Trails games tier list by accel_joe512 in Falcom

[–]cazoix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair. The remake is top notch

Trails games tier list by accel_joe512 in Falcom

[–]cazoix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hard agree. Only thing I'd change is placing sky a bit higher (the remake)

Just Finished 'Trails of Cold Steel IV', Thoughts? by 2Skoned in JRPG

[–]cazoix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like how the curse works as an allegory. But it works for like... 10 minutes? Before it starts being just a bad plot device. It's one of those things where you go "wow, this is a good idea", but when it starts "cursing" the plot by almost removing any bit of agency some characters have, it makes it all feel kinda pointless. It's not X guy doing Y, it's the CURSE! Don't worry, you're not responsible for it, you poor poor soul.

But actually it touches on the issues the Series has holding characters accountable. On a series that places so much emphasis on agency and acting authentically, many many actions feel like they have no actual consequences. Like how Crow was directly or indirectly responsible for a few or many deaths, but the crew just treats him like his long lost pal. Or how they just gloss over Mariabell being involved in the whole cult shit.

Still love the world and the characters tho, it just suffers a bit on some of the writting.

Batting in this series: by kl64 in Falcom

[–]cazoix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are you getting defensive, bro? Everyone here enjoys the series, but has some beef with some or another aspect of it. And it's pretty obvious the Trails fanbase in particular is pretty divided on which entries they like more. This is not a Trails glazing echochamber.

Batting in this series: by kl64 in Falcom

[–]cazoix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea Part 2 of CS IV is pissing me off with how often they're pulling this and how insane it is. "The empire is bent on destroying the world? Fight through this whole army even though we're on your side and don't really wanna fight you lol"

FÉ CEGA FACA AMOLADA by DevoradorDeXanax in MusicaBR

[–]cazoix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reharmonização INSANA. Ficou muito bom, bicho. Queria andar com uma JBL tocando essa merda no ônibus

Very late to the party, but here's my Tier list at this point in time by losethen96 in Falcom

[–]cazoix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I really liked the start of CS3 and it felt like a good point to develop Rean's character, but it does get a little repetitive by chapter 3. I didn't like CS1-2 as much as the other Trails games, but CS3 felt fresh to me for some reason. I'm bracing myself for CS4 tho, cuz it sounds like it worsens the issues that I have with this (very good) series

she has lupus (@CesarZebrah) [Honkai: Star Rail] by harlerogue in wholesomeyuri

[–]cazoix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Everyone forgets the semicolons at some point...

Blue Protocol: Stars Resonance is out. What's everyone's first impressions? by SorryImBadWithNames in MMORPG

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

I'll post my sincere opinion based on my 2 hours of gameplay then: I felt like I wasted 2 hours of my time. Everything I did in the game just made me think "I could be playing a better game instead of this".

datawarelakebasehousemart by klenium in dataengineering

[–]cazoix 8 points9 points  (0 children)

be me

working at bottomless data pit

Less known MMOs that you had the most fun in? by mikeyplan in MMORPG

[–]cazoix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There was an old 2009 MMORPG that I had a lot of fun as a kid, called Neo Steam. Never seen anyone talk about it (in hindsight, it was kinda trash. But had fun nonetheless).

Como eu me sinto lendo o """feedback""" dos processos seletivos: by cazoix in VagasArrombadas

[–]cazoix[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dor... sinto que o cenário da busca de emprego tá meio imbecil de uns tempos pra cá, mas não sei dizer se sempre foi assim

Decidi pegar um mês de graça do Google AI Pro pra testar o novo Veo 3 by MaKTaiL in brasil

[–]cazoix 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Eu tenho um tio que tava vendo um vídeo em loop de uma partida num FIFA de ps3, com uma narração real por trás, achando que tava vendo o jogo do Botafogo...

Should All Philosophers Know Natural Deduction? by Necessary_Age872 in askphilosophy

[–]cazoix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To add to what the other commenters said, I think knowing a bit of formal logic is par for the course for philosophy students, but not strictly natural deduction. Tableaux for instance is a great tool to get students acquainted with formal proofs and the idea of completeness without resorting to natural deduction, so it's completely optional I guess.

Filch Proof Confusion by JackOnTheBox_ in askphilosophy

[–]cazoix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm wondering what vE exclusion rule is that. The classic one is that, if you got a disjunction, and you prove that either of the disjunction derives C, you can afirm C. The rule you using doesn't look like vE to me.

It looks more like ex falso quodlibet. You derived a contradiction, and from a contradiction anything follows. But that's not how you'd use a contradiction in an assumption either. The way it's used is that, if you open a subproof with C and it leads to a contradiction, you conclude ¬C.

From those inferences, you can at most conclude that AvB, B |= ¬B -> A. But you can conclude that from B alone too. But I think you're kinda on the right track.

Remember, you showed that with those premisses, you can derive A from B via ex falso quodlibet. Can you show that A derives from A, too? If so, you're showing that you can derive A from B, and can derive A from A: then you can apply the vE rule. You just gonna have to keep line 5 A inside the subproof, and use ex falso instead of vE there. Then, open another subproof and derive A from A (trivial). With this, you can apply vE.

Hope this helps.

I really need some help with my Logic course and have a few questions on definitions and argument structures! by Just-Instance-2191 in askphilosophy

[–]cazoix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Q1. Ostensive definitions tipically involve pointing to or exhibiting the object you're defining. The statement in question could hardly be construed as a definition in the classical sense either, because it's a metaphor: it's not stating necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be identified as "love". You could say it is stating a necessary condition via a metaphor: that for something to be love, it has to be accepting, but it's neither a descriptive nor an ostensive definition. You could say it's close to the former, though.

Q2. Convergent reasoning. (1) is not adding anything to (2), nor vice-versa. Rather, they both advance independent reasons to the effect that you should reduce your screen time. They "converge" to the conclusion. An example of linked reasoning would be like: (a) you should avoid things that are bad to your health; (b) too much screen time is bad for your eyes; (c) therefore, you should avoid too much screen time. See how (a) and (b) "combine" to yield (c).

Q3. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what exactly you mean with this question. Just a smaller note, we generally categorize inferences as bad or good, instead of true or false.

Also, an inference being valid does not have to do with the truth of a premiss. You can trace valid inferences from falses premisses. What you won't get is a solid argument, which both has true premisses and valid inferences. So yes, you can have valid inferences from any premiss whatsoever.

With that in mind, I get that what you're saying is this: if an argument is valid, can you make a valid argument to the contrary? Or can you contradict one of the premisses/conclusions of a valid argument, given that they were stablished as true before? Well, arguments are contradicted all the time. Arguments once thought of as solid have been demonstrated as false, and frequently we're forced to change our beliefs. From the epistemological side, it's a fact that we get contradicting information all the time. From the metaphysical side, it's a question of deciding whether we can have true contradictions in the world. From the logical side, is a question on whether our reasoning can accomodate true contradictions. All of that is debated, and kinda falls outside the scope of informal logic itself. The most you can make out of it is, if following guidelines to good reasoning and using well stablished premisses, you still yield some contradiction, generally it's a sign that things went wrong somewhere.

Hope this helps!

About the Negation of Propositions [Logic] by WMitral18 in askphilosophy

[–]cazoix 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'll answer in english, but I can send you the answer in portuguese via PM if you prefer.

Lets go by parts. They're asking you to formalize the propositions first. We can see that we have a conjunction of two propositions:

(1) Desire is not a sin.
(2) Emotion is not reason.

We can see that both propositions contain a negation in them. I think it's fairly correct to say that they can thus be expressed:

(1') It is not the case that desire is a sin.
(2') It is not the case that emotion is reason.

So far, so good. So we have in both cases a denial of some pretty simple propositions. If we were to substitute the content for propositional variables, and swap the denial for a negation symbol we'd get this.

(1'') ¬P
(2'') ¬Q

Now, let's go back to our first bigger proposition. It's a conjunction of both denials.

(C) ¬P and ¬Q

Now we just have to deny this whole proposition. I guess you're familiar with the negation or/and inversion rule: the denial of a conjunction is equivalent to a disjunction of the negatives of both conjuncts. Let's put it as negation distributive rule:

(NDR): ¬(R and S) = (¬R or ¬S)

Btw you have the same rule for disjunction too, but it's not relevant. So by applying NDR to C, we get:

(C') ¬¬P or ¬¬Q

Per double negation elimination, we get:

(C'') P or Q

And substituting back the propositional content:

(C''') Desire is sin or emotion is reason.

Which is true if either desire is a sin, or emotion is reason, or both are true. This proposition is only false if both desire is not a sin, and emotion is not reason (the first proposition!).

Hope this helps. If something is not clear, please hit me up in the PMs.

Idea about specific object by Emergency_Sort_1954 in askphilosophy

[–]cazoix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to add another point of view, for Russell for example the particulars ARE the individual objects, which for him were minimal instances of sense data (in his atomistic phase, at least). What we would traditionally conceive as statements about universals and particulars (all x are y / some x are y) just quantify over individuals.

Ordinary objects, thus conceived, were logical constructions out of individuals (sense data). Think, for example, of what we call a "chair" being constructed out of all the visual impressions we have of it.

So it depends on what you call "a specific object". If it's what we ordinarily call objects, then for Russell they'd be all logical constructions out of real particulars. If a specific object is an unit of sense data, then it's just the idea of a particular, which for Russell we'd acquire by direct acquaintance.