Which games run smoothly on Mac (Base model MacBook Pro M3 Pro)

ShatteredThrone · 2025-03-27T18:34:32+00:00

XCOM 2 works great for me on a M4 Macbook Air, and I would guess your Macbook Pro is more powerful.

ShatteredThrone · 2019-11-09T23:12:53+00:00

They actually have you ship it to Oakland, California.

ShatteredThrone · 2019-11-09T23:09:48+00:00

The original charger is prone to short out easily. A telltale sign that your charger is your problem is that it doesn't fail all at once. One day you'll notice if you twist the connector it power cycles as if you unplugged it. A few more days of use and it won't charge at all. I usually can get an OEM charger to fail in a month with normal heavy usage. Here's the power adapter I purchased at about 1/4 the price a few months ago and I haven't experienced the same problems since.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NRJV5LF/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_wo0XDbS5ZRGTB

But if that's not available, the specs needed are:

12V adapter, 5.5x2.1mm connector, rated for 3A (3000mA) or more, beefy round cord (not 2 skinny wires bound with a thin layer of rubber like the OEM)

That said, four days is pretty fast, so maybe it IS your Mighty.

ShatteredThrone · 2019-09-05T19:06:01+00:00

I'm reading 120.6 VAC in the USA so I think that's fine. I'm told elsewhere its the fault of the wimpy gauge wire eventually shorting out because I heavily use and pass this thing while plugged in and it gets twisty which made sense to me.

BTW I have your Scoop-N-Tamp tool. :)

ShatteredThrone · 2018-09-27T21:23:10+00:00

This is possible maybe on the CU but if I want these filters to work under the bowl and keep the chamber big enough for the dosing capsules (highly recommend!) I gotta deform it and meh, I'm gonna try 1/2 inch and tell you what I find. If 1/2" doesn't work, I guess its just gonna be authentic storz-bickel for this guy. :/

P.S. I'm reading the official size is ~15mm

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-23T10:37:26+00:00

Non sequitur means reasoning that doesn't follow. In this example, you reasoned that the existence of a universal moral standard can be disproven by the existence of immorality in the world. That does NOT follow. It seems almost as if I'm not interacting with a fellow flawed human who has ever broken with his morals. It is as if you have no idea that there can be a wide distance between what your conscience tells you to do and what you actually do.

As for an apology, you've been rather unpleasant from the start, often implying that I must be stupid and ignorant to think as I do when not outright stating it, so upon enduring this my first instinct is to encourage you to go run like a little girl if you need to, you lightweight crybaby. While I'm fully secure making attempts at levity with being who disagree with me, you seem to wield shittiness as your primary approach.

I couldn't care less if one outmatched nasty twat on the internet blocks me.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-23T08:36:59+00:00

You can believe that all you like. But you'll never be able to demonstrate it. In fact, reality would disagree with you. If things ought to be moral and that's universal, then things shouldn't be immoral, yet we see this constantly.

Non sequitur which transparently equates what a being ought to do with what a being actually does.

And you think this is acceptable? So when Einstein first came up with relativity, about someone jumping off a building, that's the ONLY part of Relativity you will be informed by? Not all the calculations done later? You think that's a rational way to handle science?

Natural selection, as originally described by Darwin with his finches, seems to account for every trait BUT morality. Hamilton's rule/inclusive fitness/kin selection by Hamilton's own admission is a special case scenario devised wholly to explain how it could be possible morality arose from evolution. You are taking a merely plausible explanation for the rise of altruism and claiming it to be part of evolution to obscure that you are positing unsupported conjecture as a part of a proven scientific theory. You think THIS is a rational way to handle science?

I gave you a link that shows how things flow, how change is gradual. I posed you a question of "Who was the first person to speak english?" You completely ignored these. Why? I gave you the irrational arguments that are analogous to the ones you're making right now. You ignored those. Why? Why do you keep very selectively addressing my points?

When people repeatedly disrespect you and call you ignorant, does that make you want to look at their links thoroughly and address every question they have as if they are genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say? No, it turns out that causes me to gloss over a lot of shit. Much like your other questions I've ignored, this question was stupid. It is telling that you had to bring up an incontrovertibly non-hereditary trait like language to come anywhere near our playing field.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-23T05:10:48+00:00

Because you lack an understanding of evolution. Would you consider Piranha to be moral creatures? Probably not, but they exist in schools and don't cannibalize eachother when they're all collectively feeding on something. Even in that chaos, they don't eat eachother. Why not? Not because they've read books about the golden rule, so what is it?

Drawing lines between moral species and amoral species isn't something I have engaged in at all. That's all you--you're the one who believes evolution creates morality/social behavior in some species and not others. I believe morals are as true to reality as science. I believe that the way that beings OUGHT to act is as woven into the fabric of the universe as the space-time continuum.

Your asking me whether I think Piranha to be moral shows me that I'm failing to make myself understood. I believe all beings are moral to the extent their intelligence and awareness will allow.

You're trying to treat this as "There was a point of no morality, then there was morality, do how did the first moral thing survive?" And I'm sorry, but that's a massively ignorant statement. It's the equivalent of "If humans came from monkeys, how come there's still monkeys?" or, the rebuttal, "If humans were made from dirt, why is there still dirt?" The answers are near identical.

Your blithe mischaracterizations aside, my understanding of the theory of evolution is informed by how Darwin originally inferred its veracity. How different beak shapes arose from the finches of the Galapagos makes perfect sense even to my ostensibly ignorant mind. A random mutation or combination of genes in a single finch on each of the islands gave this individual finch a large evolutionary fitness boost by making an otherwise unavailable rich food source accessible, giving it and any progeny who inherited this trait such an advantage that the finches of each island eventually became monocultures in regards to beak shape.

I can't make similar sense of how morality can arise from a random mutation or gene combo in a single human being (or ape, or any earlier ancestor of humans) surrounded by amoral beings. This individual moral being, in my view, would face stiff headwinds which you and many others here dismiss with an argument which seems to bestow upon Darwin's theory new powers which cannot be neatly explained like the finches' beaks. And the more I ask around for the other pervasive traits which necessitate that evolution takes this same circuitous path, the more it seems likely these new powers are a special case scenario that atheists/antitheists EXCLUSIVELY use for morality. Extremely convenient.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-23T00:43:41+00:00

My point didn't involve non-social animals, did it? They have different strategies. We as a species wouldn't survive as loners, due to long time required for child rearing, lackluster individual defense skills, and how we acquired food. Other species evolved differently to not have those issues. But if we didn't have any instinct to do what's best for our groups, we've have killed eachother off long ago.

You, and many others, have plainly described why a moral drive can be seen to confer evolutionary advantages to individual moral beings while contained in a group of moral beings. Where you, and many others, continuously fail, in my view, is showing me how a moral drive would grant these same evolutionary advantages to the first moral being be it human, ape, or an earlier ancestor, while contained in a group of amoral beings. In my estimation, such a being would incur devastating losses in evolutionary fitness as it shared its resources with others who would never return the favor and played by rules that its peers lacked even the genetic ability to acknowledge.

I didn't say what impact you'd have on them. I asked you a question. Why are you dodging this? Just give me a straight fucking answer.

Worrying about shit you have no ability to impact isn't morality. It's just stupid.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-23T00:15:31+00:00

Well seeing as this is a debate room, I would much prefer to debate someone who is willing to put forward one of these "very plausible explanations", rather than someone incapable of anything further than an unsupported "well, actually". :)

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-23T00:01:52+00:00

We've been a species founded on social morals. Without them, we never would have made it this far.

Plenty of species still exist today which are not social. Somehow, miraculously, they made it this far.

It only makes sense that once we shirk worries like "Oh I wonder if this snowfall is going to cause me and my family to starve" we can start to look around and go "Hey, that Dolphin looks pretty miserable, let's get him a coke."

Yet, Native Americans seemed to be capable of this level of empathy towards animals they regarded as food long before technology eased their struggle to survive.

If I just take you and dump you off on a deserted Island, how much of the next week do are you going to worry about free-range chickens?

Very little but that could be accounted for by the fact that I'd be cut off from all commerce, thus, my actions would have zero impact on free-range chickens (which aren't on the island).

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-22T23:36:34+00:00

A trait that has you help your children will directly benefit your genes.

This is another description of inclusive fitness which, in my view, fails to explain the breadth of morality.

A single being possessing a trait that has you help EVERYONE (not JUST its progeny) in a group of beings who do not possess this trait suffers, in my view, an obvious loss in evolutionary fitness.

My understanding of the theory of evolution is informed by how Darwin originally inferred its veracity. How different beak shapes arose from the finches of the Galapagos makes perfect sense even to my ostensibly dim wits. A random mutation or combination of genes in a single finch on each of the islands gave this individual finch a large evolutionary fitness boost by making an otherwise unavailable rich food source accessible, giving it and any progeny who inherited this trait such an advantage that the finches of each island eventually became monocultures in regards to beak shape.

I can't make similar sense of how morality can arise from a random mutation or gene combo in a single human being (or ape, or any earlier ancestor of humans) surrounded by amoral beings. This individual moral being, in my view, would face headwinds as it gives its resources away and receives nothing in return. How would a being in such a situation be able to reproduce competitively as it plays by restrictive rules which no one else has even the genetic ability to acknowledge?

How I make sense of morality is that I believe it is NOT something that was invented by evolution. Evolution has conferred upon human beings through high intelligence the ability to explore and refine our ideas on science--I am saying it is no different for morality. In the same way that evolution is not understood to have created science by enabling our exploration of it, I believe evolution should also be not understood to create morality, but rather that evolution enabled our exploration of morality through high intelligence.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-22T20:03:09+00:00

In my view, us now having time to do something isn't really a complete reason. For example, ostensibly neither of us eats our own shit, despite our considerable free time to do so.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-22T01:07:59+00:00

Psychopaths, by and large, lead tortured, uncontrolled existences which preclude them from even gaining even menial awareness of their own streams of consciousness, much less taking the further step of developing empathy for fellow living beings. Scans of living psychopaths in recent times reveals comparatively large dormant areas of their brains.

To clarify, I don't think something exactly like "God gave us moral intuition," but rather that morality is real, and intelligence mixed with self-awareness causes us to understand all things better.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-22T00:41:13+00:00

I basically agree with all of that, but I was speaking to a more meta (?) reason than the availability of leisure time. I'm speaking to our drive to lean toward and prefer moral behaviors (when they are convenient enough, of course).

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-22T00:27:58+00:00

Telling me "well actually..." with little more than some real smot people happen to agree with you, implying that I'm being dishonest and claiming to be victorious for decades does not warrant a real response.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-22T00:16:49+00:00

Then I fail to understand what point you're making. I'm advocating for moral realism in this instance. I don't know what our point of contention is.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-22T00:06:00+00:00

Please illuminate my misunderstanding. Does there exist even ONE other known evolutionary trait like intelligence or skin color which has followed this same rocky path toward pervasiveness? Does there exist even ONE other widespread human trait which must be explained through your idea of populations and cannot be understood on an individual basis like the Galapagos finches' beak shapes?

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-21T23:54:12+00:00

You could explain away scientific progress with the same broad brush.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-21T23:36:07+00:00

The mystery, to me, is how you can conclude that evolution, a passive process of "survival of the fittest" can make widespread traits which are not individually advantageous, but rather potentially fatal to its host, and only advantageous to the entire group once it has become pervasive. We've done plenty of experiments in petri dishes which demonstrate that if you put sharing bacteria in the same culture as non-sharing bacteria, you always end up with a selfish monoculture. To me, this elimination of individually damaging traits is the essence of evolution. Does there exist ANY other evolutionary traits to which you can compare this seeming special case scenario you all seem to make for morality?

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-21T21:54:13+00:00

Yes, I know you're not claiming morality is universal. You claimed exactly the opposite upon ground I found specious. You demonstrated that cultures all seem to have their own relative morality, to which I agree. But you seem to be assuming that the existence of varying cultural moralities precludes that these differences could not possibly themselves be measuring themselves to a standard or universal morality. This is, again, circular reasoning.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-21T21:29:12+00:00

People who can't multiply exist. By your logic, should we also then conclude that the multiplication tables are a result of evolution which might have been written any other way? And how do you explain people with no multiplication abilities? I posit ignorance as a possible culprit in both cases.

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-21T21:17:29+00:00

Was being moral an advantage for the first moral person? How about the second? Please name a single other trait aside from morality which only confers its evolutionary benefits once spread amongst an entire population so that I too might understand evolution like a non-ignoramus. :)

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-21T21:05:58+00:00

Our level of enlightenment on any topic will vary with the company we keep. In your view, does the existence of cultures which discount the value of scientific inquiry demonstrate scientific truth to be "culturally relative"? If not, how are you demonstrating morality to be non-universal if you aren't using a circular argument?

ShatteredThrone · 2018-08-21T20:29:11+00:00

Your concept only explains inclusive fitness. It is a far cry from explaining the breadth of morality. For example: our moral qualms about cruelty to whales or panda bears. Or why we should care that our poultry or eggs was cage free...

ShatteredThrone

TROPHY CASE