarter Every Day video from several years ago where the host conducts simple cognitive and motor function tests in a pressure chamber which simulates high altitude atmospheric conditions. Within a couple of minutes of being off oxygen, he's suffering from hypoxia and is unable to either continue the tests, or to mask up, despite being told the he will die if he doesn't secure oxygen. Admittedly, it's incredibly chilling to see the guy rendered so helpless, but, from his perspective, it did not seem particularly traumatic. As I understand it, if he had not had his mask applied for him at that point, he would have lost consciousness and then died in his sleep shortly thereafter. All things considered, not the WORST way to go. Beats getting stuck in that compartment with a leak and eventually drowning.

Hey, that's funny, that's verbatim what I say about trans folks too!

Well, at least the last bit, although I'm not ruling out the former on a case by case basis.

Fwiw, McDonnell was, until last year, a Democrat. The article mentions it towards the end, but, in essence, he's pro-life due to his religious beliefs. He refused to block the GOPs push to enact far-reaching abortion restrictions. The Democrats censured him for breaking from the party line. He swapped over to the GOP shortly thereafter.

So, good on him for having a spine to vote his convictions regardless of party affiliations. Very no good, bad, don't do it of him to be convinced his particular supernatural fantasies have any bearing whatsoever on the bodily autonomy of his constituents.

I need to lay off the Mount and Blade. Definitely saw Calradia as I was scrolling past.

Further context, assuming the ruleset governing the OG Baldurs Gate games was true to the tabletop (I know they sort of kludged AD&D and aspects of 3e together). As the above said, a dual classed human "retires" their original class, and then begins to advance in their new class, essentially starting over from level 1, with only the hit dice and HP of their original class rolled over (you cannot access any of the class abilities you learned while advancing your original class). However, once your new class level is superior to your original class level, you can now access both skill sets.

It's a very strange system, and I am curious what the fluff reasons surrounding it are, if anyone has any insight into that edition.

100%. I know that the jury is out, academically speaking, on the actual effectiveness of the bombs, but it makes intuitive sense to me that they at least contributed to the Japanese decision to surrender unconditionally.

In fact, up until the bombs were dropped, Japan was working with the Soviet Union to act as mediators in peace talks, so Japan could get a better deal. Of course, while the USSR entertained the diplomatic overtures from Japan, they were actually planning on declaring war, as they had promised at Yalta. But, I think it still contributes to my point that a civilian population that has been targeted by a besieging force must believe their only options are unconditional surrender or utter destruction (which, incidentally, is exactly the verbiage the US presented Japan in the Potsdam Declaration 10 days before the first bomb was dropped). If there is a plausible third option available (or believed to be available), then that's what will be pursued.

No, it was not my intention to suggest that. I'm sure the Germans threw everything they could afford into the Battle of Britain.

Though, I am most definitely not an expert in the field and should be treated as I am, a dude on the internet lol.

However, even Germany in early WW2 (arguably at the height of their power) was unable to throw enough explosives into London to make that switch flip in the civilian population from "we shall fight them on the beaches" to "okay, in light of recent events, we are reevaluating our 'Never Surrender' policy...".

In fact, I might even suggest that the scale of bombing necessary to make it a viable tactic was impossible at that time, as the nuclear bomb hadn't yet been invented. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can fact check this assertion, but I think the only time intentionally targeting civilians has successfully cowed a belligerent was when the US nuked Japan. And even then, it took two.

Also, to add to the other poster's point, in a medieval siege, the defenders have every reason to believe the attackers will happily let every man, woman, and child behind the walls die gruesome deaths to starvatiom or disease. That's why, when it came down to the wire, cities would submit.

In modern times, cultivating a believable military posture of, "Surrender, or we will personally execute every last motherfucking one of you" is politically dicey. Look at the news stories coming out of Gaza about supplies running low thanks to Israeli interference. Right, wrong , or indifferent, the international community (as well as your domestic community, if those that disagree with these sorts of tactics are allowed to make their voices heard) tends to look down their noses at targeting noncombatants populations. So, due to these complications (which were largely absent or less impactful from warfare in the time of Genghis Khan) wholesale slaughter of civilian life isn't really openly used. In fact, guidelines like "proportionality" are invented which dictate the level of response you can give certain provocations and what not.

So, if you're a modern day commander being tasked with taking an urban center, the closest way to approximate a medieval siege would be to absolutely carpet bomb everything. Make it known that you will happily let every single person in Moscow die, if not send them to the afterlife yourself. While you're bombing the suburbs, you'll also need to encirce the whole city to prevent supplies from being delivered, since you can't guarantee every bomb will hit it's target and need starvation to provide additional assurance to the population that, if they maintain their current course, they are doomed.

Unfortunately, the world isn't going to allow that, and you know it, so you commit to the level of bombing deemed acceptable by the world at large. At best, you wind up in a situation like London during the Blitz. Your bombing runs are effective, in that they disrupt the daily life of citizenry, and cause some infrastructure damage and loss of life. However, you're never going to be allowed to scale up to the point where your victims feel they have no way out but to submit. There's enough plausible deniability that, even when a bomb hits close to home (literally or figuratively), the victim is more pissed at the bomber than their government.

I have it on good authority that that isn't an issue in this instance. They've towed the boat outside of the environment.

Man, Trespasser is an example of a game with some pretty wild ideas about immersion and puzzle solving in a first person shooter game that the tech just wasn't quite able to pull off. If anyone is curious there is a positively antique Let's Play on YouTube that discusses the game's development, its relation to the wider Jurassic Park franchise, cut content, and, of course, the game in context. I think it may have come from the old Something Awful forums, and it remains, to my mind, the gold standard for what I'd like Let's Plays to be. Worth checking out if you've the time.

I go to Subway with an upsetting degree of regularity, but it's the only place where I can get fresh vegetables as part of my meal in under 30 minutes. The cheapest footlong on the menu is the Spicy Italian (or whatrver their latest menu refresh is calling it) for $10.99. Any other sub is $11.99 and up.

It's not even exclusive to cats. Some days, you just gotta sound your barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world, y'know?

Are you running any mods, or rolling vanilla?

Can you be more specific with what you consider the "soul" of New Vegas? I would consider it to be its embrace of Fallout 1/2's tone and canon, as opposed to the fairly clean break between the rest of the franchise and Bethesda's offerings.

Good for Owlcat. Their Pathfinder CRPGs are excellent, and it's always good to have more independent publishers out there supporting the genre.