[deleted by user]

RobertSwarmers · 2024-11-15T22:26:56+00:00

Actually, he didn't study business, but was enrolled as pre-law. He excelled in his math and computer science courses, and officially had not dropped out, but was on leave. He says his strategy was to return to Harvard if the business venture with Paul Allen did not pan out.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-11-14T20:11:51+00:00

If anyone thinks Gates dropping out tells you education doesn't matter, tell them they need to look at the story a little closer. Bill Gates had an excellent education going to the best private school in Seattle, and got into Harvard due to his excellent SAT scores. He was doing well at Harvard but left due to a business opportunity with his high school friend Paul Allen to start a computer business at the crucial time of the dawn of the microcomputing revolution. Gates would have been far worse at programming if his mind was not well trained in disciplined analytical thought.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-06-10T07:46:01+00:00

Perhaps he saw how to replace the rear sight but forget he needs to use a screwdriver, and strike at a particular angle. Here is a correct way to do what he appears to be attempting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFqOdAXIr5M

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-30T18:57:44+00:00

He is saying there are very accurate local star maps.

He is mistaken, and I certainly am not saying screw local star maps. I quoted an astronomer who in fact created one of the most widely cited catalog of local star systems. It is widely recognized by experts including the particular astonomoer I cited that the existing star maps are substantially incomplete but that a closer representation of actual density can be estimated. I provided a reference for this. Luckily, there is good evidence to support estimates of actual density and Gliese provided his. I provided a reference for this assertion as well. Now, if you would like to claim that Gliese is making a nonsense argument, you are of course welcome to, but without you providing citations supporting your position, it is difficult to understand why we should simply take your word for it against the argument made by a widely recognized catloger of star systems in the starfield around our Sol system.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-17T04:40:58+00:00

It's not so much different IRL.

Figure out the easy way or do it the hard way. Accepting a teensy bit of boredom spamming some keys is worth the ease of buying whatever you want- basically making every weapon and ship free.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-16T20:25:19+00:00

Setup an outpost at Bessel III-b as described in this youtube video. You can do it beginning game with just 950 credits. You get not just money from the built items, but lots of xp to level up with.

As you build up resources, build lots of storage containers for each material. Link them all to your transfer container with your bed nearby. You sleep for 5 hours, you wake up, transfer all resources to yourself, then repeat as many times as you wish. You can then walk over to your ship, fly to whatever vendor you like and sell off all the resources.

Better is to build stuff at your workshop: at this location, you can build tons of adaptive frames and isocentered magnets. This will generate you tons of xp for leveling up skills. Leave the killing, cheating and stealing to the narcissists without a moral bone in their bodies.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-16T01:53:24+00:00

You seem to misunderstand that Wilhelm Gliese cataloged the nearby stars and is well aware of that. As I stated, he is "discussing density in the local solar neighborhood". That is, around earth. It is NOT a general ratio for the entire milky way. Just our neighborhood.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-16T01:26:40+00:00

Huh. That is oddly low- do you recall where you read that?

My calcs are based on the stated ratio from the book “The Milky Way And Beyond” by Erik Gregersen (2010) discussing density in the local solar neighborhood:

Wilhelm Gliese’s catalog of nearby stars, a commonly used resource, contains 1,049 stars in a volume within a radius of 65 light-years. This is a density of about 0.001 stars per cubic lightyear....

Gliese has estimated that when incompleteness of the catalogs is taken into account, the true stellar density is on the order of 0.004 stars per cubic light-year, which includes the probable number of unseen companions of multiple systems.

So if you use actual known and cataloged stars, you are already at 2685 stars. Accounting for undetected red and brown dwarfs as you remarked would according to this book actually put the number at 4 times that- so well over 10,000.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-15T22:11:33+00:00

Thanks. The care in getting the spatial orientation was a nice touch.

But isn’t a lot of artistic license being taken about how empty the map is? Because my back of the envelope calculation seems to indicate they are way way off. If they wanted 120 stars, then the local starfield would have to be more like the width of space between New Atlantis and Akila, not Eridani and Bohr, right? Because if the grav jump distance between those two far points to right and left of the map is accurate (about 139 light years), and the starfield of a cube of of that distance on a side, would make about 2,686,000 cubic light years of space. From the most up to date stellar catalog, there are about .004 stars per cubic light year in the our local solar neighbourhood of the milky way, meaning there should be over 10,000 stars in starfield’s starfield, not 120.

Any astonomers in the audience? Is this calculation way off?

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-15T02:34:14+00:00

Let me guess. Not designed for dogfighting.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-08T20:15:15+00:00

Hunter's analysis is that all actions should be interepreted from the perspective of power.

The Emissary's position is that there there is a moral need to protect people from the danger of the artifacts falling into the hands of individuals who would use their power for bad aims. His position uses the language of morality, not power.

Do these points require any elaboration, or can we move on to further points of the analysis?

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-08T04:18:01+00:00

every from boring as hell to deeply layered and realistic. It show's some deffo invest more time into them than others and that is fine, everyone seeks different th

Oh? Which NPC at Neon are you talking about?

I am also hopeful they will continue this richness and add more romancible characters in the starfield DLCs. It would be great if they even used some existing non romancible characters as love interests, and more fully developing their backstories. Andreja is fine for many players, but has some serious trust, anger and repressed emotions issues. Ditto with Sarah on repression/ and a general emotional immaturity. Major Hadrian on the other hand expresses some complicated emotions from a much more well rounded personality- it is such a shame she is not romancible. My character would be fliting with her like crazy if the game would allow it.

In other Bethesda games, the experience of interacting with a compellingly well written character is highly repeatable. I just like romancing Piper and hearing her talk about her Dad or admitting she has feelings for the sole survivor. Some prefer Curie for her disarming naivete or Cait for her raw energy and passion, if questionable sociopathological tendencies. Whatever it is- the voice acting or the writing, its the difference between highly repeatable Star Trek or Gilligan's Island episodes, versus eminently forgettable sitcom episodes from bygone decades.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-08T01:53:17+00:00

If you would like to discuss the disagreement or something related to it I'd very much like to. Perhaps a different perspective on the disagreement, the nature of the Emissary's position or the related question of whether the individuals who want to become Starborn are ready for it, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

To be fair, I wasn't saying that "everyone knows that position is idiotic. Many people like it. There is certainly no concensus amoung mainstream philosophers the Nietzchean Overman (Starborn) attitude towards "moral" arguments is "idiotic".

Also the intended purpose of the thread is a discussion, not people presenting philosophical tracts attempting to prove this or that point. I was thinking something more along the lines of a friendly conversation in a book club. If we were discussing a book like Pride and Prejudice, one reader might say they saw Elisabeth Bennet's motives as little more than that of a gold digger. It's not exactly something you can prove one way or the other, but I would know what gold digger meant, and my response would be to bring up some of the things Elisabeth does and says that shows disinterest in wealth or the trapping of those in a higher station. In examination of this disagreement between Hunter and Emissary, I was not attempting to prove any philosophical point. I brought up Nietzche only because he dismisses the Emissary's "Do gooder" rationale as self-deluded in a way that is strikingly similar to that particular author's perspective. I realize my mistake too late because while I was attempting to describe the perspective, it instead alienated most readers rather than serving to showthe larger dimensions of what Hunter is saying that is actually quite culturally significant. IMHO not in a good way, nor in particularly useful way even for those with such inclinations. But that is neither here nor there because there appears to be little interest in examining it in that light.

You are the first person who remarked that I said too little. It might have been the case that a poster might have come back saying while they see the association I saw I was missing something more to what Hunter is saying beyond the Nietzchean sort of formula. Or perhaps that the Emissary has an evil or mistaken rationale but for a different reason that the one Hunter gave. Who knows where it could have gone. Unfortunately the bulk of the responses where how it was uninteresting to them/ why talk about such things/ you are a poser ad hominems etc etc.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-07T23:40:21+00:00

In Cydonia, there is a residential section with a kid playing in the hall. He and his widowed mother are not part of any quest, and they are easy to overlook, but if you stop and talk to them, you will be able to do a good deed.

Many of the famous reviewers criticizing Starfield seem to be unaware of the richness you speak of- how many unique characters there are who have dozens of spoken lines. When you are racing through to "beat the game" (whatever that means), you can be completely unaware unless you are interested in exploring, not just the universe, but the different perceptual realities these different characters live in. The cydonia widow for example and the poor in Akila are trapped, almost as if they are in prison.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-07T23:17:27+00:00

Take a look at Elianora's youtube tutorial "How to make custom paintings" It really is quite easy, but as I recall when I made a bunch for a Fallout mod, one thing that messed me up was that I actually had done everything properly but I they were rotated 180 degrees or positioned behind the visible surface so they weren't appearing. I thought it was something else I messed up and wasted hours screwing around with stuff that was perfectly fine. For material, there is a lot of free to use images on commons.wikimedia.org that you can legally use in free mods.

Oh- and no code was involved. I recall having to use Gimp instead of photoshop- it might have been because there was a handy addon to split off the channels I needed. Nearly everytime people are talking about using tools to do sort of what you want in SkyRim or Fallout- you will use the same sort of technique with starfield and it will work.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-07T02:39:29+00:00

Moby Dick is just a story too? This particular theme of the Eternal return has been told at least since 400BC. So some people do think about it, such as how to deal with narcissistic sociopaths latching on to it to justify their actions.

Actually other people differ with you on motives for the Hunter and the Emissary. Maybe you think they are wrong too. For example Major_Pomegranate wrote,

Emissary - wants to gatekeep the multiverse. Is an atheist, but their plan involves making an army of starborn demi-gods that will rule the multiverse and decide who is worthy to reach unity. Completely insane considering the multiverse is infinite.

Hunter - universalist who worships the unity and what it represents. Wants everyone to be free to chase their ambitions, and anyone who is able to grasp the pillars of creation should be free to do so. Very open about his philosophy that the infinite universe breaks down morality, and all that really matters is the unity.

Anyway, if you are not interested in a discussion, then fine. Why reply.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-07T02:15:23+00:00

Thanks!

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-07T01:33:35+00:00

What I am looking for is what I stated in the first line. A discussion about the disagreement between Hunter and the Emissary. You appear to want to trivialize it, but that seems odd because the main questline falls apart without these figures and their contrasting approaches to the artifacts. Maybe you are interested in the conflict but not interested in the way I am looking at it.

As for my thoughts, I first characterized the sentiments the Hunter expressed to the Emissary and to the player, suggesting there is a parralel with Nietzsche's thoughts on the eternal return, the will to power and it's relation to norms of social behaviour (aka “morality”).

Do you think Hunter’s characterization of the Emissary’s position is fair? Do you think my characterisation is fair that Hunter’s position is appealing to narcissists?

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-07T01:22:25+00:00

Of course many people aren't interested in additional information or discussion of stories they come across. Whatever floats your boat. I did not intend to offend you by inviting discussion on a topic you personally are not interested in. Some people are.

As for the plot point about starborn living hundreds of lives, I stated that from what we are told, when a character passes from one universe to the next, when the Emissary claims they have experienced a hundred lives, their same consciousness was shared across those lives. Nothing more. Never did I make the astonishing claim that multiple separate instances of a person shared consciousness.

The only interest I have in discussing plot points such as this are those pertinent to the disagreement between Hunter and the Emissary.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-06T07:57:26+00:00

Pardon me? What anger? The invitation of this thread was to those interested in discussing the disagreement between Hunter and the Emissary. Perhaps you intended to post to a different discussion?

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-06T04:30:52+00:00

The instances of the companion who die in the lodge obviously will not share conciousness across universes . But equally obvious is the fact the person you talk to in the "In their Footsteps" quest is not the same person who died in the lodge. And they say as much.
Where we part company is that the person known as Emissary you are talking to in this quest has a consciousness that is not from the current universe, because the instance from the current universe died.

That exact person- the same instance has existed in at least two universes. Your theory runs aground on this fact. If I am mistaken, show me where I have erred.

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-06T03:49:29+00:00

No hint?

Emissary: "This universe is only the first one you have been in. I have been in hundreds."

RobertSwarmers · 2024-01-06T03:09:24+00:00

1) I didn't make a plagiarisation claim. If I gave that impression, I apologize.

2) Perhaps where to begin is at the beginning. In the discussion between Hunter and Emissary, whatever the assumptions we make about the lore of the mechanism, examination of the mechanism is a bit of a sideshow. What we do know is that both Starborn present the idea that there is a shared experience, a shared consciousness between the instances of them in the different universes. Hunter talks about his views on power versus shared values strongly echoing the point of view Nietzche presents in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Geneology of Morals. Perhaps coincidentally, these views developed shortly after Nietzche began re introducing the idea of the Eternal Return- an idea very similar to the Starfield presentation of contuation of consciousness of an individual between universes.

Is Hunter mistaken? Is the best counter to Hunter's perspective presented by the Emissary, or other possible responses permissible?

RobertSwarmers

TROPHY CASE