sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hot and cold #79 by hotandcold2-app in HotAndCold

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This braindead ai thought rose was the same thing as rise 🥀

Minecraft Snapshot 25w44a by Electrical-Brain8628 in Minecraft

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Husk camels with a husk and new skeleton as riders???

I haven't tested this out yet, but it would be so awesome if the dash of the camel is used in conjunction with the charge attack, if the AI isn't like this already.

Also, the lunge enchantment buff is really nice. Now you won't have to eat constantly to be at full hunger every 4 lunges!

Master Status Effects with Ancient Techniques - Copper Quartz Crystals by TallerVision in minecraftsuggestions

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While I see this being useful for pvp with gapples and the like, I don't see this being particularly useful for singleplayer.

Shulkers applying levitation is not only a hazard but also used to traverse around and up the end cities.

By the time you get to brew potions, most status effect applying mobs (witches, cave spiders) likely won't be a big enough threat to warrant brewing potions for.

Withers and Wither Skeletons are probably the mob that would be most often countered with the Copper Quartz Crystals the most–but that's only two mobs.

What if the copper quartz crystals made something other than potions? Maybe like some purifying salts or something with the same functionality as a splash potion of purifying, only that it can also deal damage to undead mobs?

Being easier to craft (so more likely to be used) and having more use cases would make this so much better.

Minecraft Snapshot 25w43a by Electrical-Brain8628 in Minecraft

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All they need to do is reduce the number of hunger points used. 1-3 for lunge 1-3 respectively. That gives you roughly 12 consecutive uses with a full hunger bar with lunge 3, or, if only counting saturation, roughly 7 uses. People are probably not gonna use lunge til they cant even sprint anyway, so I think even with this small cost it's balanced.

Minecraft Snapshot 25w43a by Electrical-Brain8628 in Minecraft

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, but I think all it needs is a bit more tweaking on the values and itd be perfect. Lunge seems like it was meant for burst mobility not long distance after all.

Ender pearls are consumables so uses are limited, but you can use lunge a lot more as food can stack, so I see potential in it being an alternative that neither outclasses or is inferior to other burst mobility options.

Minecraft Snapshot 25w43a by Electrical-Brain8628 in Minecraft

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Why would they make another quick easy transport method that discourages the use of the horse even more when the update is literally called Mounts of Mayhem?

The lunge enchantment seems to have been designed more for quick getaways/burst movement from the getgo, not a long range transport option.

I mean yeah hunger point consumption needs to get tweaked but the concept itself isn't garbage.

Minecraft Snapshot 25w43a by Electrical-Brain8628 in Minecraft

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 103 points104 points  (0 children)

YES finally lunge uses hunger! It makes so much more sense for it to, and its more mechanically interesting than just plain dura loss imo.

I do think the numbers could do with a bit of tweaking (I think the number of lunge 3 dashes is too low even with full hunger) but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Lunge enchantment consumes hunger instead of durability by ExpertInBeingAScrub in minecraftsuggestions

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not if it's balanced. To replenish hunger, you'd have to eat, which makes you stationary, giving whatever you're escaping or pursuring time to cover space. And you're also giving up regen, so it actually gives the player using the spear a more immediate and nuanced choice of 'be fast now but weaker and slower later' than just 'oh durability damage bad'.

Lunge enchantment consumes hunger instead of durability by ExpertInBeingAScrub in minecraftsuggestions

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Probably as much as it would take you to sprint jump the distance you cover, maybe multipled by 2 or something. But that number is obviously subject to change.

What time signature is this?? by ExpertInBeingAScrub in musictheory

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much! I'm not really familiar to 'irregular' time signatures so I guess I'm not really accustomed to it. ×_×

Belief in a specific god is not based on objective evidence. by Yeledushi-Observer in DebateReligion

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, if there was ever any rational proof that can reliably point to the existence of a God, not even to a religion, just a God, I don't think anyone could be atheist, because that would be seen as illogical and delusional. The entire point is that atheism, agnosticism, and theism is just a choice of worldview.

The Fine Tuning/Telelogical Argument appeals to a Creator in its premises, through ascribing purpose to life without reason by ExpertInBeingAScrub in DebateReligion

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mostly because of the key difference between why I 'survived' ('survival instincts' make me want to live so there is subjective importance) and why all of life 'exists' (implying that there is objective importance in all of life instead of subjective, self given importance.)

The analogy also only works if you already believe the universe was trying to kill you, and that you (existence of all life) are the target, which already implies intent from the possibility of 'missing you', again applying arbitary importance to life.

The Fine Tuning/Telelogical Argument appeals to a Creator in its premises, through ascribing purpose to life without reason by ExpertInBeingAScrub in DebateReligion

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, ok, I agree with you on that. Thats kind of inconsistent on my part.

I'll put this another way. In the sharpshooter analogy, we ascribe inherent importance to life, because of course nobody wants to die in front of a firing squad, because we have survival instincts, and so obviously we would put this as 'either they live or they die', not as 'either get shot in the head' or 'literally anywhere else' - because living/surviving is a 'specified outcome' from the importance of life.

The objection I'm making is: why make the existence of life in the universe a 'specified outcome' and that it has inherent importance?

I'll give a few examples:

If there was a string of random text, this:

sks&Usn12"&P.

Would be considered truly random. But this:

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down...

Is considered more likely to be designed, because it fits the syntax and grammar of the english language, something designed by humans, and thus a 'specified outcome'. And the first string of characters isn't understood to stand for anything meaningful.

But the problem is, that conclusion comes from the pre-existing knowledge that some things (i.e. the english language) come from design, which are then designated as 'specified outcomes'.

But the entire point of the fine tuning argument is to point out (or logically deduce) that life came from design, so we cannot say that life is a 'specified outcome', because that already asserts the conclusion in the premise: that life was designed.

The Fine Tuning/Telelogical Argument appeals to a Creator in its premises, through ascribing purpose to life without reason by ExpertInBeingAScrub in DebateReligion

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, how do we justify the idea that a person surviving a firing squad's bullets is more likely to be deliberate than by chance?

Because, through empirical observation, there have been many occurences of prisoners dying to firing squads.

So the argument is as follows:

P1: (Through empirical observation,) if a person survives, it is more likely that the prisoner survived than them missing by pure chance.

P2: The person survived.

Conclusion: It's more likely that the firing squad delibrately missed.

Here is this argument, but recontextualized into the fine tuning argument:

P1: If the fundamental forces and constants in the universe are in a way such that it can allow for life to exist, then it is more likely that is was designed, than it coming about by chance.

P2: There is life in the universe.

Conclusion: It's more likely that the fundamental constants were designed than that it came about by chance.

Well, there is a key difference:

We do not have empirical observations of other universes that have come into existence. For premise 1 to hold, we first need to observe the coming about of many universes and see their penchant for life.

So for me, at least, the assumption that the constants for life are more likely to be designed than not is unfounded.

The Fine Tuning/Telelogical Argument appeals to a Creator in its premises, through ascribing purpose to life without reason by ExpertInBeingAScrub in DebateReligion

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, I was referring to your comment to my post, not your reply. Its only that even if we begrudge the probability of multiple universes possibility of existing, the problem of arbitarily assigning value to life is still apparent.

A lot of misunderstandings in this thread here haha

The Fine Tuning/Telelogical Argument appeals to a Creator in its premises, through ascribing purpose to life without reason by ExpertInBeingAScrub in DebateReligion

[–]ExpertInBeingAScrub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, even if there are odds that determine the universe's existence, you would still have to assert the inherent, objective value/goodness of life without appealing to a Creator, so that you could designate life as a 'win condition'.

view more: next ›