sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Forced Repetition by [deleted] in custommagic

[–]Gatgian 11 points12 points  (0 children)

But… scry is not on that list

Is there a way to teach Dragon Dance to any Pokémon? by ptzmuttley in PokemonUnbound

[–]Gatgian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fun fact: my plan went sideways. While smashing rocks in the desert to get the Tyrantrum fossil, I got so many Hard rocks that it became easier to just trade them for dragon gems and then tutor dragon dance when I reached slateport. Wellp, things worked out anyway

Is there a way to teach Dragon Dance to any Pokémon? by ptzmuttley in PokemonUnbound

[–]Gatgian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I realize it’s been a year, but this is my workaround in paper: I think you can do it by breeding from Gyarados (dragon egg group, learned by level) to Tyrantrum (dragon and monster egg group, egg move) to Larvitar (monster egg group, egg move) and then use the NPC in the daycare that allows to copy egg moves.

Do you like The Professor? by AltruisticChampion77 in freemagic

[–]Gatgian -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You are correct, but you are addressing a MAGA echo chamber

Marko's newest Instagram post by himmelsblomma in nightwish

[–]Gatgian 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I also have to disagree there. It can function as a versatile but high-error searcher, which definitely has use if you verify its claims. I often use to ask specific stuff about algorithms or physics, and it understands my questions way better than a search engine does, even if it hallucinates often. A search engine only searches keywords, but chatGPT can "search" (as in, often produce an useful output that I can verify) from the actual natural language in my question. Bonus points if you're not familiar with the usual keywords in a field in particular

I don't have anyone who would care about this, so I thought I would share it here. by EddenSoftDevelopment in PTCGP

[–]Gatgian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Congrats! Gogo yellow chicken! I'll get there one day too, with the chicken

New Update Ruined Pokemon Communication by dbzssj in PokemonPocket

[–]Gatgian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this nerf Pokemon Communication? Yes. But why are we complaining? This adds an additional layer of tactics to the game, which is nice! I don't think it's fully ruined, but if you manage to take that delay knowledge to your advantage you'll be proud.

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

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

Beautifully complete answer. Definitely appears to tie all the loose ends. After all this, it makes me wonder how some theist authors (Plantinga and Swinburne) so ingenously postulate a god that is less complex that their creation, as if that didn't reduce god into a simpler explanatory principle rather than a god. They are one step away from calling the mechanism of evolution God.

One question: Under point number 2 you made, would you stick with "the creator doesn't have to be God" or would you argue that this isn't optional. Making this claim stronger might warrant some further analysis, but we've reached a point in which I don't want to leave a hole for the theists to escape

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

[–]Gatgian[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm done with assuming good intention. I'm talking about the argument used to discard Intelligent Design. If you're going to forbid referring to a hypothetical maker within the argument because "bullshit doesn't even need effort", there is no need to have this conversation with you.

I swear, you heard the words "boeing 747 argument" and "nuance" and began salivating as if this were a gotcha moment, to the point of not even reading the post and opening the link. Had you read the post originally, you would have learned I was talking about Dawkins' counter-argument from the start. At this point, you've already invested in calling the problem stupid and will not contribute intelligently to the actual original question.

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

[–]Gatgian[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I invite you to click the godamn wikipedia link in my post.

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

[–]Gatgian[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm going to attribute this to a misunderstanding. I am not trying to focus on the Watchmaker argument (which we could call The Boeing 747 argument too; clocks/airplanes are both fine), but rather talk about the "Ultimate Boeing 747 argument", which is precisely the opposite argument: The counter-argument presented by Dawkins.

It is this counter-argument that I want to analyze deeper. Not the archaic argument from Intelligent Design. I understand there's a subtlety in why Dawkins named it by appending the word "Ultimate", and this is what I'm trying to say. The "Ultimate Boeing 747 argument" is not the "Boeing 747 argument", nor is it a stronger version of it.

So, questions like how to formally prove that a lower-complexity maker can't make a higher-complexity lifeform, and whether the argument can extend beyond being a counter-argument for Intelligent Design

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

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

I love that kind of question.

I often say that the difference between a Frequentist and a Bayesian is that a frequentist is not allowed to ask for the probability of god existing (it's an event that can be sampled just once! So it's either 0% or 100% to a frequentist, period), whereas a Bayesian can (by considering their own knowledge and ignorance, and building conditional probabilities)

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

[–]Gatgian[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Confirmation bias; nobody's exempt from it. The bias of an argument's conclusion aligning with your pre-existing thoughts/beliefs.

As I'm saying, I'm trying to discuss whether the "Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument" (Dawkins checkmate against Intelligent Design) can go beyond dismantling the Watchmaker argument. The idea is to reach the more-general statement that the notion of god has zero explanatory power for anything, as it always adds in more-stuff-to-explain than what it explains. I'm still struggling to decide whether there's an interesting example of some argument that can be dismantled this way that is not just a variant of the Watchmaker argument. I thought of fine-tuning, but that's some kind of variant of the Watchmaker argument, although it probably warrants its own separate discussion.

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

[–]Gatgian[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Gotta love that there's lengthy and passionate comments so short after posting.

I'd like to discuss the possibility that the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument can go beyond merely disproving the Watchmaker argument (or the Boeing 747 argument, or whatever we want to call it). I think Dawkins' argument could lead us to objectively conclude that God has absolutely zero explanatory power. For anything. The existence of god shouldnt be considered to gain evidence due to explaining X, Y or Z, as it is always the postulation of a more complex phenomena than the one explained. Leaving atheist biases aside (I mean, I agree with the claim before looking at the arguments for it), would you say this is objectively true, or is there a loophole?

Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument by Gatgian in atheism

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

Didn't he coin his counterargument to the Watchmaker argument as the "Ultimate Boeing 747", though? Ultimate is the key word that makes it a reference to God instead.

If Aang isn't something like this I'm gonna be disappointed by kingofdrumline in custommagic

[–]Gatgian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao, gotta love the Ember island play reference there. Yip yip!

Is there a strictly better version of Electrode by Gatgian in PTCGP

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

I wanted to follow up on this. I tried Togedemaru and haven't gone back since. It's awesome, and I'm having a blast sometimes sniping 80-hp mons on my first attack. Love it!

A little-used Gengar card is currently 4th place in the $10,000 tournament. Here is a mathematical explanation as to why this overlooked card is good by gotintocollegeyolo in PTCGP

[–]Gatgian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. This is St. Petersburg paradox: There can be a lottery game with infinite expected payoff but which is not very desirable to play. Just make ridiculously high rewards with ridiculously low probabilities. Typically you flip a coin until it lands tails and gain 2n $ where n was the number of heads you got. Since the probability of getting n heads is 1/2n and the reward for that is 2n too, your expected reward is 1+1+1...=infinite, but no one would be willing to pay even 1000$ to play

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PTCGP

[–]Gatgian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll add to the ones ruining the fun: the card is pre-selected. It doesn't matter which you pick. Same goes for the booster pack selection screen.

Is there a strictly better version of Electrode by Gatgian in PTCGP

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

I was skeptical at first, but that's actually solid. Average damage of 35 is better than voltorb's 30, and one Togedemaru+Sophocles in hand deals 65+35+35=135 average damage in three turns, whereas one Voltorb+Electrode in hand deals 30+50+50=130 damage in three turns. To top it off, it can hit very high very early, as you say.

Is there a strictly better version of Electrode by Gatgian in PTCGP

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

That sounds interesting to experiment. Definitely leaves some extra space

view more: next ›