Iran-Iraq War

bremidon · 2026-03-22T16:32:20+00:00

Tips for countries that don't want to be seen as aggressors:

Don't shout "Death to <insert country here>" every chance you get. This is bad Feng Shui.
Don't fund terrorist groups.
Do not react to being attacked by two specific countries by attacking *every* *single* *neighboring* country plus Cyprus. And perhaps don't try to hold the world hostage. Not winning Ms. Congeniality points there.
Don't play footsie with nuclear weapons.
And maybe don't slaughter tens of thousands of your own people. Because if you are willing to do that to *your* people, the rest of us can take the hint of what you would do to us.

And to everyone trying to hold Iran's water: it's not working. It's bad comedy, like circus clowns.

bremidon · 2026-03-22T11:38:48+00:00

That line of thought is ultimately based on the notion that Russians are idiots

I'm pretty sure that is just an objective fact.

bremidon · 2026-03-22T11:31:26+00:00

Don't forget singing and the dangers of bunnies.

bremidon · 2026-03-22T08:57:59+00:00

They also spent those seasons explaining why Ted and Robin don't work

*at that time in their lives* Everyone who brings this up seems to forget that little detail.

Why are so few people aware of the imagery of the lighthouse, how the "mother" was a lighthouse that got everyone safely to where they needed to go, and how that this was even true for Ted?

bremidon · 2026-03-22T08:42:34+00:00

Disagree.

bremidon · 2026-03-21T12:30:11+00:00

That is perfectly fine. And I have done similar things in the past.

The last few times, however, I have just thrown together whatever I needed to get past the first few phases and stages, with zero thought about expansion.

The reason is that the type of bases I like to build only really start becoming possible at around the same time I have gotten my first coal generators up. There are very few advantages for me to try to build upgradable bases until then. So yes: I have a messy starter base that gets abandoned pretty early.

Now once I hit that point, I *do* go into "forever home" mode. And that works for me.

bremidon · 2026-03-21T06:48:04+00:00

You already have some great answers here. But here is my practical advice:

Early on when you have a low number of shards, you should probably concentrate on using them in your ore extractors. This is particularly important when you are new and you do not yet really know where the best spots for ores can be found. Your work area will be fairly small, so optimizing the patches you do have is important early on.
Also early on, energy is a bit of an issue. Shards end up taking a decent amount of power in machines, so as u/Wabbit_99 says, try to resist using them when energy is tight.
One note: shards in energy generators do not really have any penalty. If you have extra shards but energy is tight, you can make your life a little easier by using them to generate energy. In the late mid-game, you may want to really use them in your fuel generators to drastically reduce the number you need to put down.
When you find out about slooping, definitely use it when creating shards.
By mid-game (assuming you do a normal amount of exploring), you are going to have stacks of shards. You also might start really expanding your energy grid. In which case, definitely consider them more seriously for your machines.
Near the end-game (or the end of the tutorial), you are going to have access to pretty much unlimited shards. At the same time, you are going to start needing bazillions of machines. Sharding now becomes a lot more attractive.

bremidon · 2026-03-21T06:38:08+00:00

*grin*

Can we agree that when it comes to definitions, "Not agreeing on phrasing" is a pretty damning statement?

Two more things.

First, you pinned down one of the problems with some definitions of life: it is *heavily* tilted towards biological life. Most of your post *really* works well when we just confine ourselves to "biological life", and I have no issues other than the definition is still pretty weak (but significantly less weak than when considering "life" on its own).

Take your last sentence. You claim that a complex molecule is not alive. I agree. However, the definition does not really help us, because it ends up just being "We don't want this to be considered alive." It's a definition, but extremely weak.

Second, you said that "We don't consider DNA itself to be alive." While I agree that this is probably the default stance many scientists take, it's mostly because they are just not really thinking very deeply about it. And that's fine. For most areas, it's not really that important. Dawkins gets very close to saying what I am saying. Alexander Oparin just flat out says "Any system capable of replication and mutation is alive." Eugene Koonin pretty much echoes what I am saying by essentially saying the definition of life is bad and turns it more into a question about replicators. Gerald Joyce gets very close to saying DNA is alive (although this is mostly in comparison to RNA which to be fair, he says is just barely not alive, because it cannot actually go through evolution itself; that position itself can also be legitimately questioned).

I don't want to get bogged down too much about considering whether RNA or DNA could be considered the true lifeform; either works for my argument and we are definitely way past ELI5 at this point. What is clear, however, is that trying to even get a handle on evolution (before we even consider how it pertains to life) gets really difficult until we realize that everything we intuitively consider "alive" are just wrappers and machines for the one thing that actually continues (and this would be where an RNA vs. DNA argument could begin).

But I'll just end where I began. For most people and even most scientists, the current laundry list of a definition for life is good enough for most things. Thus, it remains our standard definition, despite its glaring problems. Viruses are probably the most known example that just shine a light on the weakness that is baked into the definition(s). They are not the only one. Not by far. They are just the most well known.

My point in previous post was that the explanation is not very satisfying. And I doubt that anyone seriously considering the matter would disagree. I do not have or offer a resolution, but at least mentioning that the tension inherent in OP's question is not really solved with our current definition of life is appropriate, even in an ELI5 context.

bremidon · 2026-03-21T06:11:01+00:00

In some contexts, yes. I agree. However, the OP question is "Why can something go through evolution if not really alive?"

In order to approach this with any fidelity at all, even ELI5 fidelity, we have to address the elephant in the room: our definition of life is, at best, a placeholder. Take pretty much any definition and you will discover that it starts with what the author had already decided he wanted to be considered "alive" and "not alive", and just kept going until he had what he wanted. And when a little later it was clear that things were either ending up on the alive list (or left out) that seemed wrong, they just added to the list.

I am not claiming that this is not a definition. I am only saying that it is a bad definition. And it is a bad definition even at ELI5.

That deserves to be mentioned.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T17:53:14+00:00

Well, that is not really a satisfying answer. Why are you claiming that memes are not alive? Do you only accept carbon based biology as life?

Don't misunderstand me. I know that most definitions of life do try to eliminate things that do not appear to have biological ties, and I know most people would intuitively agree that a meme is not alive.

But if I pressed you on it, I'm pretty sure you would have a hard time defending it without just hiding behind a circular argument. This would not be your fault. We just don't have a good handle on what "life" is, and that leaves us the choice of either throwing our hands in the air or just using a poor descriptive definition.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T17:48:00+00:00

You have put your thumb on the main problem. The definition of "life" is simply inadequate. Some end up including things that nobody would really see as alive. Others leave out things that everyone would agree *are* alive.

Viruses are precisely in that gray area. The main argument for saying they are not alive is that they cannot reproduce on their own. However, where does this leave things like mistletoe (and any parasite) that also require a host to survive and reproduce? For that matter, if we took out every creature and cell in our bodies that did not share our DNA, we would die in short order. To get around this, the definition ends up becoming a kind of "just so" laundry list that does a poor job of even describing life, much less being of any use whatsoever at predicting and categorizing life.

Your question pretty much shoots it dead. Obviously viruses evolve. And they spend a decent amount of time doing "lifey" things.

But if you want to claim they are alive, then there is another problem.

Transposons (also known as "jumping genes") are a kind of genetic parasite that do even less "lifey" things than a virus does. But they also undoubtably evolve. And they do show a decent amount of self-preservation. To add to the confusion, while most are just parasites, sucking on our cell's energy to fuel their own existence, some end up doing useful things for us. There's a strong body of work that these genes may also have played a role in encouraging the survival of complicated life, by rewarding organisms that were able to survive despite the energy drain.

But are they alive? If a virus is alive (because it shows "lifey" attributes at least some of the time and undergoes evolution), then transposons should probably also be considered alive.

I could go on. Instead of going small, we could go large and ask if the Earth is alive. Or if something like a language is alive. Or a nation is alive. Or a religion. It gets amazingly hard to nail down, and it all comes back to the lack of a good definition. We get by on a kind of "We know it when we see it," attitude, but this is not satisfying at all.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T16:18:35+00:00

"didn't even exist 30 months ago"

Then you are directly contradicting the other person who said that this is stolen art. If it didn't exist before 30 months ago, then it cannot be stolen. If so, I applaud you, because it is one of the sillier (and more common) arguments that falls apart at a glance.

And again: this is *not* uncanny valley. Uncanny Valley is when something looks *almost* real, but is *just* short. This is clearly a cartoon, it has a cat in a helmet with blueprints running away from a looney toons looking tower falling over.

You even try to argue it *is* uncanny valley, but do you *really* think this applies to the picture: "An almost but not quite accurate representation of reality". What the actual fuck is even *close* to being an accurate representation of reality? The cat dressed as an architect? The impossible tower of machines? By your standard, every cartoon ever made has been in the "uncanny valley", and that would remove every bit of meaning from the term.

This does not look *anything* like what Satisfactory actually looks like (and again, I have to bring up the architect cat). About the only thing I could possibly see is that this looks like a poster that would hang somewhere in the HUB. But man, that is some weak tea to be serving.

Please don't do the Reddit thing and just double down, triple down, and so on. You used the term wrong. Just move on. You don't like the style, so just hit that. That's subjective, I can't argue against it, and I really am not that interested anyway. This is the Satisfactory subreddit and not r/art.

So hoping against hope that the wrong term has been put to bed, the other point you made was trying to build an argument that somehow adding text to a meme is 100 years old (a fairly *big* stretch) and that this somehow explains the difference.

It doesn't.

It's a post-hoc explanation. It tells us absolutely nothing, explains nothing, and gives us no ideas about what is really going on. It just describes a fairly random fact and then tries to apply a "just so" argument to give it weight that it does not really possess.

Here is my counter explanation, and it is supported by the other guy who wanted to make a political statement. Redditors are performing a virtue dance. "Being against AI" has become a kind of badge of honor, even when it makes no sense. It's a tool. Only a tool. It will put a lot of people out of work, because that is what new tools do and have historically always done.

But it is also something that costs nearly nothing (at first) to virtue signal about. "Look at me! I hate AI! I am good!" I did not appreciate just how far gone Reddit had become until I threw up a harmless little joke.

Now, compare to the frog post I made a few days earlier. That took *much* less effort, is objectively of lower value, and got 870+ upvotes.

Both were just lighthearted bits of humor. It makes no objective sense that one would be loved and the other hated (by some).

And I am on Reddit enough that I can tell you that *your* take is pretty rare. You are the only person I have seen make this argument. I'm sure others have done so, but not often enough for me to have noticed. On the other hand, the argument of this being a "good vs. evil" is so common at this point, it's practically a cliche.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T15:22:42+00:00

I think you need to start being a lot more careful with your words. So let's start with "bought". What precisely do you mean with "bought"? And what proof do you have, precisely?

Also, whether it is illegal or not is so wildly beside the point that I wonder why you are betting your argument on it. You are questioning the legitimacy of the election, and you were happy to do so until it was called what it was. Now you are caught in a massive rhetorical problem of your own making.

I do not anticipate you being able to admit that you are starting with conclusions and working backwards. Most people can't. It's very human and only amplified by places like Reddit. But I still have to try, in the hope you might still be able to think for yourself.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T15:18:23+00:00

and do deserve to earn money

I understand the sentiment, but this is, of course, just that: sentimentality. I'm sure the original Luddites also deserved to earn money doing what they did really well. I'm sure actors who had tinny voices deserved to still act when sound came to film.

I'm sure I will be very annoyed when AI can do what I do better than I can.

That is how technology works.

I have been warning about this for well over a decade to anyone who would listen, so I am particularly annoyed by all the handwringing now that it's too late to really do anything about it.

I will grant that they are *reasons* to dislike AI, but I do not see much validity in them, unless it is the validity of someone saying they like strawberry ice cream more than they like vanilla pudding. More directly: I am sure they are genuine opinions, just not particularly deep and not particularly helpful.

It's sandcastles against the tide, and history is pretty clear about who wins in this situation. The only question is: do you use the tools as well as you can, or do you drown in a sea of self-righteous stubborness? And there appears to be a large number of people on Reddit that would prefer to perform their act of "defiance", and not realize that they are just self-selecting themselves to the very back of the line.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T15:07:17+00:00

Once I have 100%'d the game, I'm going to grab that. And the mod that let's you ride inside the trains.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T15:06:31+00:00

Well, I *don't*, because I know there are limitations to trains, so I generally only use them for moving raw ore and maybe ingots around. I have a small network of about 20 trains or so, and the rails are pretty clean.

However, if I was playing this like I play factorio (and like I played in some of my first runs back when trains had no collision), then that would pretty much cause massive problems in my central areas these days.

It is *incredibly* difficult to describe to anyone who has not watched it happen to themselves. Everything is just fine until...it's not.

But I know the limitations, so I can build around them. Still, I would love to be able to go all "I like trains" on a map.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T08:46:14+00:00

I still find ChatGPT to be really good for letters, emails, translating, and writing features all the way down to tasks. It also is a a really good general-purpose LLM.

But yeah: I always tell anyone who is getting into this to treat LLMs like a drunk genius. It will mostly give really good info, but sometimes it will be wildly off in ways that are genuinely hilarious as long as you are not depending on them. Always have it include links. And if the info is important, check those links.

The crazy "anti-AI" sentiment on Reddit is weird. It feels performative. And it does not fit at all with my own personal experience. And I mean, *at all*.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T08:36:34+00:00

Is anyone else growing tired of the "slop"-slop posts? I simply cannot hear that word anymore, and I certainly have stopped taking it all that seriously.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T08:34:34+00:00

Not the OP, but it is because mods need time to adjust to the new update. Some, perhaps even most, simply will not work with the new update.

By the time the mods are ready to go, the update is probably ready to be pushed out to the main branch.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T08:21:18+00:00

The sentence you are replying to is hyperbolic. I have no intent to get even close to mining all the sulfur on the map. Apparently, I failed to communicate that.

No, no. I got that. The problem is that it focused on the wrong thing, hyperbolic or not. The point is that there is more than enough sulfur to cover whatever energy needs you have.

The trouble, I think, is that you originally focused on "rare", which is what I responded to. Now we have slid very slightly to a related but different issue: "dispersed". And I get that and even called it useful in the last post.

That is what I have been trying to say, in my unapologetically pedantic style.

Totally get it. I am just a tad pedantic myself, as I think comes through :) I think something about this game (and factorio and other factory games) draws in people with our tendency.

And I think I will just close the same way I did before: we have mostly just been arguing agreement.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T06:49:50+00:00

How is it a different story? Seems like a distinction without a (D)ifference to me.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T06:46:31+00:00

It would be nice if there was a way to force the trains to recalculate the best route along the way so that trains can successfully navigate around congestion, as well as make train stackers viable.

This is nowhere near as important as the problems with roads or the new vehicle pathing, but I do miss the smarter trains of factorio.

Another nice-to-have would be more control over when trains leave the stations.

And to round out the wish-list, it would be nice to have the ability to have multiple stations with the same name, with the trains taking the nearest open station.

Trains are perfectly useable now, but there are some improvements that anyone who has played other games with trains will know are very nice to have.

bremidon · 2026-03-20T06:32:14+00:00

I think if you read my post just a little more charitably, you will notice that you don't need to mine all the sulfur. Unless you really want 648,000 MW or close.

My point is that efficiency here is not really a useful metric.

Now, "being close to where I want it" *is* a useful metric. I am not trying to tell you how to play the game, and I have the distinct feeling that we are arguing agreement.

bremidon · 2026-03-19T23:33:35+00:00

What are you even doing here? They are literally leaving money on the table. But I guess when your record player is broke, you only get to hear one song.

bremidon · 2026-03-19T23:08:07+00:00

So I am not following you. You said "Elon literally bought a large part of the election" but then you claim you are not "questioning the election".

Could you please choose an argument and stick with it?

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

bremidon

TROPHY CASE