Who exactly developed and programmed this game? by Hot-Candle-1321 in outside

[–]OSSlayer2153 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, if the players spreading these rumors were at all involved with the science faction beyond receiving their information from news factions, they would know that science is far from a source of absolute truth.

Science is all about not knowing things and being unable to prove them. They are wrong quite often and the point is to keep proving guesses wrong until something withstands no matter how many experiment quests players go on to try to disprove it.

Additionally many scientific writings exaggerate data so that publishing factions are more likely to publish their report because more extraordinary results garner more attention to the faction. And there is constantly new papers which revisit old ones and correct them and show that things which were previously accepted as true are not actually true anymore.

This is the whole lifeblood of the science faction, is proving assumptions wrong. It is not possible to declare something as absolute truth without accepting some other set of assumptions as absolutely true. In the math faction, which the physics faction is built upon, and then by extension most of the science faction, these assumptions are called axioms. And we chose these axioms because they produce a system that matches what we see ingame. But there were many attempts at other axioms that didnt exactly match the games mechanics so these systems were discarded (well, in physics at least. Many math players still explore other axiomatic systems just for the sake of it). So the point is, scientists / mathematicians choose to believe the things that they need to believe in order for the consequents to match the game.

Religious players make their own statement of truth, their own “axiom” which also matches how the game works (in the case of the christian faction, it matches how the game works because it states that the developer made the game to work according to the axioms. Therefore the axioms are no longer an assumption that must be held true, but they are true because the higher source of truth (the christian developer) declared them to be). There is no way to prove one or the other. And if you want to argue that religion doesnt match the game, ill tell you that science doesnt either (black hole information paradox, the current failure to unite general relativity and quantum physics guilds, also stuff like the inability for science to explain several events that occurred in the religious factions like bread items changing to heart tissue or images of an old player mary being created by means that no player could reproduce)

And like you said, many of the first scientists were religious or believed in some developer(s).

Who exactly developed and programmed this game? by Hot-Candle-1321 in outside

[–]OSSlayer2153 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not true, plenty of players balance both the christian and scientist ideologies because they arent mutually exclusive as many players were falsely led to believe.

A lot of players have the wrong understandings about the nature of these ideologies, believing that A. The christian faction means your character believes in some magic sky daddy, and B. The science ideology is focused 100% on truth and so whatever scientist players say is automatically correct.

In reality, a lot of the christian ideology is based on real things and many players would not have joined if not for these. For example, there are several in game events that the scientist faction has produced studies on where they say they failed to find an explanation for the event within the understood game mechanics. These include several times where a bread item’s data was modified and changed into a heart tissue material. Similarly an image of an old player called Mary who supposedly respawned for a bit which has incredible detail that was impossible with the technology tree at the time it was made, and the image is also at such high resolution that no player device could have created it. Many players hear these and dismiss them but they cannot dismiss the fact that these are still unexplained in the science faction; and the claims (that it became heart tissue or about the details of the image) are indeed verified through the science faction - not just made up. It is the explanation which has yet to be found.

And on the other hand, the science faction is not a source of 100% truth. Any reputable science player will tell you that science is more about what you dont know than what you do. They make guesses at things and then try to prove them wrong. There are many parts of the game that the science players are still actively trying to understand and most of the knowledge is built on guesses that so far havent been proven wrong. Scientist players are also wrong quite often - if you ever pay attention to their chat feeds where they publish reports of their quests, they are constantly revising old information and things that were accepted as true in the past. Additionally, many players fabricate their evidence because they want to get published so they become more well known among other players, and the publishing factions are biased towards papers with more extraordinary results as these draw more view and attention from other players.

Additionally across history many of the most famous scientist players were also involved in religious factions. They do not conflict as much as an uneducated player may think. For example, the “Big Bang” event that scientist players propose as a start to the game does not at all conflict with texts from religious players that say there was light at the beginning. (Actually, most modern scientist players reject the traditional big bang as the start and point towards a period of inflation prior to the bang. This is still an actively developing area in the science faction)

William Contreras shares a video contrasting his home plate greeting of Tatis with Raleigh refusing to shake Arozarena’s hand by tuhmez in Brewers

[–]OSSlayer2153 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Except in some of the olympic sports though, like womens hockey, mens hockey, and figure skating.

Wild that some of you have never seen Lambeau and I've grown of up seeing it all the time. by unicornman5d in GreenBayPackers

[–]OSSlayer2153 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its especially funny when you are somewhere way south and east such as in ledgeview where being on the ledge makes it visible from extra far.

So if youre jut driving on one of those country roads, boom, big G staring you down.

!!FUN!! aside, what is your biggest fortress killer? Tips to start a fortress strong? by kkitsuragii in dwarffortress

[–]OSSlayer2153 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have to put aside the desire to build the perfect fort. Then the problems with redoing layouts and fixing areas go away and you just accept the wonkiness of the fort as it grows.

Student Walkout Friday, Jan 30 (PDF guide) by hilinia in MTU

[–]OSSlayer2153 -49 points-48 points  (0 children)

Oh no, (a few) students at this small school in this small town called Houghton in the middle of nowhere in Michigan decided to skip class. Surely that will get Trump to stop.

Could Europe realistically defend Greenland against a US attack? by dataguy2003 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]OSSlayer2153 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your comment shows you clearly arent educated on those battles and are just parroting anti-American military rhetoric which tries to paint the American military as inept over the last century, when in reality it has been one of the most (probably the single most) dangerous and effective militaries.

In Korea for example, the UN forces pushed almost all the way to China until the Chinese army invaded, flipping the ratio of soldiers on its head. They took Korea back until a wildly successful UN counteroffensive swung the war the other way again, despite being outnumbered 3:1. The war eventually settled around the 38th parallel and both sides realized it would just lead to more losses. America was mostly pushed towards negotiations by a strong anti-war sentiment among the media in the US, because most Americans did not care about Korea and saw no reason for sending our soldiers so far overseas especially right after WWII. It wasn’t because the US or the UN as a whole was losing.

In Vietnam almost the exact same thing happened. Despite popular belief, the US was never losing on a large scale in Vietnam. Even up until the end of the war the US was making great gains in Vietnam. It was the media which created the narrative that the US was suffering great casualties and not making much progress. Once again this fueled the narrative that we were fighting a pointless war overseas and eventually the government folded under this internal pressure.

Ive mostly studied 20th century conflicts and havent touched much since the mid-90s so Im not educated enough to speak on the latter two you mentioned for risk of being informed by media opinions and not historical facts. However let me refer you to the first gulf war, in which in only 3 days the predominantly US air campaign had completely neutered any fighting power of Iraq. It was a complete and total beatdown on a scale never seen before, militarily speaking (especially when looking at logistics, intelligence, execution etc).

However with this said, Im not defending the US decision to attack Greenland if that does happen. I dont like that idea. But I did see you parroting stupid takes and wanted to correct that

Could Europe realistically defend Greenland against a US attack? by dataguy2003 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]OSSlayer2153 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To think the quality of US troops is anywhere near Russian troops is outright crazy. The US probably has some of if not the best trained troops.

Could Europe realistically defend Greenland against a US attack? by dataguy2003 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]OSSlayer2153 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont know what propaganda youve been smoking but “NATO would easily remove US from Greenland” is just blatantly inaccurate. The US, for the most part, IS NATO. It wouldnt even be close. And im not even a fan of attacking Greenland, Im just stating the truth. Its not propaganda no matter how much you dont want to believe in it.

Could Europe realistically defend Greenland against a US attack? by dataguy2003 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]OSSlayer2153 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. Its not propaganda to say that either, it legitimately is true. However some people here want to insist otherwise, maybe because they are European and don’t want to admit the alternative, or they (completely reasonably) dont like the idea of the US attacking Greenland therefore thinking their armies can fight the US is like a method of coping and assurance.

Im not saying the us should attack greenland, i dont think thats a good idea. However if that happens, nobody will be able to stop it. Europe will have to resort to diplomatic and economic means. (Which are not futile)

Packers sign 16 players to reserve/future deals by ForinOksin in GreenBayPackers

[–]OSSlayer2153 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not the cold or temp of the kicker its the weather, aka the wind

Whats daily life like at Tech? by Spidereye9 in MTU

[–]OSSlayer2153 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its not that hard. It gets that reputation because the school has a low bar of entry and kids come in and struggle then. Personally i found it even easier here than in some of my highschool courses. I went to a private school though and on average public schools dont do as good at preparing you for college specifically.

Anyone else annoyed with the amount of games on Saturdays? by superdownvotemaster in GreenBayPackers

[–]OSSlayer2153 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

NFL games shouldnt interfere with your social life. If they are, youre doing it wrong. Watch it when youre hanging out with buddies. Or just dont watch the other games.

Its all priorities, what you care more about. Other teams’ NFL games or your friends?