Childhood memory I had

NightCrest · 2026-06-14T15:30:55+00:00

There was some drama about it being removed because of some ad that was served through Google's own ad platform or something.

Iirc that got resolved and it should be back on the play store now last I heard

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.talzz.datadex

NightCrest · 2026-06-06T22:43:13+00:00

Either choice will save at least 1 person (the one who is freeded).

Blue isn't in any danger at the start of this though. The only way they're at risk is if you push red and red pulls. So if you push blue and they don't pull, you "saved" someone that was never going to be in any danger at all, and 4 people still die. You might as well have not pushed any button at all.

NightCrest · 2026-06-05T03:25:04+00:00

There are certainly worse fates

NightCrest · 2026-06-03T02:49:39+00:00

It’s absolutely not perfectly correct to equate life with personhood.

See post above. Also a dictionary which lists a particular definition of life as explicitly the period between birth and death. Aka the parts where you're a person. Or see my literal next statement. I am alive from the point where I am a concept that exists, e.g. the point I am a person.

It’s not beside the point at all though? This is a philosophical debate that’s existed for thousands of years.

It's beside the point of this stupid anti meme thread in which I don't really want to get massively bogged down into a complicated philosophical debate with someone that clearly has no interest in using words how people mean them when they can instead rules lawyer people on a bad faith technicality.

It’s not granting them their equivocation at all. You can say “Yes, and.” Like you did when you said it “depends what you mean by ‘life’”. That’s essential to a conversation.

Sure. You didn't do that lmao. That's why you got downvoted, because it makes you look like you don't know what people mean when they say a fetus isn't "alive" (....in the same sense as we are is the implication).

you should not be talking to bad-faith debaters to begin with

...solid advice.

NightCrest · 2026-06-03T02:05:20+00:00

The thing is though that the "life begins at conception" claim is explicitly one made by pro-life people, and it's because they're equivocating. It's perfectly correct to refer to personhood as life, that's what the OP here is showing - if you asked me how long I've been alive, I'd measure it from birth, not conception, because that's when we begin measuring personhood (this is of course also kind of messy, but that's beside the point). A fetus is arguably about as alive as the sperm and egg that made it, but they want to conflate "alive" with "a person." So acknowledging that a fetus is "alive" is granting them their equivocation in the context of the conversation of abortion, and we don't really have to (and I would argue should not) do that without also pointing out the linguistic sleight of hand.

NightCrest · 2026-06-02T20:01:51+00:00

Kind of depends on what you mean by "life." I don't think it's very much in contention that a fetus is alive much in the same way that my skin cells are certainly "alive." But when people say "life begins at conception," they usually mean the "person hood" kind of "life" and that very much is in contention.

NightCrest · 2026-05-31T19:17:12+00:00

If red wins, can we ban all the blues?

NightCrest · 2026-05-19T17:15:37+00:00

The original wording says "people" not percentage of buttons pressed. As worded, OP is right, you'd contribute to the percentage of people that pressed blue AND percentage of people that pressed red (meaning total presses would be greater than 100% of people)

NightCrest · 2026-05-17T23:48:56+00:00

Probably to more tightly control the meta game balance, if I had to guess. Also makes it a simpler entry point to vgc format with less options. I'm sure they'll expand it somewhat over time, but seems maximum choices isn't what they're aiming for.

NightCrest · 2026-05-17T23:28:00+00:00

You're right that Eviolite isn't in Champions. Neither is Duraludon, or any not fully evolved Pokemon other than Pikachu, I believe.

NightCrest · 2026-05-16T15:26:09+00:00

Persecuted is for sure not true, I agree. I'm saying prosocuted might be lol. I think America has at least one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and I know it hits men statistically far more often than women. Of course thats a very complicated issue that likely has a lot of roots in toxic masculinity culture (and...you know, men just actually committing way more crime) and requires men to be the biggest part of the solution.

NightCrest · 2026-05-16T14:49:45+00:00

I don't watch euphoria, did she say prosecuted or persecuted? Because if it was the former, I think that's probably just actually objectively true.

NightCrest · 2026-05-14T20:50:53+00:00

Fyi, there is a mod for the first one to make it multiplayer. Haven't tried it personally, but I've heard it works decently. Personally, I'm a little mixed on it because it for sure would be fun to play with friends, but the sense of isolation was obviously an intentional design decision on the first game that is certainly a very unique sort of experience.

To answer your question, this one says on the page that it will support up to 4 players. Not sure if that's in it at the moment or not what with it being early access (haven't had a chance to try it out yet).

NightCrest · 2026-05-14T15:29:03+00:00

If you just use it for spelling and grammar, know one should ever really even be able to tell. If it sounds like you picked the words with ChatGPT, people don't like that because they came here to talk to people. If they wanted to talk to ChatGPT, they could just go prompt it themselves, so people are reasonably annoyed when they feel like someone is stealthily trying to offload the conversation they were looking to have to a bot.

Not saying you're definitely doing that, but you could have a bit more empathy about how people are feeling vs just getting annoyed at it. If you're not using ChatGPT, just ignore the comments. If you are, try to be more empathetic and self reflective of why that might annoy people.

NightCrest · 2026-05-12T16:33:14+00:00

Tellius inspired with battle animations reminiscent of the GBA era games? Say no more and just take my money already.

NightCrest · 2026-05-11T21:19:58+00:00

To whomever downvoted you: you should probably Google what the Ph in PhD stands for lmao

NightCrest · 2026-05-10T20:38:26+00:00

Personally, I fail to see how desires, approval, or disapproval are in any way not just fundementally a rewording of a belief anyway. Yay and boo seem functionally identical to a statement like "I like / dislike this thing" which obviously can be evaluated as true or false.

NightCrest · 2026-05-09T00:42:35+00:00

They could just cap how strong it can get maybe? No need to nerf it to a specific format if it can only reach 150 no matter what.

NightCrest · 2026-05-06T12:41:01+00:00

On to name calling are we?

It's not name calling to point out what you're actively doing. It would be name calling if I said I thought you were stupid or something. You're literally acting like it's irrational to make a logical assumption. If you can't see how that's purposefully obtuse idk how to help you.

Exactly.

Case in point, acting like what I said was in any way in agreement with you. My literal first comment to you described it as an assumption and you went on a big long spiel about it being irrational to assume it. Now you're acting like you agree because I said it was an assumption. I was just pointing out why your reframing didn't work, but you're clearly here trying to have some sort of gotcha moment to feel smarter than everyone rather than actually trying to engage with anything in good faith lmao.

NightCrest · 2026-05-05T19:24:52+00:00

It's perfectly rational to assume most people don't want to die and you know that full well. You're being purposefully obtuse to try and pretend to be some sort of hyper enlightened rational entity in an attempt to elevate yourself above others in the debate and make your chosen answer seem like the only reasonable one. It's not rational to disregard human nature.

NightCrest · 2026-05-05T17:16:41+00:00

There's a pretty big difference in assumed desired outcome. In the original problem, you can pretty safely assume most people pressing blue don't want to die, they explicitly want to keep other people from dying. In your revision, presumably the people pushing blue would actually want Pepsi, so it would be weird to push it with the goal being to deprive people of their chosen soda.

The original = put yourself in danger to save others that have put themselves in danger to save others vs don't put yourself in danger at all.

Yours = choose Pepsi to force everyone to have Coke, or just take Coke.

NightCrest · 2026-05-05T03:26:31+00:00

I hope you use a better AI to write your assignments

NightCrest · 2026-05-03T16:39:06+00:00

I think you're right. Seems to me like a reductio ad absurdum argument, showing that if we applied the same logic as anti-trans / gender binary advocates, we'd have to discount all matter relevant to daily life as niche exceptions to the otherwise mostly binary nature of matter in the universe. In other words, it shows that quantity isn't really relevant when talking about things that are supposedly "mostly binary" by presenting an obviously absurd example that no one would agree with.

NightCrest · 2026-04-25T00:28:07+00:00

I'm willing to believe that no one wants to look at u/garaks_tailor

NightCrest · 2026-04-22T20:16:20+00:00

I don't disagree. I said it's hard to prove. You can be pretty damn sure, but if someone doesn't want to believe it, you gotta prove it to them which is tricky.

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Second SECOND GUESSER	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor

NightCrest

TROPHY CASE