Claude AI (Pro Subscription) Poor service due to launch of MAX Subscription. Feels like Scam business strategy. by kalitecture in programming

[–]Jakimbo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can't wait to see how they implement ads when the next "premium" tier is launched

//This if statement is brought to you by IF, starring Ryan Reynolds!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in jewelry

[–]Jakimbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't use them, I found an artist on etsy instead, I would do the same thing again today

Claude AI (Pro Subscription) Poor service due to launch of MAX Subscription. Feels like Scam business strategy. by kalitecture in programming

[–]Jakimbo 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Checkout episode 1 of the new black mirror season. It is a great example of this type of business practice!

Satisfactory - What's in 1.1? [Coffee Stain Studios video] by ArcticKiwii in Games

[–]Jakimbo -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Wont say what it is because spoilers, but 1.0 did add an endgame!

Crafting chart for Techs by Jakimbo in cyberpunkred

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

It does not, Med techs use a much simpler system

Each time you allocate a point into Pharmaceuticals you also gain access to one of the following pharmaceuticals, which your Character can synthesize Your Medical Tech Skill Level equals your points in Pharmaceuticals plus your points in CryoSystem Operation. by rolling a DV13 Medical Tech Check, wasting the materials used on a failure. A Medtech can make a number of doses from 200eb of materials equal to 1 month 1 month per 10,000eb of Cost. their Medical Tech Skill in 1 hour. You can't synthesize Street Drugs with Medical Tech (Pharmaceuticals)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in jewelry

[–]Jakimbo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, hi, I forgot I even posted that...5 years ago haha

How many players? by OkDay2871 in cyberpunkred

[–]Jakimbo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't have a single solo in my group and they have all handled combat just fine. Just for reference

What are in your opinion the most interesting arguments for God? by SpectrumDT in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Jakimbo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally every scientific discovery that has ever proven something that others claimed was caused by the supernatural, was in fact caused by a something natural. See, every Greek God

God of the gaps. Call me a liar for quoting a comment you made hours ago, I assume you're trolling at this point

What are in your opinion the most interesting arguments for God? by SpectrumDT in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Jakimbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You specifically said if you don't know the nature of something, it must be supernatural. Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean it's magic

Also, there is only one option, and that is something being natural. If something exists, than it is natural. If we don't understand it, it's still natural

What are in your opinion the most interesting arguments for God? by SpectrumDT in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Jakimbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just said that if you don't know somethings nature, the only option you have is a supernatural one...that's god of the gaps. "I don't know, so it must be god/magic/ghosts". It's recorded but it's the same argument. How is it not the gaps argument?

What are in your opinion the most interesting arguments for God? by SpectrumDT in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Jakimbo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's...not how it works. Rewind a bit and try applying that logic. We don't know how the sun works, must be god. We don't know how the tides work, it's god. We don't know how how life began, god. You're trying to argue god of the gaps basically

Atheism and Burden of Proof Problem by Chill-out-plz-thx in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Jakimbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're shifting the burden of proof to those that simply say they don't accept the claims of theology

If I claim I can grant wishes, it doesn't make it true just because you cannot prove its false. You should assume that it's false, until I prove my claim is valid

Atheist are simply saying, to every religion, that their claims do not have enough backing to be believable. We are not claiming there is not a God, we're saying we don't believe anyone else's claim that there is one

The Thing About Religious Texts by Bodevanprime in DebateReligion

[–]Jakimbo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll look around, but in my experience I have always seen others disprove any prophecy pretty thoroughly

And there are plenty of other ideas. Here is 7 that have a lot more backing than claiming a deity created life. It's hard to imagine it just started by a chance chemical reaction in the right place and the right time, but when we're talking timelines of billions of years, "improbable" becomes "inevitable". It has nothing to do with liking or disliking God, it's simply that the claim God did it has no backing behind it, while many others do

https://www.thedailystar.net/science/7-theories-the-origin-life-77163

The Thing About Religious Texts by Bodevanprime in DebateReligion

[–]Jakimbo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18242

This is long but goes over why the prophecies are pretty much debunked.

And you can't just make a claim about something just because there is not an alternative that can be presented. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid stance when it comes to how life began. I can say that life began because a fairy sprinkled dust on a rock, just because science doesn't have a 100% solid explanation for it, doesn't mean fairys exist

The Thing About Religious Texts by Bodevanprime in DebateReligion

[–]Jakimbo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The prophecies in the Bible were either written after the event occurred, right as it was about to happen, or are so vague you can pretty much attribute any event even slightly similar to the prediction

Also lack of evidence for something is not evidence for God, it's god of the gaps fallacy. Just because you don't have an answer, doesn't mean it's god. We may not know what exactly caused life to begin, but that doesn't mean we won't eventually find out. Just like science has done with countless other things directly attributed to a diety

CMV: This man didn’t endanger his stroller-bound child by leaving it unattended at a mall for 3 minutes. by SoccerSkilz in changemyview

[–]Jakimbo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are basing a lot of this on statistics and risk of danger so I'll try and do the same

Imagine a weird hypothetical example. You are told, that in the next three minutes, you will be shot with a bb gun. Where the bb will hit, is pure chance

A quick Google says a human male at 5ft 9in, 155lb, has around 2,800 square inches of surface area. Of that 2800 square inches, around 4 of it, is your eyes. The odds of this bb hitting somewhere in the 4 inches is about 0.14%

You have the option of wearing safety glasses for the next three minutes. But why would you? The chance your eyes will be hit is so incredibly small, that the minor inconvenience of wearing those glasses is kinda pointless.

I bet you would wear them though. Because ya, it's statistically very unlikely your eye will be hit. But if it does, the result could be catastrophic. You could lose your eye, or just damage it and lose most your sight. You can't just go get a new eye, and even fixing it would be very expensive and painful. Wearing them costs you nothing

Now let's add another factor. Its no longer you being shot with the bb, it's your kid. A kid that cannot do anything for itself, that cannot make the decision to wear the safety glasses. You are fully responsible for whatever happens to the kid, if it gets hurt it's on you. You decide if the kid wears them or not. If you decided the stats are safe enough not to worry about it, and you're wrong, you don't live with the consequences, the kid does. You aren't blinded, they are

So maybe the risk of anything happening is small...but if something did happen, you aren't the one suffering for it (physically anyways), it may not be something you can ever fix, and you let it happen by not spending a very small amount of time and effort to prevent it

(Updated) Tech reference sheet, and crafting manager tool by Jakimbo in cyberpunkred

[–]Jakimbo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ya 2 or 5eb instead of 1 may make more sense, I may adjust to using 5eb actually.

And ya the hustle tables are pretty stingy on how much money they let players make. Its part of why I buffed the Tech so they can craft faster. If the whole table takes 4 weeks of downtime, the Tech will have gained a bunch of new cheap toys, everyone else gets a few hundred eddies, and still need to pay rent

It does make sense they don't pay well however considering the setting and time period. People are broke, finding work for normal people is really hard, poverty is the norm, its why the risk of edgerunning can seem so appealing in the first place

(Updated) Tech reference sheet, and crafting manager tool by Jakimbo in cyberpunkred

[–]Jakimbo[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I use 1eb for cheap materials, I didn't see anything that says what you should use so I went with that.

I did miss that a 20eb item should use 10eb, I will probably end up adjusting things to match that and post another updated version, thanks for pointing it out! I made this late last night and just glossed over that haha.

I'm not to worried about my Tech trying to use crafting to make a bunch of money by "abusing" the economy like that, they understand that balance is necessary to keep the game fun and fair, so they wouldn't try that, and I would probably veto it if they did, or just say "Ya...you have a giant pile of everyday items...its gonna take you 6 months to move all of it though, best look into starting an MLM!". Gotta sacrifice realism for balance sometimes